You are here: / / Salesman Properly Found to Be an Employee

Salesman Properly Found to Be an Employee

In affirming the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that claimant was an employee of Village Wine, the Third Department wrote:

Claimant was a salesperson for Village Wine Imports Ltd., a wine importer and distributor.  Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that claimant and those similarly situated were Village Wine’s employees and not independent contractors.  Village Wine set claimant’s commission rate, paid him a draw on his commission for a period of time, and reimbursed his travel and telephone expenses. Claimant was also trained by Village Wine, which assisted his sales efforts by providing product samples and business cards bearing the company name.  Village Wine also set the price, terms and conditions for all sales, gave claimant sales leads, required him to obtain approval for sales, and handled all shipping and invoicing matters.  While evidence in the record could support a contrary result, the Board was free to determine from the above that Village Wine exercised sufficient control over claimant to establish an employer-employee relationship… . Matter of Miciletto…, 515852, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

You might also like
Even When the Injured Worker, Who Had Received Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Successfully Sues His Employer (As Opposed to a “Stranger”) for His Injuries, the Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has a Lien Against the Recovery Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law 29(1)
POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA CONSTITUTED DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT.
Organizations Representing Lakeshore Residents Should Have Been Allowed to Intervene in an Action Concerning Regulation of Lake Water Levels (Dictated by an 80-Year-Old Injunction)—Neither the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Nor Laches Was a Bar to the Relief Sought by the Lakeshore Residents
CLAIMANT, AN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT WITHOUT A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DEMONSTRATED DILIGENT EFFORTS TO FIND WORK AFTER HE WAS INJURED; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED HIS CLAIM FOR BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PARTIAL PERFORMANCE TOOK ORAL AGREEMENT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.
DEFENDANT RETAILER’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO FIX A MALFUNCTIONING CROSSBOW AND RETURNED IT TO PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE RETAILER’S RETURN POLICY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS THEREAFTER INJURED BY THE CROSSBOW; THE RETAILER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Fraud Does Not Require Proof of a “Nefarious Motive”—Fact that Respondent Knew that the Spouses of Three Signatories Signed the Petition on the Signatories’ Behalf Invalidated the Petition, Despite the Fact that There Were a Sufficient Number of Valid Signatures

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Hearing Officer’s Factual Misconduct Findings Cannot Be Ignored Claimant Who Provided Computer-Training for Company’s Clients Properly Found...