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
Apr 03, 2006

Lawrence Teachers Ass'n v. Lawrence Public Schools

This case concerns an appeal by the Lawrence Teachers Association (petitioner) challenging the denial of their petition to confirm an arbitration award. The arbitration award mandated Lawrence Public Schools (respondent) to designate members of the petitioner’s bargaining unit to provide special education services outside the school district's geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, concluding the award was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the arbitration award violated public policy as it contravened Education Law former § 3602-c (2). This statute required the school district to contract with the school district where the nonpublic school attended by the pupil was located for such services. The court emphasized that an arbitrator's award cannot stand if it is contrary to well-defined statutory law and public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyEducation LawSpecial Education ServicesCollective BargainingStipulationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewSchool District ObligationsLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. 32 NY3d 991
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2018

Matter of Spence v. New York State Dept. of Agric. & Mkts.

Petitioners, including Wayne Spence (President of the New York State Public Employees Federation) and two state dairy product specialists, challenged a policy by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. The policy prohibited employees responsible for inspecting regulated entities from campaigning for or holding elected office, citing conflict of interest. Petitioner Gregory Kulzer's request to serve as a county legislator was denied after he had previously been approved and elected, leading to a formal policy revision. Petitioners initiated a hybrid declaratory judgment action/CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the policy violated First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division rejected their claims, applying the Pickering standard. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, finding the policy not unconstitutional. However, dissenting Judges Rivera and Wilson argued that the lower courts erred by not applying the heightened 'exacting scrutiny' standard established in United States v Treasury Employees and reaffirmed in Janus v State, County, and Municipal Employees, which applies to widespread limitations on public employee speech. They would have reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration under this stricter standard.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechConflict of InterestHatch ActExacting ScrutinyPickering StandardJudiciary LawFreedom of SpeechGovernment PolicyElected Office
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chenango Forks Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The dissent challenges the court's confirmation of a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination, which compelled a school district (petitioner) to reinstate Medicare Part B reimbursements. This PERB ruling overturned an arbitrator's decision that found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding these reimbursements, citing a lack of binding past practice. The dissenting judge argues that PERB improperly disregarded its own post-arbitral deference policies, thereby allowing the Association to relitigate an issue already addressed in a fair arbitration. The dissent emphasizes the importance of arbitration finality and raises concerns about the protracted process and potential unconstitutionality of payments not explicitly authorized.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPublic Employment Relations BoardPast PracticeMedicare Part B ReimbursementsGrievanceImproper Practice ChargePost-Arbitral DeferenceAbuse of DiscretionLabor Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State University of New York Health Science Center & Public Employees Federation

Petitioner's hospital initiated a CPLR article 75 proceeding to overturn an arbitrator's decision that imposed a one-year suspension without pay on nurse Douglas Petroff. The Supreme Court initially vacated the award, arguing that not terminating Petroff for patient abuse violated public policy regarding high-quality hospital services. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming that the arbitrator's imposition of a one-year suspension was an adequate and public policy-consistent penalty for an isolated incident of intentional abuse that caused no patient injury, given Petroff's work record. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

ArbitrationCPLR Article 75Public PolicyPatient AbuseEmployee SuspensionRegistered NurseAppellate ReviewArbitrator's AwardMisconductProgressive Discipline
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Huntington v. Local 342, Long Island Public Service Employees

This case involves an appeal concerning an arbitration award related to a grievance filed by Town employee Keith Buetal against the Town of Huntington. The dispute arose after Hurricane Bob when the Town hired outside contractors for debris removal, which Buetal claimed violated the collective bargaining agreement requiring the use of Town employees in emergencies for overtime work. The arbitrator initially ruled in favor of Buetal, but the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, vacated the award, reasoning it violated public policy by hindering the Town's ability to fulfill its statutory duty to maintain safe roads. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, reinstating and confirming the arbitration award. The appellate court found the arbitrator's conclusion was not irrational, did not contravene strong public policy, and did not exceed the arbitrator's powers.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmergency ResponsePublic Policy ViolationStatutory DutyAppellate ReviewVacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardOvertime DisputeEmployer-Employee Relations
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04677 [230 AD3d 1559]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2024

Matter of Spence (State Univ. of N.Y.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Michelle Laframboise, from SUNY Upstate due to her failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the award, citing public policy and irrationality after a regulation requiring vaccination was declared null and void in a separate decision. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this order, holding that the petitioners failed to meet the heavy burden to establish that the arbitrator's award violated public policy or was irrational, as the arbitrator's jurisdiction was limited to the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the arbitration award confirming the termination was reinstated.

Arbitration Award ReviewCPLR Article 75 ProceedingPublic Policy ViolationArbitrator's PowerCollective Bargaining DisputesCOVID-19 Vaccine MandatesEmployee TerminationAppellate Division Fourth DepartmentJudicial Scrutiny of AwardsEmployer-Employee Arbitration
References
13
Case No. CA 10-02491
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2012

LUCAS, RONALD, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal from a judgment confirming two arbitration awards. The first award found that the respondents violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by disregarding a binding past practice where the most senior caulker supervisor was offered the right of first refusal for an acting-time position. The second award directed the respondents to pay Donald Mackowiak $54,282.71 and Ronald French $1,094.99 in back pay and lost overtime for their failure to provide this right. The respondents argued on appeal that the awards violated Civil Service Law §§ 61(2) and 64(2), were against public policy, speculative, irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's power. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, holding that the awards did not violate the Civil Service Law, as temporary appointments under § 64(2) do not require emergency situations. The court also found no public policy violation, citing an employer's ability to limit its discretion by agreement or established past practice, especially when safety is not a concern. The damages were deemed non-speculative, and the awards were found to be rational and within the arbitrator's authority, supported by evidence of a past practice.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic Policy ChallengeWaiver of DiscretionPast Practice DoctrineActing-Time PositionRight of First RefusalDamages for Lost WagesAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Valley Stream v. State of New York Public Service Commission

The Village of Valley Stream initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Public Service Commission's (PSC) determination upholding Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) decision to terminate street lighting service. LILCO, citing abnormal expenditures due to cable failure and wear and tear, refused to replace the system and ceased service. The PSC interpreted LILCO's tariff to allow termination under such circumstances, a decision the court found rational. The court balanced LILCO's significant economic loss against minimal public harm, considering viable alternatives for the village and new legal requirements for public bids and prevailing wages, ultimately confirming the PSC's determination and dismissing the village's petition.

Street Lighting ServiceUtility TerminationPublic Service Commission ReviewTariff InterpretationAbnormal ExpenditureEconomic LossPublic InterestCPLR Article 78Utility RegulationCable Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verizon New York Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission

Verizon New York Inc. commenced a special proceeding against the New York State Public Service Commission and other respondents. Verizon sought to overturn a determination allowing public disclosure of certain documents, which Verizon claimed were trade secrets or confidential commercial information, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The documents in question related to Verizon's network costs and its methods and procedures for its wireless service, Verizon Voice Link (WL). The court reviewed the Secretary's and RAO's determinations, which found some information to be trade secrets but still required a showing of 'substantial injury' for exemption. The court ruled that once information is deemed a trade secret under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d), no further showing of substantial competitive injury is required for exemption. Consequently, the court granted in part the petition, exempting specific cost information and several M&P documents from disclosure, while denying exemption for three M&P documents.

FOIL ExemptionTrade Secret ProtectionConfidential Commercial InformationPublic Officers Law § 87 (2) (d)Substantial Competitive InjuryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Determination ReviewCPLR Article 78Wireless ServicesCost Information Disclosure
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 2,433 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