You are here: / / FITNESS INSTRUCTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

FITNESS INSTRUCTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined claimant, a fitness instructor at a senior living facility (Classic Riverdale), was not an employee, and was not, therefore, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

 

After learning from a client that Classic Riverdale was seeking an exercise instructor, claimant contacted the facility’s executive director and offered his services. Claimant and the director negotiated a flat fee for each class and set a schedule for the classes. Classic Riverdale did not provide any training or require claimant to wear a uniform. He was not required to punch in or out on the employee time clock, did not use the employee facilities, such as the locker room or cafeteria, and was not invited to attend employee meetings. Claimant alone determined the content of the classes and method of instruction … . There was no limitation placed on the amount of time that claimant could miss from work and his attendance was not monitored. He was never given a performance evaluation and was not subject to any form of discipline … . Claimant also maintained his own liability insurance … . Notably, in addition to providing classes at the facility, claimant also provided services to other clients and solicited the facility’s residents for private, one-on-one classes without any objection from Classic Riverdale … . Matter of Cohen (Classic Riverdale, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01222, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (FITNESS INSTRUCTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed
Leased Right-of-Way Was an Easement Appurtenant Which Can Only Be Extinguished by Abandonment, Conveyance, Condemnation or Adverse Possession
TERRORISM CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE THE POLICY OR ACTIONS OF THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE WHEN HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO ‘COME BACK AND SHOOT THE PLACE DOWN’ (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INCONVENIENT FORUM FACTORS MANDATED BY THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITH THE CHILDREN AND FATHER WAS SEEKING TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).
THE FELONY WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A PREDICATE FELONY (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE A VIDEO CONTAINING IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL PRIOR TO FILING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RENDERED THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Statute of Limitations for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Tolled Until Fiduciary’s Roles Terminated

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

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL. DELEGATION CLAUSES, PLACING THE DETERMINATION OF ARBITRABILITY IN THE ARBITRATOR,...