You are here: / / CLAIMANT FINANCIAL ADVISOR HIRED TO SELL INSURANCE PRODUCTS WAS AN EMPLOYEE...

CLAIMANT FINANCIAL ADVISOR HIRED TO SELL INSURANCE PRODUCTS WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant financial advisor who entered a written agreement to sell insurance products for Penn Mutual was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Claimant testified that he filled out an application with Penn Mutual, participated in an interview at which his commission rate and initial stipend were discussed, underwent a background check and thereafter signed a full-time soliciting agent’s contract … . Although claimant had to pay a monthly telephone fee, as well as any postage or photocopying costs that he incurred, he was provided a cubicle at Penn Mutual’s office, the use of the company’s receptionist and the ability to book a conference room, all at no charge to him. Claimant was given an in-house email address as well as letterhead and business cards bearing the agency’s name and address. Additionally, claimant was afforded the opportunity to qualify for health/dental insurance … and to participate in a matching 401(k) program; claimant also initially was covered under Penn Mutual’s errors and omissions policy. Claimant acknowledged that he was able to set his own schedule and to sell insurance products other than those offered by Penn Mutual; however, he also testified that he was required to meet with his managing director almost weekly, and that the managing director, in turn, scheduled training workshops that claimant was strongly encouraged to attend, reviewed and, if necessary, corrected the client applications submitted by claimant, directed claimant to develop a business plan and helped him do so, provided feedback on claimant’s performance, as set forth in the sales quarterly reports generated by Penn Mutual, and warned him that his contract might not be renewed if his performance was not satisfactory … . Matter of Thorndike (Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 03964, Third Dept 7-16-20

 

You might also like
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE ATTACKERS’ INTENT TO ROB THE VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTIONS UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE-LIABILITY THEORY REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEATH RECORDS KEPT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE TO THE PETITIONER, A NON-PROFIT WHICH PROMOTES GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH (THIRD DEPT). ​
DENYING VISITATION TO MOTHER WHO HAD NOT SEEN THE CHILD IN NINE YEARS BUT HAD GAINED EMPLOYMENT AND STOPPED ABUSING DRUGS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; FAMILY COURT GAVE UNDUE WEIGHT TO THE FORENSIC EVALUATOR’S FINDINGS AND TO MOTHER’S EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS AT THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Two-to-Five-Foot Fall from Edge of Roof to Scaffolding Supported Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action
TESTIMONY OF DNA EXPERT, WHICH WAS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES, DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION; ILLEGAL STOP DID NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, SUFFICIENT ATTENUATION.
PLAINTIFF, A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR, DID YARD WORK FOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER, INCLUDING SPREADING MULCH AND USING HIS OWN LADDER TO TRIM A TREE; PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE LADDER ON THE MULCH; THE LADDER FELL OVER WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (THE MULCH) AND DID NOT SUPERVISE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFF’S TREE-TRIMMING WORK; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TYPE OF STICKS AND BALLS USED IN THE LACROSSE GAME AND WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE GOGGLES WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S EYE INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
Reversible Error to Allow Cross-Examination of Defendant About an Unrelated Prior Crime

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROPERLY DENIED THE FOIL REQUEST FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS... BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS REINSTATED IN HER JOB AND BACKPAY HAD BEEN PROVIDED FOR...