You are here: / / OIL-SPILL DAMAGES INVESTIGATOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT...

OIL-SPILL DAMAGES INVESTIGATOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined claimant, who was hired by Guidepost to investigate damages claims relating to an oil spill, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

 

… [T]he record contains substantial evidence that Guidepost exercised the requisite control to establish an employer-employee relationship. Claimant received three days of training on how the written reports of his investigations were to be drafted and was reimbursed for the related travel expenses. Guidepost provided the claims to be investigated to claimant, who worked from home in New York. Claimant used reports filed by Guidepost’s field investigators in Louisiana in evaluating the veracity of the damage claims. Claimant submitted his final written reports to Guidepost, which forwarded them on to its client. Guidepost handled all of the client’s complaints, and the client was not aware of who had actually prepared the report. Claimant and Guidepost entered into a written agreement, pursuant to which claimant was paid a set hourly rate and was required to submit monthly invoices to Guidepost containing a log of times and dates and a detailed description of the work performed. Guidepost agreed to pay all approved business expenses. Guidepost also placed restrictions on claimant’s solicitation of or provision of services to Guidepost’s clients during his employment and for a year following separation and required him to adhere to a code of conduct.  Matter of Zaharuk (Guidepost Solutions LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01028, 3rd Dept 2-11-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (OIL-SPILL DAMAGES INVESTIGATOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
Claimant, Who Had Been Diagnosed With Job-Related Stress, Did Not Have Good Cause to Resign
THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE HUSBAND’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE WHOLLY ADOPTED BY SUPREME COURT; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT AWARDED MAINTENANCE ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant Cannot Meet Its Burden In a Summary Judgment Motion Solely by Pointing to Proof Problems in the Plaintiff’s Case/Court, Pursuant to Its Power to Search the Record in Determining a Summary Judgment Motion, Cannot Address Claims that Were Not the Subject of the Motion
Defendant’s “Agency” Defense to a Drug Sale Addressed Under a “Weight of the Evidence” Review (Defense Was Disproved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)
THE APPEAL WAS MOOT BECAUSE THE PETITION SOUGHT TO HALT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MINING SHAFT APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE SHAFT HAD BEEN COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
Supreme Court Properly Declined to Give Husband Credit for Separate Property Contributions to Marital Residence—Husband Subsequently Conveyed Property to the Parties Jointly
FATHER ACKNOWLEDGED IMPREGNATING THE OLDEST CHILD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER WAS PROPER; HOWEVER THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHEN MOTHER LEARNED OF THE PREGNANCY AND WHETHER SHE KNEW WHO THE FATHER WAS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
JUDGE IMPOSED RESTITUTION AT SENTENCING WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE VACATED.

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

MUSIC TEACHERS ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY FLAG HOLDERS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR...