You are here: / / Math Tutor Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee

Math Tutor Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee

The Third Department affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant, a math tutor, was an independent contractor, not an employee:

Although claimant maintains that he was erroneously considered an independent contractor in connection with earnings received from tutoring services through TestQuest, Inc. and that such funds should be utilized as covered employment to establish his claim, we cannot agree.  As noted earlier, TestQuest, Inc. tutors such as claimant were deemed by this Court to be independent contractors (Matter of Leazard [TestQuest, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 74 AD3d at 1415-1416), which decision is conclusive and binding upon all such persons employed by TestQuest, Inc. (see Labor Law § 620 [1] [b]).  As such, those earnings cannot qualify for inclusion as remuneration in the base periods… . Matter of Tkachyshyn…, 516210. 3rd Dept 9-26-13

 

You might also like
TERMINATION OF FATHER’S VISITATION RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING A “FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT” DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BASED UPON AN EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE (THIRD DEPT).
Licensee Assumed Sufficient Control Over Hired Premises to Create Duty to Maintain Premises in Safe Condition
Separation and Modification Agreements Did Not Comply with the Child Support Standards Act
Court Has Common-Law “Interest of Justice” Authority to Modify Its Own Order and/or a Stipulation Entered Into During Litigation
THE “PRECAUTIONARY ADDENDUM,” ALTHOUGH REPEALED, STILL MAY BE APPLIED TO WILLS OF PERSONS WHO DIED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1964, TO PRECLUDE INHERITANCE BY ADOPTED CHILDREN IF THE ACT OF ADOPTION WAS DESIGNED TO CUT OFF OTHER BENEFICIARIES; HERE THE SHARES OF THE OTHER BENEFICIARIES WERE DIMINISHED BUT NOT CUT OFF BY THE INCLUSION OF THE ADOPTED CHILDREN; THEREFORE THE PRECAUTIONARY ADDENDUM DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS NEVER INTERPOSED AN ANSWER SO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY DENIED, MATTER REMITTED SO PLAINTIFF CAN MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant Entitled to a Hearing On His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Newly Discovered Evidence Someone Else Confessed to the Crime

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

Claimant Who Sold Educational Materials Was an Employee Criteria for County’s Immunity from Village Ordinances Explained