You are here: / / CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER...

CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT PRODUCTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BROKER-DEALER AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined claimant agent was not an employee of broker-dealer AXA and therefore was not entitled to Unemployment Insurance benefits:

AXA Advisors LLC is a broker-dealer registered to sell life insurance policies and annuities, stocks, mutual funds and other investment products. Claimant began working for AXA under a three-year “training allowance” agreement in 1993. After that agreement terminated in 1996, claimant entered into a new agreement as a licensed agent, and he continued working in that capacity until AXA terminated the agreement in 2015. * * *

The record reflects that, under the 1996 agreement, claimant did not have a set work schedule or work location, he was not assigned a sales territory and did not have to turn in any reports. Claimant was not supervised, could work from home and could use his own computer. Claimant had to pay for the cost of his liability insurance and was not paid for any expenses. AXA required reimbursement from claimant for the cost of business cards and stationery and claimant had to pay for the use of AXA’s clerical staff and office space. Claimant was responsible for developing his own client base and, although AXA would sometimes provide a sales lead, claimant testified that he did not have to pursue it. Claimant determined what products best suited his clients’ needs and he could sell the products of AXA’s competitors. AXA did provide claimant with promotional materials, and claimant was paid by commission, with the commission rate set by AXA or whichever company offered the product that he sold to the client. Matter of Lee (AXA Advisors LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 04518, Third Dept 7-22-21

 

You might also like
INQUIRY INTO WAIVER OF INSANITY DEFENSE DEFICIENT.
PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A MAKESHIFT PLATFORM ON A LULL (FORKLIFT) USED TO REACH ELEVATED AREAS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER WHO LEASED THE LULL AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND PRECLUDES A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A VEHICLE BASED SOLELY ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THEREFORE THE STATUTE APPLIES HERE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WAS PRE-ENACTMENT, THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS POST-ENACTMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Family Members Failed to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Care-Provider Exercised Undue Influence Over Decedent
COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.
LOCAL LAW WHICH HAD BEEN DECLARED VOID COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER’S USE OF THE LAND FOR MINING WAS A VALID PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING USE (THIRD DEPT).
SCHOOL-GROUNDS RESTRICTION APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENDERS SERVING A SENTENCE FOR ONE OF THE OFFENSES ENUMERATED IN THE EXECUTIVE LAW AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, SINCE PETITIONER, WHO WAS A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WAS SERVING A SENTENCE FOR BURGLARY AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, THE SCHOOL-GROUNDS RESTRICTION DID NOT APPLY TO HIM (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE UNAVAILABILIITY OF PARKING FOR WORK REQUIRED THAT CLAIMANT CROSS A DANGEROUS... THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS (BSA) PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION...