You are here: / / Tutors Are Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance

Tutors Are Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance

The Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board' determination that tutors were employees of “Ivy League” entitled to unemployment insurance:

This Court previously has held that “an organization which screens the services of professionals, pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clients exercises sufficient control to create and employment relationship” … . Here, there is no question that Ivy League screened, interviewed and conducted a criminal background check with respect to prospective tutors, paid the tutors affiliated with it an agreed-upon hourly rate based upon documentation submitted by the tutors and matched individual clients with the tutor that it deemed best suited for that particular client's needs. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the written agreement governing Ivy League's relationship with each individual tutor, Ivy League restricted the tutor's solicitation of Ivy League's clients — both during the period of time encompassed by the particular contract and for three years thereafter. Matter of Ivy League Tutoring Connection Inc…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05481, 3rd Dept 7-24-14

 

You might also like
EVEN IF PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SATISFY THE GOOD CAUSE STANDARD FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b (THIRD DEPT).
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S SHOULDER INJURY WAS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, AS OPPOSED TO AN ACCIDENTAL INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
Evidence Did Not “Utterly Refute” Plaintiff’s Allegation He Had No Notice Individual Defendant Was Acting as an Agent for a Disclosed Corporate Principal—Motion to Dismiss Action Against Individual Defendant Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Should Not Have Been Granted
Zoning Board’s Interpretation of Village Ordinances Upheld—Keeping of Chickens Is Not an Allowed “Residential Use”
PLAINTIFF, WHO IS DEFENDANT’S SON, FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO INSPECT A DAMAGED CHIMNEY ON DEFENDANT’S RENTAL PROPERTY, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A VOLUNTEER, WHETHER THE INSPECTION WAS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
Arbitrator Did Not Have the Authority (CPLR 7511) to Modify an Award by Adding Interest, Even If Interest Should Have Been Awarded as a Matter of Law
SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEE THE PLAINTIFF, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PATIENT-PHYSICIAN RELATIONSHIP WAS CREATED BASED UPON ANOTHER DOCTOR’S ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF BE SEEN BY THOSE DEFENDANTS WITHIN ONE OR TWO DAYS (THIRD DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Diving Into Shallow Water Raised Questions of Fact Re: Foreseeability and Defendants’... No Contest Clause Was Not Triggered by Offering Will for Probate or Questioning...