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)

/by
You might also like
DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BASED UPON HER DISMISSAL FROM A NURSING PROGRAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Re: Duty Owed to Developmentally Disabled Plaintiff for Injury Incurred After Plaintiff Left Facility for a Bus Ride Home
OBJECTIONS TO A DESIGNATING PETITION WERE NOT SERVED BY CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED MAIL AS REQUIRED BY THE ELECTION LAW AND WERE NOT TIMELY SERVED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ELECTION LAW (THIRD DEPT).
Even When the Injured Worker, Who Had Received Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Successfully Sues His Employer (As Opposed to a “Stranger”) for His Injuries, the Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has a Lien Against the Recovery Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law 29(1)
THE EDUCATION LAW PERMITS, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO STUDENTS ATTENDING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT IN SESSION (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE ELICITATION OF TESTIMONY FROM A DETECTIVE THAT DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS AND DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ABSENCE OF A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION RENDERED THE ERROR REVERSIBLE (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF 37 COUNTS OF SEXUAL OFFENSES, THE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL RENDERED 26 COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).
Elements of Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

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