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
No Contest Clause Was Not Triggered by Offering Will for Probate or Questioning Actions of Named Executor(s)
THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, NOT THE PRIOR RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL WITH THE LETTER ATTACHED, TRIGGERED THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THE OMISSION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE SERVED WITH THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE COULD BE REMEDIED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PURCHASED OFFICE FURNITURE AFTER HE WAS HIRED TO WORK FROM HOME AND WAS INJURED CARRYING THE FURNITURE TO HIS HOME OFFICE; THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE ANALYZED THE CASE UNDER A RIGID NEW STANDARD FOR EMPLOYEES WORKING FROM HOME; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE LONG-ESTABLISHED STANDARD (THIRD DEPT). ​
BOTH PARENTS OPPOSED VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON ONE OF THE CHILDREN; IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Real Estate Broker Not an Employee of Commercial Real Estate Firm
(1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT.
SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (THIRD DEPT).
DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (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 © 2026 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.