You are here: / / TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined tennis pro who provided lessons for TDA, an indoor tennis club, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The testimony at the hearing established that TDA is solely responsible for setting the court rental and lesson fees, scheduling lessons, assigning tennis pros to clients who sign up for lessons and dictating which particular tennis court is to be used for each lesson. For certain group lessons, TDA even directs what type of stroke the tennis pros must teach. If a client is dissatisfied with a tennis pro’s services, the complaint is handled by TDA. In addition, in the event that a tennis pro is unable to attend a scheduled lesson, TDA facilitates the rescheduling of the lesson or the coordinating of a substitute tennis pro to teach the lesson. According to the testimony of claimant and another tennis pro, which the Board explicitly credited, if a tennis pro misses a scheduled lesson and the court cannot be rented to another client, TDA deducts the cost of the court rental fee from the tennis pro’s weekly earnings.

As for payment, each tennis pro is paid per lesson and the pay rate varies depending on, among other things, the pro’s certifications. Seasonal clients — i.e., clients who reserve a court for an entire season — pay their court rental fee up front and then pay the tennis pros directly for each lesson at a rate suggested by TDA and set forth in a contract between TDA and the client.  Matter of Campbell (TDA Indus., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06528, 3rd Dept 10-6-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE)/TENNIS PRO (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
Absence of Complete Financial Disclosure Did Not Preclude Family Court from Making “Change-of-Circumstances” Determination
Question of Fact About Resort Owner’s Duty to Maintain Walkways in Winter Despite Claim the Resort Was Closed in the Winter Months
Teacher’s Refusing to Agree to One Year Extension of Probationary Period Did Not Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct
BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE CONTAMINATED AREA WHERE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS TO BE LOCATED HAD BEEN REMEDIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) WAS NOT ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY WHEN THE SOIL IS DISTURBED FOR CONSTRUCTION; THE SEQRA REVIEW DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE EFFECTS OF DISTURBING THE SOIL (THIRD DEPT).
THE MODIFICATION OF THE GUARDIANSHIP ORDER MUST BE IN THE BESTS INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSON; HERE THE APPOINTMENT OF STEPFATHER AS LIMITED COGUARDIAN CONSTITUTED A CHANGE THAT WAS NOT IN THE DISABLED PERSON’S BEST INTERESTS BECAUSE CONSISTENCY IN ROUTINE AND REGIMEN WAS PARAMOUNT (THIRD DEPT).
WARREN COUNTY DID NOT HAVE “PARTICULAR EFFECT” JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL OFFENSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN SARATOGA COUNTY (THIRD DEPT).
INFORMATION ABOUT COMPETITORS’ PRODUCT PRICING PROVIDED TO SUPERMARKET CHAIN IS NOT TAXABLE (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

BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE. DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT...