You are here: / / PART-TIME AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

PART-TIME AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a part-time aerobics instructor at a fitness club (Synchronicity) was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

 

Here, the evidence in the record reflects that Synchronicity established the fees that members of its fitness club were required to pay for their membership and claimant’s aerobics classes. Members would pay those fees to Synchronicity directly; claimant never collected money from any of the club’s members or charged them for attending her aerobics classes. While there is evidence that claimant’s rate of pay was negotiated, the record also reflects that all instructors at the fitness club were paid the same amount and were directly paid by check from Synchronicity once a week. While claimant would bring some of her own fitness equipment for her classes, including music and Pilates equipment, Synchronicity also provided her with an instruction room and made certain fitness equipment available to her, such as steps and free weights. Further, claimant was not allowed to solicit members of the club to attend classes that she offered at other fitness clubs. Matter of Raynor (Commissioner of Labor) 2016 NY Slip Op 00558, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (PART-TIME AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met
A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SUB-PAR PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT SOUNDS IN CONTRACT LAW, NOT NEGLIGENCE; NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Declaratory Judgment Action Was Actually Seeking to Open a Default Judgment in a Tax Foreclosure Proceeding—30-Day Statute of Limitations in the Tax Law Applied
BECAUSE THE GAS WELL TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DID NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.
Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did Not Violate the Confrontation Clause/No Evidence the Party Conducted Any Testing or Analysis
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED.
TRANSFERS MADE DURING 60-MONTH LOOK-BACK PERIOD WERE NOT MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE NEED FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DETERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANNULLED.
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON ICE WHICH FORMED ON THE STEP LEADING TO HER APARTMENT, DESPITE IT BEING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LANDLORD ACCEPTED TENANT’S SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW,... CONSULTANT HIRED TO EVALUATE TEACHERS WAS AN EMPLOYEE.