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
DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING A “FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT” DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BASED UPON AN EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT).
PURCHASER OF A MARINA DEMONSTRATED THE PRIOR OWNER OBTAINED TITLE TO THE DISPUTED LAKE BOTTOM RIGHTS BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT).
Nature of a Repugnant Verdict Explained—Here the Verdict Convicting Defendant of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Acquitting Defendant of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance Was Not Repugnant—The Proof at Trial Plays No Part in the Repugnancy Analysis
THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERLY DECLARED A RENTAL-UNIT SHORTAGE-EMERGENCY AND PROPERLY IMPOSED LIMITATIONS ON RENT INCREASES DURING THE EMERGENCY PERIOD (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE CUSTODY CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO A NEW JUDGE; THE PREVIOUS JUDGE’S ORDERS CONSTITUTED THE LAW OF THE CASE WHICH CANNOT BE VIOLATED BY SUBSEQUENT ORDERS BY THE NEW JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).
INADVERTENT RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, NO TESTIMONY THE RECORDING WAS NOT ALTERED AND NO EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW TRUST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

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...