You are here: / / PROMOTIONAL SALES MODEL WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

PROMOTIONAL SALES MODEL WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined claimant, a promotional sales model who distributed samples of products and free merchandise for the clients of Preston, was an employee of Preston entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, Preston directed potential promotional sales models to fill out an application and to provide references. Preston established the pay rates, paid claimant directly regardless of whether a client paid Preston and, at times, reimbursed claimant for certain travel or incidental expenses. Preston determined the time, date and location of the promotional events, as well as the particular products that claimant would be required to distribute at the events … . Prior to a promotional event, Preston's managers instructed claimant to dress appropriately … and not to distribute products at the events that were not being promoted. The managers also explained what was expected of her at the event and informed her of what she should say at the events about the clients' products. If claimant could not report for a scheduled event or complete her shift, she was expected to contact a manager at Preston. Following an event, she was expected to fill out a Preston “recap form” summarizing her time spent at and information about the event, and she was required to submit the form to a manager at Preston. While claimant could and did work for other companies, she did not maintain her own business for promotional sales marketing. On occasion, Preston would contact its clients to review and critique claimant's work at the promotional events, and Preston directly handled clients' complaints … . Matter of Waggoneer (Preston Leasing Corp.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01707, 3rd Dept 3-10-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (PROMOTIONAL SALES MODEL WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS PROPERLY ENFORCED A TOWN RESOLUTION WHICH PROHIBITED CONNECTING A WATER MAIN SERVICING AN AGRICULTURAL AREA TO A NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION; THE DEVELOPERS WERE ‘INTERESTED PERSONS’ AND WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE COMMISSIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION TO ENFORCE THE TOWN RESOLUTION (THIRD DEPT).
THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR COULD NOT IMPOSE A NEW “RULE” WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN SUBJECT TO THE FORMAL RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (THIRD DEPT).
IN LIGHT OF DEFENDANT’S INVESTIGATION INTO THE FIRE WHICH CAUSED CLAIMANT’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT.
CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED FATHER’S COUNSEL’S OFFER TO REMAIN AS STANDBY COUNSEL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT WARNING FATHER OF THE DANGERS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION (THIRD DEPT).
MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A MISSISSIPPI COURT (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD ACCEPTED ONE EXPERT’S OPINION AND REJECTED THE OTHER BASED ON AN ISSUE THE EXPERTS WERE NEVER ASKED ABOUT; DECISION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Amendment Allowing the Consideration of Incarceration as a Reason for a Downward Support Modification Is Not Applied Retroactively

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

RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES VIOLATED BY INTRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY... CRISIS COUNSELOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE.