You are here: / / Claimant Was an Employee of an Outfit Which Advertises for Security Guards...

Claimant Was an Employee of an Outfit Which Advertises for Security Guards on Craigslist

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of Precinct, which advertises for security guards on Craigslist:

Precinct places advertisements on Craigslist seeking security guards, although we note that claimant was referred to Precinct by another security guard. Precinct interviews applicants about their experience and verifies that the applicants are licensed as security guards in New York. As to claimant, he was assigned by Precinct to a hotel. Precinct negotiated with the hotel in setting claimant’s rate of pay. Precinct billed the hotel based upon the negotiated hourly rate and paid claimant after subtracting one third of claimant’s pay as a commission. If claimant could not report to work on a certain day, he was required to inform Precinct, and claimant could not find his own replacement. Matter of Lobban (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 06746, 2nd Dept 9-3-15

 

You might also like
Even Where Probable Cause for Arrest Exists, a Search Can Not Be Justified as a Search Incident to Arrest Unless the Searching Officer(s) Intended to Arrest Based Upon the Existing Probable Cause—Here the Officers Did Not Intend to Arrest the Defendant for Littering and the Search Was Therefore Not a Valid Search Incident to Arrest
LICENSED CREATIVE ARTS THERAPIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Work-Related Call to Coworker Which Triggered Harassment by Coworker’s Husband Was Proper Basis for Workers’ Compensation Benefits
Four-Inch Floor-Drop Caused by Insect-Damage Constituted a “Collapse” within Meaning of Policy
CLAIMANT HAD THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CARRIER’S CONSULTANT, WHO DETERMINED CLAIMANT SUFFERED A 40% SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE, DESPITE THE FACT CLAIMANT NEVER FILED A COMPETING MEDICAL OPINION (THIRD DEPT)
Police Officer’s Convictions for “Criminal Diversion” (Obtaining Another’s Prescription Medication), and “Official Misconduct” Not Supported by Legally Sufficient Evidence
Parole Violators May Apply for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act—County Court Properly Denied the Application Based Upon the Nature of Defendant’s Convictions and Serious Prison Infractions

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

Claimant, Who Worked from Her Home Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was an... Claimant, Who Worked Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was Not an Employe...