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

Nicholas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a wrongful death action, plaintiff Eugenie Nicholas and third-party defendant Erie Conduit Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 1, 1982, which denied their motion to vacate a prior judgment dated September 16, 1981. The appellate court found that the trial court's original judgment improperly structured the parties' rights and liabilities concerning a $365,000 settlement, diverging from the jury's verdict and the court's indemnification ruling. Specifically, it prejudiced the plaintiff's right to full recovery from main defendants and incorrectly authorized recovery against the decedent's employer. Treating the motion as one to vacate, the appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and vacated the final paragraph of the 1981 judgment, substituting provisions that properly reflect the parties' liabilities and indemnification obligations based on the jury verdict and the court's earlier ruling.

Wrongful DeathIndemnificationContributionJudgment VacatedJury VerdictApportionment of LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureDamages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galvin v. National Biscuit Co.

This is an appeal from an order denying the defendant's motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial. The court unanimously affirmed the order, with twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. The decision explicitly states "No opinion" on the merits of the case. The date for the examination to proceed is to be determined and fixed in a subsequent order. This order will be settled on notice.

Examination Before TrialMotion to VacateOrder AffirmedCosts and DisbursementsPre-trial Discovery
References
0
Case No. ADJ9286921; ADJ9286927
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

MARIA MADRID vs. SF APPAREL, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BROOKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the trial date and vacating the discovery closure. This was due to procedural issues: no pretrial conference statement was filed, and a petition to join a potentially responsible insurance carrier (ICW) was filed late. The Board also found insufficient medical evidence to support awards, vacating the discovery closure to allow for further development. Commissioner Sweeney concurred with vacating the trial date but dissented on allowing further discovery, arguing the defendant lacked diligence.

Petition for RemovalWCJ Order RescindedTrial Date VacatedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureDue ProcessDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPretrial Conference StatementInsurance Company of the WestPetition for Joinder
References
0
Case No. SJO 0251585
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

JENNY PHAM vs. SANMINA-SCI CORPORATION, SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE

The defendant, Sanmina-Sci Corporation, petitioned for removal, seeking to vacate a trial date due to their counsel's alleged lack of notice for a mandatory settlement conference. However, the trial has already proceeded on the scheduled date. Because the matter has gone to trial, the petition for removal is moot. Any grievances the defendant has with the trial judge's rulings can be addressed through a petition for reconsideration.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferencePrejudiceIrreparably harmedMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceLien claimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCAB Rule 10843Moot
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crawford v. Ehrlich

The court reversed an order denying a motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial, subsequently granting the motion. The examination sought information regarding $2,700 in U.S. Bonds and a $1,000 insurance policy, both payable or assigned to the executrix individually. The court found that the objectant had no legal interest in these assets as they were payable to a stated beneficiary and individually assigned to the executrix. Furthermore, the objectant was not a creditor, precluding examination under the Debtor and Creditor Law. Therefore, it was deemed an improvident exercise of discretion to permit the examination given the objectant's lack of a possible legal interest.

Motion to vacateNotice of examination before trialU.S. Bonds Series EInsurance policyDecedent's estateExecutrixObjectantDebtor and Creditor LawLegal interestDiscretionary power
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 100, Transport Workers Union v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted a petition to vacate an arbitration award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement between the parties concerning expedited arbitration of safety issues related to "One Person Train Operation" (OPTO). When the petitioner refused to agree to hearing dates without discovery, the respondent filed a grievance, leading to a ruling by an Impartial Arbitrator directing adherence to scheduled dates. The Supreme Court initially vacated this arbitration award, but the appellate court reversed, holding that courts lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory arbitration decisions and can only intervene after a final determination in the arbitration proceeding.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceExpedited ArbitrationOne Person Train OperationJurisdictionInterlocutory DecisionAppellate ReviewCPLRVacatur of Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLury v. City of New York

Justice Murphy dissents from a decision that denied a motion to vacate a stay, arguing that vacating the stay is crucial to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. The dissent highlights that the City is protected by a $1,000,000 bond, making further delay harmless to the city, while immediate firings could render an expedited appeal moot. The core issue revolves around a contractual clause regarding guaranteed two-year employment for sanitation workers in exchange for waiving rights under Labor Law § 220, which the City argues is invalid under its Administrative Code, allowing for dismissals due to lack of work. Murphy also raises a factual issue regarding whether the City can fire permanent employees while retaining provisional ones. The dissent concludes that the potential irreparable harm to plaintiffs' benefits outweighs the minimal harm to the City, advocating for vacating the stay and directing an expedited appeal or trial.

Stay MotionIrreparable HarmStatus QuoExpedited AppealMootnessSanitation WorkersContractual DisputeGuaranteed EmploymentWaiver of RightsPrevailing Wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwasnik v. Willo Packing Co.

This case concerns an appeal by a petitioner from an order that vacated a prior judgment which confirmed an arbitrator's award. The petitioner was discharged for alleged theft, but an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement. The respondent sought to overturn this, initially alleging fraud and later presenting 'newly discovered evidence' after the petitioner gave conflicting testimony in a co-worker's trial. Special Term granted the respondent's motion, vacating the prior judgment. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that newly discovered evidence is not a valid ground for vacating an arbitrator's award under CPLR 7511, and that the evidence presented was either previously available or merely impeaching. The original judgment confirming the arbitrator's award was thus reinstated.

Arbitration AwardVacaturReinstatementCollective BargainingFraud AllegationsNewly Discovered EvidenceCPLR 7511Appellate ReviewWitness CredibilityDischarge for Misconduct
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2006

County of Westchester v. Doyle

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that had denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The original order confirmed the award and directed interest on compensation for William Leverance's out-of-title work to be calculated from August 20, 2004. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial to vacate the arbitration award, determining that the award did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's authority. However, the order was modified to direct that interest on the award be calculated from September 9, 2005, the date of the award, instead of August 20, 2004. All other contentions raised by the appellant were found to be without merit.

arbitrationawardvacaturCPLR Article 75out-of-title workinterest calculationappellate reviewjudicial modificationWestchester Countypublic policy
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local Union 1566, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. appealed an order dated December 18, 1985, from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which had granted the petitioner union's application to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from the employer's disability payment procedure requiring employees to submit claims for statutory benefits to qualify for sick-leave payments, a policy the union grieved. The arbitration board denied the grievance, interpreting the collective bargaining agreement to support the employer's procedure. However, the Supreme Court vacated the award, finding the board exceeded its authority by modifying the contract. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the arbitration board indeed exceeded its expressly limited powers by effectively rewriting the collective bargaining agreement, which contained no provision requiring employees to submit statutory disability claims for sick-leave benefits.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSick Leave BenefitsDisability Benefits LawVacatur of Arbitration AwardArbitrator AuthorityContract InterpretationNew York LawAppellate ProcedureEmployer Policy
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 8,079 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