CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Asphalt Workers Local Union No. 1018 v. Perez Interboro Asphalt Co.

This case concerns an appeal initiated by petitioners seeking to confirm an arbitration award totaling $16,657.82, which had been previously denied by the Supreme Court, Kings County. The Supreme Court's order, dated December 10, 1984, not only denied the petitioners' confirmation motion but also granted the respondent’s cross-motion to vacate the award and remitted the matter for further consideration. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, determining that the respondent had failed to present a legally cognizable reason to justify the vacatur of the arbitration award. As a result, the petitioners' motion to confirm the award was granted, the respondent's cross-motion was denied, and the arbitration award was subsequently confirmed. The case was then remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the appropriate entry of judgment.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Appellate ProcedureVacaturConfirmation of AwardKings County Supreme CourtLegal GroundsJudicial ReviewCivil PracticeArbitration Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McEaddy v. Brooklyn Section, National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.

The petitioner, whose children were enrolled in the Lillian Sklar Filler Day Care Center, an institution receiving city and state funds, filed an Article 78 proceeding. She sought an order to readmit her children after they were barred from the center following an altercation where she complained about a teacher and allegedly threatened staff. The center claimed the petitioner was disruptive and threatened a teacher, leading the entire staff to threaten to quit. Respondent Sugarman, Commissioner of the Department of Social Services, opposed the petition, stating the center was independent and offered an alternative placement which the petitioner refused. The court denied the petitioner's application but conditioned it on Sugarman conducting an informal hearing for the petitioner with appropriate due process rights. The cross-motion by Sugarman was also denied.

Article 78 ProceedingDay Care CenterDue ProcessAdministrative RemediesParental RightsPublic FundingFourteenth AmendmentSocial ServicesChildren's WelfareInformal Hearing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. & Local 484, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers

This case involves a petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitration award and an employer's cross-motion to confirm it. The core dispute concerns an employee's entitlement to pay for a day missed due to illness during a holiday week in 1959. The employee worked for a short period on Labor Day, was then excused due to illness, and remained ill the following Tuesday. The employer paid for the holiday and other workdays but not for Tuesday, arguing that existing benefits provided a maximum of a normal week's pay. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by modifying the contract. However, the court ruled that the arbitrator acted within his powers by interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the motion to vacate the award was denied, and the cross-motion to confirm the award was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday PaySick PayContract InterpretationJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeEmployment LawMotion to VacateMotion to Confirm
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 1999

Leftwich v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petitioner insured's application to compel arbitration for supplementary underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage and granted the respondent insurer's cross-motion to permanently stay arbitration. This decision was unanimously affirmed. The court found that the petitioner's automobile insurance policy clearly stipulated that all amounts received from jointly and severally liable persons and workers' compensation benefits would be offset against the $500,000 SUM coverage. Since the petitioner had received over $1.4 million from tortfeasors and workers' compensation, the SUM coverage was fully offset. The regulations relied upon by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable as they were promulgated after the policy's effective date and the accident date.

SUM coverageArbitration stayInsurance policy offsetWorkers' Compensation offsetTortfeasor paymentsRetrospective applicationAppellate affirmationContract interpretationNew York lawUnderinsured motorist
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Buffalo, N. Y., Inc. & Mordino

The order of Erie Special Term, which granted a petitioner's motion for a stay of arbitration and denied a cross motion to compel arbitration and other relief, was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court also awarded $10 in costs and disbursements. The decision was unanimous, with Justices McCurn, Vaughan, Williams, Bastow, and Goldman presiding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationMotion to Compel ArbitrationAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsUnanimous DecisionErie Special Term
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alava v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 23, 1990, which denied her application to vacate an arbitration award and granted the respondent's cross-motion to dismiss. The petitioner, employed by the respondent, was denied a wage increase and later terminated due to unsatisfactory performance. Her union initiated arbitration, where the arbitrator found the wage increase denial wrongful but upheld the termination for just cause. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the petitioner lacked standing to vacate the award as she was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement or arbitration. Additionally, the court found the arbitrator's decision rational and not against public policy, and deemed the late affirmation of the award a non-fatal ministerial act.

Arbitration AwardVacaturStandingCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment TerminationWage DenialAbsenteeismJust CauseJudicial ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McSpedon v. Profile Electric, Inc.

The petitioner, Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1987. The order had denied the union's motion to stay arbitration and granted Profile Electric, Inc.'s cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose under a collective bargaining agreement where Profile Electric alleged the union failed to provide sufficient qualified labor, hindering a city contract. The Supreme Court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that given a broad arbitration clause, the dispute fell within the contract's ambit, emphasizing the state's policy favoring arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the merits of the claim and issues of contract termination were matters for the arbitrators.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeStay ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationUnion ObligationsEmployer-Union RelationsQueens County
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,894 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational