You are here: / / BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a “brand ambassador” hired by G&R (an entertainment and communication business) to promote products at live events was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, the uncontroverted testimony of G & R’s account executive established that G & R did not train or instruct claimant on his duties for this event, was not present on the event day and lacked any authority to and did not supervise claimant or the means by which he performed these duties for the client. G & R advertised the position on a Facebook page for brand ambassadors, using information about the event position provided by the client, and it received via email resumes and accompanying photographs from applicants, which it reviewed and submitted to the client, which selected its brand ambassadors. Claimant was free to decline the position and was permitted to and had worked for other brand promoters; after the client selected claimant and other individuals for this event, G & R provided them with written show information and guidelines supplied by the client, which outlined the details and expectations for the event.

G & R also sent claimant a welcome letter agreement — that the parties signed — designating him as an independent contractor and that required, among other provisions, that any substitutes be approved; it also set forth the client’s expectations and rules … . Matter of Berger (Gail & Rice, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06527, 3rd Dept 10-6-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/BRAND AMBASSADOR (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
Crude Conduct Not Motivated by Petitioners’ Gender/Case of Same Sex Discrimination Not Made Out
Sales Rep Was an Employee Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE ICE ON THE PARKING LOT RAISED A TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (THIRD DEPT).
​ THE MAJORITY HELD THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH DISORDERLY CONDUCT AS A FAMILY OFFENSE, FINDING THE CONDUCT WAS NOT “PUBLIC;” THE DISSENT ARGUED THE CONDUCT WAS “PUBLIC” IN THAT IT TOOK PLACE IN THE PRESENCE OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN OUTSIDE A DAYCARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).
MUNICIPALITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY IN THIS WATER- DAMAGE LAWSUIT STEMMING FROM EXTINGUISHING A FIRE; NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ALSO PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, AN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT WITHOUT A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DEMONSTRATED DILIGENT EFFORTS TO FIND WORK AFTER HE WAS INJURED; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED HIS CLAIM FOR BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION ALLEGING UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXPLAINED (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

HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY. TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE.