You are here: / / Pyrotechnician Was Not an Employee

Pyrotechnician Was Not an Employee

The Third Department determined a pyrotechnician who worked for a company (PEI) which puts on fireworks displays was not an employee and was not, therefore, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, claimant did not submit a resume or employment application and did not undergo a job interview, but was retained by PEI through his contact with a lead technician and worked on PEI’s displays intermittently over a five-year period. PEI relied on lead technicians, who were independent contractors, to oversee the production of the fireworks displays and they directed and supervised the pyrotechnicians involved in a particular project. Claimant’s duties as a pyrotechnician included picking up the fireworks supplies, setting up the displays, igniting the fireworks, breaking down the displays and cleaning up. PEI did not attend the fireworks displays, but limited its activities to securing the sponsors, designing the shows and providing the fireworks and other necessary equipment. The lead technicians negotiated the price for production services with PEI and submitted invoices instructing PEI how much to pay the pyrotechnicans involved. PEI solicited assignments one at a time and the lead technicians and pyrotechnicians were free to refuse assignments and work for competitors. Although PEI offered to provide training, it was training that was required by regulatory agencies and could be obtained elsewhere. Furthermore, the lead technicians and pyrotechnicans did not wear clothing or other attire identifying them with PEI, but instead wore T-shirts designating them as “staff” that were required by law. Under the circumstances presented, the indicia of control necessary to establish the existence of an employment relationship between PEI and the pyrotechnicans, like claimant, is clearly lacking .. . .  Matter of Franco (Pyro Eng’g Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 08483, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE OF ALTERCATIONS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHILDREN AND ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDINGS (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROPERLY AWARDED 100% SLU FOR FOUR AMPUTATED FINGERS AND AN ADDITIONAL 100% SLU FOR THE REATTACHED NONFUNCTIONAL THUMB.
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED.
THE PROSECUTOR WHO ARGUED DEFENDANT’S APPEAL WAS A CLERK FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE; PRIOR DECISION AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (THIRD DEPT) ​
THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY PROPERLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR THE APPLICATION OF AN HERBICIDE IN LAKE GEORGE TO CONTROL AN INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANT (THIRD DEPT).
WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER DEPENDS ON THE UNDERLYING FACTS FOR THE PREDICATE FEDERAL OFFENSE WHICH ARE NOT ON THE RECORD; MATTER REMITTED FOR THAT DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Out-of-Possession Landlord Created the Dangerous Condition Which Caused Gas Escaping from a Propane Tank to Ignite/Question of Fact Whether the Injured Employee’s Negligent Act (the Employee, Against the Direction of His Supervisor, Brought a Partially-Filled Propane Tank Inside the Building) Was Foreseeable
Whether a Confidential Relationship Existed With Decedent Is a Question of Fact for the Jury; Application of Dead Man’s Statute Explained

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

Fraud Allegations In Connection With a Real Estate Sale Must Be Analyzed within... New Relicensing Regulations Can Be Applied Retroactively (Re: Alcohol-Related...