You are here: / / COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).

COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, over a two-justice dissent, determined that a courier for a web based delivery service (Postmate) was not an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [I]n order to work as a courier or delivery professional for Postmates, claimant and others similarly situated need only download Postmates’ application software platform and provide his or her name, telephone number, Social Security number and driver’s license number; there is no application and no interview. Although Postmates thereafter obtains a criminal background check from a third-party provider and provides an orientation session on how to utilize the application software platform, significantly, claimant and those similarly situated are not thereafter required to report to any supervisor, and they unilaterally retain the unfettered discretion as to whether to ever log on to Postmates’ platform and actually work. When a courier does elect to log on to the platform, indicating his or her availability for deliveries, he or she is free to work as much or little as he or she wants — there is no set work schedule, there is no minimum time requirement that a courier must remain logged on to the platform and there is no minimum or maximum requirement with respect to the number of deliveries a courier must perform. In fact, once logged on to the platform, a courier may decline to do anything. When a customer requests a delivery using Postmates’ platform, the platform identifies the closest available courier(s) and sends basic information about the delivery request. Couriers, however, may accept, reject or ignore a delivery request, without penalty. Moreover, while logged on to Postmates’ platform, couriers maintain the freedom to simultaneously work for other companies, including Postmates’ direct competitors. Further, they are free to choose the mode of transportation they wish to use for deliveries, they provide and maintain their own transportation, they choose the route they wish to take for the delivery, they are not required to adhere to a stringent delivery schedule, they are not required to wear a uniform, they are not provided any identification card or logo, they are only paid for the deliveries they complete and they are not reimbursed for any of their delivery-related expenses. Matter of Vega (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 04610, Third Dept 6-21-18

​UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT))/COURIERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT))/DELIVERY SERVICE (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
UInstructor at a Not-for-Profit Theater Company Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF WITNESS PETITIONER COULD CALL, NEW HEARING REQUIRED.
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; RESPONDENT HAD AGREED TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO VIEW THE ELECTRONIC FILES USING ITS VIEWING PROGRAM, BUT HAD DENIED, FOR NO GOOD REASON, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO TRANSFER THE FILES TO A FLASH DRIVE (THIRD DEPT).
Pulling Into Traffic Without Activating Lights and Siren Did Not Constitute Reckless Disregard for the Safety of Others
FACT THAT FATHER’S SISTER WORKED FOR ST LAWRENCE COUNTY DSS (SLCDSS) DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SLCDSS CAN PROSECUTE THE NEGLECT PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
Growling and Baring Teeth Insufficient to Raise Question of Fact About a Dog’s Vicious Propensities
CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH FACILITATES DELIVERIES (THIRD DEPT).
Father’s Incarceration Justified a Modification of Custody/Sole Custody Awarded to Mother

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

IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE THE APPLICANT’S EQUITY... PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY...