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
PERSONS WHO SIGNED A DESIGNATING PETITION WHICH WAS DEEMED NULL AND VOID COULD VALIDLY SIGN A SUBSEQUENT OPPORTUNITY TO BALLOT PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
Trial Court’s Decision to Conduct Trial in Defendant’s Absence Without Consideration of the Factors Mandated for Consideration by the Court of Appeals Required Reversal
CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED.
ATTORNEY HIRED FOR DOCUMENT REVIEW WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, DESPITE THE ATTORNEY’S SIGNING A DOCUMENT INDICATING SHE WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONERS, RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 COMPELLING THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO HEAR RATE APPEALS WHICH CHALLENGE MEDICAID RATE PAYMENTS; BECAUSE THE REQUESTED RELIEF REQUIRED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MANDAMUS RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).
BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY OBJECTION, THE MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER COUNTY COURT MADE A PROPER INQUIRY OF A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, REVEALED SHE WAS A RAPE VICTIM; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE; THE DISSENTING JUDGE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION ALLEGING THE LOBBYING ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROCEED; PLAINTIFFS ENGAGED IN “GRASSROOTS LOBBYING” IN SUPPORT OF PASSAGE OF THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) (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

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