You are here: / / OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT...

OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FRANCHISOR.

The Third Department determined claimant, who operated a janitorial cleaning business, based upon a franchise agreement with Jan-Pro, was an employee of Jan-Pro and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record evidence demonstrates that Jan-Pro assigned claimant a specific geographic territory and required new franchisees to undergo initial mandatory training, which was paid for by Jan-Pro. Franchisees were also required to operate the business in accordance with the procedures established at the training and the standards set forth by Jan-Pro … . To that end, franchisees had to use Jan-Pro-sanctioned equipment, supplies, products and business forms … . Jan-Pro helped resolve any complaints between a customer and a franchisee and retained the right to discontinue a franchisee’s services to any client any time … . Jan-Pro provided franchisees with a starter set of business cards, which contained Jan-Pro’s logo, and claimant’s business card listed Jan-Pro’s name, logo and address … . Although claimant had the option of designing his own business card, any such designs required Jan-Pro’s approval. Furthermore, according to the franchise agreement, if claimant developed any new concepts or techniques that improved Jan-Pro’s business, they became Jan-Pro’s property … .

The franchise agreement also contained a non-compete provision barring claimant from operating for one year in any area of Jan-Pro’s affiliates or franchises … . Moreover, the franchise agreement gave Jan-Pro the sole right to invoice and collect from claimant’s customer accounts, maintain revenue records with respect to such accounts and accept payment from claimant’s customers. While the franchise agreement designated claimant as an independent contractor, such terms are not dispositive of claimant’s status … . Matter of Baez (PD 10276, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 07061, 3rd Dept 10-27-16

 

NEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FRANCHISOR)

You might also like
THE FIDUCIARY TOLLING RULE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ACTION AGAINST AN EXECUTOR (WHO WAS REMOVED BY THE COURT) UNTIL THE SUCESSOR FIDUCIARY WAS APPOINTED (THIRD DEPT).
VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CHARGED WITH RECEIVING A BRIBE AND ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC HEALTH IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING CONTAINING ASBESTOS, CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO CPL 210.40 (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THE CO-DEFENDANT POSSESSED A WEAPON, THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE CO-DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE THEORY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT HAD THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CARRIER’S CONSULTANT, WHO DETERMINED CLAIMANT SUFFERED A 40% SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE, DESPITE THE FACT CLAIMANT NEVER FILED A COMPETING MEDICAL OPINION (THIRD DEPT)
Standard for Upward Child Support Modification, Agreement Incorporated But Not Merged.
Court Review of Elimination of Pension Benefits Proper Even though the Administrative Hearing Had Not Yet Been Held—No Need to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Where the Petition Does Not Raise an Issue of Fact that Should Initially Be Determined in the Administrative Hearing
Complaint Stated Causes of Action for a Constructive Trust and Quantum Meruit
UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBEL PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION.

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

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF... EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL...