You are here: / / CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS...

CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, who delivered baked goods for the employer under a distribution contract, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Initially, we are unpersuaded by the company’s contention that the Board erred in determining that claimant was an employee as a matter of law pursuant to Labor Law § 511 (1) (b). Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) defines “[e]mployment” for unemployment insurance purposes to include “any service by a person for an employer . . . as an agent-driver or commission-driver engaged in distributing . . . bakery products.” According to the company, claimant did not earn a commission but earned revenue upon selling the bakery products that he purchased at prices set by him. The record, however, supports the Board’s finding that the actual relationship between the parties did not constitute that of a buyer and seller.  …

Additionally, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the company exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over claimant to establish an employer-employee relationship under common-law principles. The company retained numerous rights under the distribution agreement, including the right to set the price of the products sold to claimant and the right to negotiate with chain outlets to determine price and terms of sale, and it retained the authority to sell distribution rights purchased by claimant or perform his delivery obligations under certain circumstances. Claimant was further required to deliver fresh products and remove stale products in a defined area, sell any additional products provided by the company, cooperate with its marketing programs, remit settlement information to it each week, maintain certain chain outlet customers even if not profitable to him and not engage in any business activity that directly competed with the company or interfered with his obligations under the distribution agreement. In addition, claimant was interviewed by the company, relied on certain equipment and supplies provided by it, was paid on a weekly basis and was trained, instructed, supervised and monitored by a company manager regarding his deliveries. Matter of Cowan (Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distrib., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 02229, Third Dept 3-29-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (LABOR LAW 511, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DELIVERIES  (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Prosecutor’s Remarks In Summation Required Reversal
Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement
Election Law Which Restricts Where Certain Candidates’ Names May Appear on the Ballot (Election Law 7-104 (4) (c)) Declared Constitutional
Anesthesiologist Was Not an Employee
Claimant’s Imprisonment for a Month After His Release Date Was Not Privileged
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON INVOICES SENT TO DEFENDANT FOR THE SOLAR PANELS (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, EVIDENCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SEE THE CAR HE COLLIDED WITH AND FAILED TO TIMELY BRAKE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR A CRIMINALLLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION; THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED BY A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND RULED ON AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE “LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT” VERSUS “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” STANDARDS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ECONOMIC DISTRESS VOIDED THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED... QUORUM REQUIREMENT NOT MET, CERTIFICATES OF NOMINATION INVALID (THIRD DEPT)...