You are here: / / Real Estate Broker Not an Employee of Commercial Real Estate Firm
,

Real Estate Broker Not an Employee of Commercial Real Estate Firm

The Third Department upheld the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant, a real estate broker, was not an employee of a commercial real estate firm (Optimal):

It is well settled that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . The pertinent inquiry is whether the purported employer exercised control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results, with control over the latter being more important … .

Evidence was presented that claimant was paid a commission of 60% of the brokerage fee collected by Optimal, which she negotiated with Optimal’s senior managing director. Moreover, claimant did not have an established work schedule or work location, independently maintained her own real estate license, carried her own business cards and was permitted to and did receive commissions on referrals from other parties. Notably, she was not required to report to anyone at Optimal nor was she required to accept leads that Optimal sent to her. In view of the foregoing, while we are unable to conclude, as a matter of law that no employment relationship exists (see Labor Law § 511 [19]), substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Optimal did not exercise sufficient control over claimant’s work to be deemed her employer … . Matter of Spielberger…, 2014 Slip Op 07564, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

You might also like
NEWSPAPER DELIVERY CARRIERS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
NO EVIDENCE OF THREATENED USE OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED, COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE JULY 2015 MENTAL HYGIENE ARTICLE 10 TRIAL; COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN NOT REQUESTING A FRYE HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE OSPD DIAGNOSIS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A FRYE HEARING BASED UPON WHAT WAS KNOWN ABOUT THE DIAGNOSIS AT THE TIME OF THE 2015 TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
INABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.
WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).
TOWN LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT PETITIONER FROM RUNNING FOR TOWN JUSTICE IN TWO DIFFERENT TOWNS SIMULTANEOUSLY (THIRD DEPT).
Events Before Last Custody Order Could Be Considered re: “Best Interests of Child” Even Though Only Post-Custody-Order Events Can Be Considered re: “Change of Circumstances”
Truck Driver Was Employee

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

Criteria for “Substantial Evidence” Review of an Administrative... Conviction Overturned for the Second Time Because of Misconduct by the Same...