You are here: / / CLAIMANT, A FIELD INSPECTOR FOR A VACANT PROPERTY PRESERVATION COMPANY,...

CLAIMANT, A FIELD INSPECTOR FOR A VACANT PROPERTY PRESERVATION COMPANY, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant field inspector was an employee of Safeguard Properties, a property preservation company that preserves vacant properties for lenders on homes that have delinquent loans. Claimant, who performed property occupancy inspections, was not an independent contractor and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record establishes that claimant, who did not have an inspection business or any other business entity, applied for the field inspector job upon a recommendation of a friend. Inspectors, such as claimant, were sent work orders to perform inspections on properties and were required to complete such inspections within a time frame set by Safeguard. Field inspectors were assigned a regional supervisor to contact regarding questions and problems that arose in connection with the inspections, or to request extensions of time to complete a work assignment. Safeguard prioritized the work order assignments, required field inspectors to adhere to a dress code, provided instructions as to various aspects of how a work assignment was to be completed and, with regard to claimant, paid her every two weeks. Safeguard provided a replacement if a field inspector could not perform an assignment and required field inspectors to provide 30 days’ notice of scheduled vacations, reserving the right to deny such vacation requests. Any complaints by customers or clients were handled by Safeguard.

The record also discloses that field inspectors were required to use a computer compatible with software provided by Safeguard. Safeguard provided stickers and door hangers to inspectors and required that stickers bearing Safeguard’s name be affixed to vacant properties. Safeguard tracked field inspectors’ productivity and required their participation in regular mandatory telephone conferences to discuss work quality. Disciplinary action would be imposed upon field inspectors who failed to respond to Safeguard’s contacts. Matter of Sischo (Safeguard Props. LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 00894, Third Dept 2-6-20

 

You might also like
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
Evidence Did Not Support Imposition of Supervised Visitation Re: Mother’s Older Children—Evidence Included Family Court’s Taking Judicial Notice of Neglect Findings Re: Mother’s Younger Children
Successive Summary Judgment Motions OK Based On Evidence Learned in Discovery
THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED BY THE CURRENT INSURER FOR INDEMNIFICATION, PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, ONE INSURER HAD SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE CONTAMINANT, THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF THE CLAIM AS REQUIRED BY THEIR POLICIES (THIRD DEPT).
THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT JUSTICE DD, A SEVERELY DISABLED MAN, REMAIN AT HIS CURRENT PLACEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NOT BE MOVED TO A NEW PLACEMENT IN NEW YORK; THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OPWDD), NEARLY A YEAR LATER, REJECTED THE HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDERED THE NEW PLACEMENT; BECAUSE JUSTICE DD’S CONDITION HAD WORSENED DURING THAT TIME, THE COMMISSIONER’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
PATIENT ADVOCATES WHO ACCOMPANY THE CLIENTS OF PERSONAL INJURY LAW FIRMS TO INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT).
THE MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPEAL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE CONVICTION 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE LEASE DID NOT IMPOSE A DUTY ON THE TENANT TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK,... ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IN FAVOR OF DONALD J TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT INC VACATED...