You are here: / / SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE.

SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE.

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant security officer was not an employee of TMR, which was essentially a placement service which posted security jobs on a secure website:

TMR posted security-related jobs on a secure website for its clients, who dictated the hours to be worked, as well as the scope of services that were needed. The security officers, after browsing through these postings, would request to work on any particular job, which TMR ultimately awarded on a “first come, first serve” basis. The security officers were free to select a job that they wanted and were not prohibited from seeking jobs from TMR’s competitors. TMR did not provide the security officers with training or equipment nor did TMR pay the security officers a set hourly rate. Furthermore, once TMR placed the security officer with a client, TMR did not enter into a contract with the security officer. While a security officer could be in the middle of a continuing job for a client, he or she was nonetheless free to leave at any point and work elsewhere. In addition, if an issue arose with the security officer’s performance, the client dealt with the security officer directly, and TMR would be notified if it needed to provide a substitute security officer. Matter of TMR Sec. Consultants, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08922, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE)/SECURITY OFFICERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF RADIATION ONCOLOGIST, THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER IN PLANTIFF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, WHICH PAID PLAINTIFF ONCOLOGIST’S SALARY, SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED HIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COURT, IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, HELD THAT PLAINTIFF’S SALARY WAS NOT A CORPORATE EXPENSE AND THEREFORE WAS RECOVERABLE AS LOST PROFITS IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE SEX OFFENDER TO DISCLOSE HIS OR HER USE OF FACEBOOK, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE SEX OFFENDER DISCLOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND SCREEN NAMES (THIRD DEPT).
Family Court Erred in Allowing Court Appointed Special Advocates Access to Confidential Records and Proceedings
ALTHOUGH THE DETERMINATION THE INMATE CURSED AT AND THREATENED A CORRECTION OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED, THE CONCURRENCE NOTED THE OFFICER WAS NOT WEARING A BODY CAMERA, DESPITE THE PILOT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED IN 2018 (THIRD DEPT).
CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO STOP DELIBERATIONS IF IT FOUND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED TO THE TOP COUNT (MURDER); DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED) (THIRD DEPT).
THE 2008 FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED ON A DECEASED DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY WHICH DID NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREFORE, IS NOT TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALTHOUGH POORLY DRAFTED, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEPARTED FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR A SPINAL FUSION PROCEDURE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (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

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HUSBAND CREDIT FOR HIGHER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS... BIG APPLE MAP RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY WAS AWARE OF MANHOLE-SIDEWALK...