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. 2020 NY Slip Op 02513 [182 AD3d 954]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Colon (Pd 10276, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Nicanor Colon filed for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing operation of his cleaning business, leading the Department of Labor to assess PD 10276, Inc., doing business as Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of the Hudson Valley, for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge initially ruled Colon an independent contractor, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this decision, finding Colon and similarly situated individuals to be employees. PD 10276, Inc. appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence of an employment relationship based on the indicia of control exercised by Jan-Pro Cleaning over its unit franchisees, similar to findings in prior cases like Matter of Baez. The court highlighted requirements like certification, provision of supplies, periodic inspections, and noncompetition clauses as supporting the Board's conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent Contractor StatusEmployment RelationshipFranchise AgreementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJan-Pro Cleaning SystemsDepartment of LaborUnit FranchiseesLabor Law
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06420 [222 AD3d 1141]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Colon (Geneva Worldwide Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed two decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found that Geneva Worldwide Inc., a provider of language services, was liable for unemployment insurance contributions for Misael Colon and other linguists, determining they were employees, not independent contractors. The court reiterated that the "touchstone" for establishing an employment relationship is the employer's control over the worker's results or means of achieving them. Geneva's practices, including screening, setting pay rates, assigning work, and handling client complaints, provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of an employment relationship, despite arguments for a contrary conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorLinguistInterpreterControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor LawAgency ControlWage and Hour
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colon v. Fashion Institute of Technology

This case involves plaintiffs Genette Colon and Elvimar Rivas, who sued their former employer, the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), and several individual defendants, alleging racial and pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations. Colon brought claims for FMLA interference and retaliation, and discriminatory treatment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Rivas filed claims for pregnancy discrimination, discriminatory discharge, and hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court, presided over by Judge Harold Baer, Jr., granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on Colon's FMLA interference and retaliation claims and Rivas's NYCHRL pregnancy discrimination and discharge claims, finding material issues of fact. However, summary judgment was granted for defendants on Colon's § 1981 discriminatory treatment and retaliation claims, and Rivas's § 1981 and NYCHRL hostile work environment claims, concluding these claims lacked sufficient evidence of adverse action or discriminatory intent.

Race DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationFMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationEmployment Law42 U.S.C. 1981NYCHRL
References
46
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07077 [200 AD3d 573]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2021

Colon v. 251 Lexington I LLC

In this appellate decision, the court unanimously affirmed an order denying defendant Y Properties Holdings, LLC's motion to dismiss the complaint against it. Y Properties failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to conclusively establish that it was the alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, nonparty Yeshiva University, at the pre-answer stage of the proceedings. The evidence showed that Y Properties was separately incorporated with a distinct purpose and that its assets were not interchangeable with Yeshiva's debts. While Yeshiva was the sole member of Y Properties, the LLC agreement permitted Y Properties to operate independently for its stated objectives without requiring Yeshiva's explicit involvement in its decisions. Consequently, the documentary evidence alone was deemed insufficient to irrefutably justify the dismissal of the complaint based on an alter ego theory.

Alter Ego DoctrineCorporate LiabilityMotion to DismissAppellate AffirmationDocumentary EvidenceLLC AgreementCorporate StructureEmployer-Employee RelationshipJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reices-Colon v. Astrue

Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. The action seeks to review the Commissioner's final determination under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Cynthia Reices-Colon, the plaintiff, applied for disability and supplemental security income in 2007 due to various ailments. Her applications were denied, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Wallace Tannenbaum found her not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council in 2011. District Judge David G. Larimer reviewed the ALJ's decision, applying a five-step sequential evaluation process. The court concluded that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that the finding of no total disability was supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding her residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the Commissioner's decision was affirmed.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilResidual Functional CapacityMedical EvidenceConsultative ExaminationMental HealthPhysical ImpairmentsCredibility Assessment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc.

This is an action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation by former employees Jose Lopez, Richard Colon, and James Cromer against Flight Services & Systems, Inc. and supervisor Todd Dunmyer. Plaintiffs claimed discrimination based on national origin and race, and retaliation under Title VII, NYHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on some claims, including Lopez’s and Colon’s Title VII claims and Colon’s no-Spanish claim, but denied it for others, such as Lopez’s no-Spanish claim, Colon’s unequal working conditions claim, and all retaliation and failure to promote claims. The decision highlights triable issues of fact regarding discriminatory animus and working conditions.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 1981Summary JudgmentNo-Spanish PolicyUnequal Working Conditions
References
42
Case No. ADJ8611839
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

NATALIE CLAYTON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR PAROLE & COMMUNITY SERVICES, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case addresses a claim for industrial colon cancer and hypertension. The Appeals Board denied the Department of Justice's petition for reconsideration, finding their arguments regarding latency periods were unsupported. However, the Board granted the CDCR's petition, overturning the prior finding of industrial causation for colon cancer against the CDCR. This was based on the conclusion that the applicant did not meet her burden of proof for CDCR employment absent the statutory presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1cumulative traumacolon cancerhypertensionpolice officerspecial agentparole officerSan Diego Police DepartmentDepartment of JusticeDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maiorana v. National Gypsum Co.

Plaintiff Arlene Maiorana sued defendants alleging her husband's colon cancer was caused by asbestos exposure. A jury initially found in her favor, awarding $4,510,000. Defendants, including United States Mineral Product Company (USMP), subsequently filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The court granted the motions for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient scientific evidence (epidemiological, experimental, and clinical) to establish a causal link between asbestos exposure and colon cancer under the 'more likely than not' standard. The court also conditionally granted remittitur for excessive damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium, and denied motions for indemnification by contractors Tishman and Castagna.

Asbestos ExposureColon CancerProximate CauseScientific EvidenceEpidemiologyToxic TortDaubert StandardJudgment as a Matter of LawPost-Trial MotionsRemittitur
References
107
Case No. 88 Civ. 3317
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation

Arlene Maiorana, widow of John Maiorana, sued several asbestos manufacturers, alleging her husband's colon cancer was caused by asbestos exposure during his career. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Maiorana couldn't prove asbestos caused the colon cancer. The court discussed the standard for summary judgment and the role of epidemiological data, stating that a plaintiff needs to show a relative risk greater than 2.0 for causation without direct evidence. Maiorana failed to present sufficient admissible epidemiological evidence or expert testimony to meet this standard. Additionally, her medical experts' opinions were found inadmissible due to insufficient expertise or unsupported underlying assumptions regarding Mr. Maiorana's medical history. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Asbestos LitigationColon CancerSummary JudgmentCausationEpidemiological EvidenceRelative RiskMedical Expert TestimonyProduct LiabilityFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)Federal Rule of Evidence 702
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v. Friedman, Khafif & Associates

This case involves a fee dispute between successor law firm Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, and predecessor firm Friedman, Khafif & Associates, regarding a personal injury action for Pedro Colon. The trial court (IAS court) initially ruled that Friedman, Khafif & Associates forfeited its right to a fee due to alleged misconduct, including failure to file a derivative claim for Mrs. Colon, settling without client consent, and delayed retainer statement filing. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding no evidence of misconduct. It determined that the Friedman Firm's actions were proper, the settlement was conditional, and the retainer statement delay was ministerial. Consequently, the Friedman Firm was awarded a percentage of the initial settlement offer it secured, and Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP was awarded its negotiated share of the enhanced settlement amount.

Fee DisputeAttorney MisconductDischarge for CauseQuantum MeruitContingency FeeLegal EthicsAttorney LienPersonal InjurySettlement AgreementAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 26 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