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
Wrong Valuation Date Did Not Require Striking of Appraisal Report/Presumption of the Validity of the Town’s Assessment Rebutted by Appraisal Report
POLICE DISCIPLINE PROPERLY CONTROLLED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, DESPITE STATUTORY PROVISION PLACING DISCIPLINE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSIONER.
Department of Environmental Conservation’s Finding that the Owners of Land on Either Side of a Creek Also Owned a Dam Across the Creek, and Therefore Were Responsible for Making the Dam Safe, Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence—Dam Had Been Conveyed to the City in Condemnation Proceeding
RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS BY TRANSFER STUDENTS UPHELD.
Question of Fact Whether Negligent Supervision Was the Proximate Cause of the Injuries Plaintiff’s Son Suffered in an Attack by Another Student–the School Was Aware of Prior Assaultive Behavior by the Attacker and the School Was Aware of Recent Threats of Violence (Against Plaintiff’s Son) by the Attacker—The Court Noted that, In a Summary Judgment Motion, the Evidence Is Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to the Nonmovant
Length of Probationary Term for New County Employees Is Arbitrable Under the Two-Prong Test
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IGNORING UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OF THE EXTENT OF CLAIMANT’S IMPAIRMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Disciplinary Actions by SUNY School Did Not Violate Student’s Due Process Rights 

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)...