You are here: / / Claimant, Who Worked Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was Not an Em...

Claimant, Who Worked Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was Not an Employee

The Third Department determined claimant, who worked pursuant to a consulting agreement with two companies, was not an employee:

Tomen America Inc. was eliminated when Toyota negotiated to purchase assets of Tomen and acquire many of its employees. Claimant negotiated and drafted an agreement with both Tomen and Toyota whereby he served as a consultant for both companies, during set periods, to provide post-integration support in human resource matters with regard to the Tomen employees being assimilated by Toyota. As a consultant with Toyota, claimant worked three to five days a month and set his own schedule. He was not required to report to any supervisor, was not given any direction by anyone, did not submit his work for review, did not participate in regular human resource meetings and was issued an identification badge indicating that he was a contractor. Claimant submitted a monthly invoice for an agreed-upon payment, which, pursuant to the agreement drafted by claimant, withheld no taxes. Matter of Farley (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 06747, 2nd Dept. 9-3-15

 

You might also like
PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).
Exclusive Access Not Required for Constructive Possession
FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S BACK INJURY WAS NOT RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EXPERT TESTIMONY (THIRD DEPT).
DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER.
DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY PETITIONER WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND THE INTER-, INTRA-AGENCY COMMUNICATION EXEMPTIONS (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SANITARY CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT SUMMER CAMP TO HAVE A LIFEGUARD, THE CODE DID REQUIRE THE CAMP TO OFFER SOME SUPERVISION OF PERSONS USING THE SWIMMING POOL; THEREFORE THE SUMMER CAMP OWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO SUFFERED A MEDICAL EMERGENCY IN THE POOL, A DUTY OF CARE (THIRD DEPT).
DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT BOTH DRIVERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPER SIGNAGE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Hearsay Evidence from Confidential Informant Insufficiently Detailed to Allow Independent Assessment of Credibility and Reliability

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 Was an Employee of an Outfit Which Advertises for Security Guards on... Flight Crew Member Deemed an Employee of a Service Which Provides Flight Crews...