You are here: / / PART-TIME ATTORNEY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SOLO PRACTITIONER.

PART-TIME ATTORNEY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SOLO PRACTITIONER.

The Third Department determined a part-time attorney was an employee of a solo practitioner, Charleston, who worked out of an office in the basement of his house:

Here, the record reflects that Charleston assigned specific legal work to the attorney, advised him of the general deadline associated with each assignment and paid him a set hourly rate for his services, which he received once the relevant clients paid their bills. While the attorney was free to accept or reject assignments, work from home and dictate his own schedule, the nature and frequency of the assignments were controlled by Charleston, and Charleston retained ultimate responsibility to the clients for the quality of the work performed. In addition, Charleston negotiated all retainer agreements, co-billed for his and the attorney's services, reimbursed the attorney for parking expenses, regardless of whether the clients paid that portion of their bills, and, at all times, remained the attorney of record. Furthermore, Charleston and the attorney did not have a written contract and the attorney was permitted to, and often did, use Charleston's office and equipment to carry out his assignments. Thus, despite evidence in the record that could support a contrary result, the Board's finding of an employment relationship is supported by substantial evidence… . Matter of Charleston (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03230, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


You might also like
AN INMATE’S RELEASE ON PAROLE DOES NOT RENDER HIS APPEAL OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION MOOT (THIRD DEPT).
OFFICE LEASING BROKER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Court Should Have Instructed Jury on Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault in this Legal Malpractice Action
Untimely ​Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Related Back to Timely Negligent Design Cause of Action—Motion to Amend Pleadings to Add Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Against Lessor of Heavy Equipment Should Have Been Granted
Corporation Is a Proper Respondent in an Article 78/Mandamus to Compel Proceeding
THE EVIDENCE INDICATED VISITATION WITH FATHER WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; FATHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Professional Photographer Deemed Employee of New York Post
SUNY POTSDAM’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT DETERMINATION ANNULLED, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IMPOSITION OF A HARSHER PENALTY AFTER STUDENT’S APPEAL CRITICIZED.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

VERTICAL LADDER FIRE ESCAPE, THROUGH WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL AND WAS RENDERED PARAPLEGIC,... NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES OF...