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
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
SENTENCES FOR THE SALE OF TWO DRUGS IN THE SAME TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY (THIRD DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS WAS PROHIBITED BY A LOCAL LAW; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE BIAS OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD INFECTED THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD (WHICH ENACTED THE LAW); THOSE ALLEGATIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LOCAL LAW VALID (THIRD DEPT).
For Each Year the Business Investment Exemption from Real Property Tax Law Is Sought, a Separate Application Must Be Made
AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN, THE JUDGE PROMISED TO ORDER DEFENDANT TO BE ENROLLED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT (CASAT) PROGRAM; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Was an Employee of a Cleaning and Janitorial Service
ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM.

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.