You are here: / / HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY.

HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY.

The Third Department determined a housekeeper was an employee of Today’s Cleaning Service (TCS), a referral agency which provided housekeepers for clients and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record evidence establishes that TCS solicited applicants through online advertisements and through its website — which claimant used to complete an application and submit her résumé — and screened the applications that it received … . TCS’s hiring process also required claimant to complete several jobs on a voluntary and trial basis, during which she would work alongside an experienced housekeeper who would report back on claimant’s work and ability to effectively provide services for TCS’s clients. The initial rate of pay was established and set by TCS, and TCS paid claimant by check. TCS informed claimant of her scheduled jobs — which claimant was required to promptly accept or reject — and the nature and scope of services required for each. During the performance of those cleaning services, TCS required claimant to wear an identification badge reflecting her affiliation with TCS … . TCS also provided its clients with “scoreboards” that the clients could use to evaluate the services provided and inform TCS of a housekeeper’s performance, which TCS could consider when assigning future jobs. If claimant was unable to provide an agreed-upon service or report for a job, claimant was required to immediately inform TCS, and TCS would secure a substitute … .

Although claimant was allowed to keep any existing clients upon being hired by TCS and could work for other employers, the written referral agreement governing TCS’s relationship with each housekeeper prohibited solicitation of TCS’s clients for one year after the time period encompassed by the agreement and specified that TCS’s client information remained the private property of TCS… . Matter of Jachym (Today’s Cleaning Serv.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06523, 3rd Dept 10-6-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY)/HOUSEKEEPER (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY)

You might also like
Employee’s Use of Personal Checking Account Did Not Amount to Misconduct
THE SURETY BOND, A CONTRACT, WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND MADE NO MENTION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE SURETY THEREFORE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE ARGUMENT THAT CPLR 5001 MAKES PAYMENT OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST MANDATORY WAS REJECTED (THIRD DEPT).
HERE A MOTION TO RENEW AN APPEAL WAS GRANTED AND THE PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION WAS VACATED BASED ON THE ENACTMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA); THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HAD HELD THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY BECAUSE THE BANK HAD DE-ACCELERATED THE DEBT; BUT FAPA RENDEREDTHE DE-ACCELERATION INVALID; SO THE INITIAL SUPREME COURT DECISION GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS REINSTATED (THIRD DEPT).
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT).
Leading Questions and Elicitation of Hearsay in Grand Jury Proceedings Did Not Constitute Prosecutorial Misconduct
Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement Not a Lease—No Permissive Referendum Required
PRISON INMATE’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983 DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE CERTAIN VIDEO RECORDINGS BUT DID NOT ALLEGE HOW SAID FAILURE HINDERED HIS ACCESS TO THE COURTS (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO DECLARE THE PARENTAGE OF A CHILD BORN TO A MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLE BECAUSE THE CHILD WAS NOT BORN “OUT-OF-WEDLOCK;” RECENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION WILL SOON ALLOW SUCH A PETITION IN FAMILY COURT AND THE PARTIES MAY NOW SEEK A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE IN SUPREME COURT, WHICH HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (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

BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING... BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.