You are here: / / CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE...

CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRODUCER OF THE HAIRCARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant, a haircare product sales representative, was not an employee of Alterna Holding Corporation, the producer of the haircare products:

Alterna Holding Corporation produces haircare products that are sold at various retail stores. To facilitate its business, Alterna places sales and education representatives at the stores. These representatives educate store employees and customers about Alterna’s products. Claimant was a representative for Alterna at Sephora stores in the New York City area from April 2012 to September 2014. * * *

The record reflects that claimant received no initial training or instruction on how to perform her duties. Claimant was not required to submit reports, attend meetings or regularly check in with Alterna. Claimant was not responsible for supplying the product to the Sephora stores, and the sales of the product were carried out by Sephora employees. Although Alterna provided claimant with a list of Sephora stores for her to visit, she was not required to visit all the stores on the list if she did not want to, and claimant testified that there were some stores that she never visited. Claimant was never supervised while at the stores or had her performance reviewed. Claimant was advised to work five days a week, but she set her own schedule and she could take time off, including a week at a time, without notifying Alterna. Matter of Jordan (Alterna Holdings Corp.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05266, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

You might also like
Out-of-State Dismissal with Prejudice Barred Similar New York Action Under Doctrine of Res Judicata
Applicant Eligible for Relief Under Drug Sentencing Reform Statute Must Be Afforded a Hearing
NO APPEAL LIES FROM COUNTY COURT’S DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA). ​
EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
PARKER WARNINGS WERE INADEQUATE BUT THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; HOWEVER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE ENHANCED SENTENCE; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION TO PURGE THE CONTEMPT ORDER REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SOLID WASTE THAT HAD BEEN DUMPED ON A FIELD BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE INCARCERATED DEFENDANT SHOULD BE RELEASED (THIRD DEPT).
THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY OF CLAIMANT-INMATE BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS OCCURRED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND WAS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE; THEREFORE THE STATE, AS THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYER, COULD BE LIABLE FOR THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (THIRD DEPT).
THE TRUST AGREEMENT INDICATED THE DECEDENT INTENDED A CHARITABLE GIFT BE MADE TO A PARTICULAR LOCAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL WHICH HAD CLOSED, NOT TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH HAD OPERATED THE CLOSED SCHOOL 3RD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH... CLAIMANT TRUCK DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FLS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND UNDER...