You are here: / / SECURITY CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE OF OFF-TRACK BETTING FACILITY DESPITE...

SECURITY CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE OF OFF-TRACK BETTING FACILITY DESPITE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DESIGNATION IN AGREEMENT.

The Third Department determined a security consultant who worked undercover at an Off-Track Betting (OTB) facility (Race Palace) was an employee despite the “independent contractor” designation in the written agreement:

… Claimant and the other security consultants provided services exclusively at the location of the Race Palace and claimant's work schedule was established through consultation with another security consultant. He was compensated at a negotiated hourly rate of pay that was set forth in an independent contractor agreement and was required to submit claim forms and activity reports detailing his services within established time frames in order to receive payment from OTB. In addition, he was reimbursed by OTB for certain preapproved expenses and was required to keep all information regarding his services strictly confidential. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that OTB retained the requisite control necessary to establish the existence of an employment relationship … . Although the written agreement designated claimant as an independent contractor, it is not dispositive of claimant's employment status … . Matter of Dwyer (Nassau Regional Off-Track Corp. — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03232, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


You might also like
Claimant Who Sold Educational Materials Was an Employee
CLAIMANT WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD AND A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOTHER DID NOT APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED CONFERENCE AND DID NOT HAVE A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING, SHE WAS NOT AWARE FINDINGS OF FACT WOULD BE MADE IN HER ABSENCE; DEFAULT ORDER VACATED ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).
FITNESS INSTRUCTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
Hearsay Deemed Insufficient to Support Determination
THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF A LEASE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE HUD REGULATION REQUIRING THAT THE REASONS FOR TERMINATION BE STATED WITH ENOUGH SPECIFICITY TO ALLOW THE TENANT TO MOUNT A DEFENSE; EVICTION ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

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

NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES OF... MECHANIC WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF USED CAR SELLER.