You are here: / / EXOTIC DANCERS WERE EMPLOYEES.

EXOTIC DANCERS WERE EMPLOYEES.

The Third Department determined exotic dancers were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record reflects that the club would evaluate prospective dancers and instruct those who were inexperienced to observe a more experienced dancer. If the club determined that a dancer was “unappealing,” the dancer would not be permitted to continue to perform. Additionally, the dancers were required to present proof of legal age and citizenship or their services would not be engaged. The club charged patrons an admission fee and set the prices that the dancers would charge patrons for private one-on-one dances, with the club retaining a percentage thereof, and patrons would pay the club’s bartender for the private dances. While the dancers could set their own schedules, the club would compile a nightly list of the dancers scheduled to perform and post it on its website. Finally, the club provided the stage, private dance rooms, lighting and sound equipment, while the dancers supplied their own costumes and music. Matter of Greystoke Indus. LLC (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 05890, 3rd Dept 8-25-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EXOTIC DANCERS WERE EMPLOYEES)

You might also like
District Attorney’s Former Status as a Judge Hearing Cases Involving the Department of Social Services Did Not Preclude the District Attorney from Issuing Subpoenas for Department Records
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE DANGERS INHERENT IN TUBING.
BECAUSE NO PETITION HAD BEEN FILED IN THIS SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, A DEFECT THAT MAY BE BROUGHT UP AT ANY TIME (THIRD DEPT).
Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable Based Upon Right to Enter Premises to Make Repairs But May Be Liable as the Creator of the Dangerous Condition
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
EVIDENCE PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED AT AND THE EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED FROM THE SARATOGA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE (THIRD DEPT).
Presentation of Evidence of an Uncharged Offense Without Seeking a Ruling on Its Admissibility in Advance Deprived Defendant of a Fair Trial
DEFENDANT’S PLEA COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT (JURAT) OF HIS PERJURY CONVICTIONS; PLEA VACATED (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RETURN TO WORK TO WARRANT... PARTNER IN AN UNMARRIED COUPLE WITH NO BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH...