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
Remedies Re: Purchase and Sale of Furniture Controlled by UCC
TERMINATION OF FATHER’S VISITATION RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT).
THE PARKER WARNINGS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY WARN DEFENDANT HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE ENHANCED IF HE WERE ARRESTED BETWEEN THE PLEA AND SENTENCING, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE ENHANCED SENTENCE ON THAT GROUND, MATTER REMITTED FOR SENTENCING TO THE AGREED TERM OR FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE IN HARASSMENT STATUTE NEED NOT BE PLED AND NEGATED IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENT; THE EXCLUSIONS ARE PROVISOS WHICH CAN BE RAISED AS DEFENSES.
“Clearly Specious” Reason for Fellow Inmate’s Refusal to Testify Warranted Further Inquiry
ARBITRATOR’S DECISION FINDING CLAIMANT WAS PROPERLY DISCHARGED FOR MISCONDUCT ENTITLED TO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE SUBCONTRACT EXPIRED BEFORE SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT; THE TERMS OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND CONFLICTED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE STATE FINANCE LAW CONTROLS (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

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