You are here: / / CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS...

CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, who delivered baked goods for the employer under a distribution contract, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Initially, we are unpersuaded by the company’s contention that the Board erred in determining that claimant was an employee as a matter of law pursuant to Labor Law § 511 (1) (b). Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) defines “[e]mployment” for unemployment insurance purposes to include “any service by a person for an employer . . . as an agent-driver or commission-driver engaged in distributing . . . bakery products.” According to the company, claimant did not earn a commission but earned revenue upon selling the bakery products that he purchased at prices set by him. The record, however, supports the Board’s finding that the actual relationship between the parties did not constitute that of a buyer and seller.  …

Additionally, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the company exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over claimant to establish an employer-employee relationship under common-law principles. The company retained numerous rights under the distribution agreement, including the right to set the price of the products sold to claimant and the right to negotiate with chain outlets to determine price and terms of sale, and it retained the authority to sell distribution rights purchased by claimant or perform his delivery obligations under certain circumstances. Claimant was further required to deliver fresh products and remove stale products in a defined area, sell any additional products provided by the company, cooperate with its marketing programs, remit settlement information to it each week, maintain certain chain outlet customers even if not profitable to him and not engage in any business activity that directly competed with the company or interfered with his obligations under the distribution agreement. In addition, claimant was interviewed by the company, relied on certain equipment and supplies provided by it, was paid on a weekly basis and was trained, instructed, supervised and monitored by a company manager regarding his deliveries. Matter of Cowan (Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distrib., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 02229, Third Dept 3-29-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (LABOR LAW 511, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DELIVERIES  (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
DESPITE THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A BEST INTERESTS HEARING.
CLAIMANT WAS ASSAULTED ON TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROPERTY WHILE WEARING HER TRANSIT AUTHORITY UNIFORM, ALTHOUGH SHE WAS COMMUTING TO WORK, HER COMMUTE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER WORK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE IN HARASSMENT STATUTE NEED NOT BE PLED AND NEGATED IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENT; THE EXCLUSIONS ARE PROVISOS WHICH CAN BE RAISED AS DEFENSES.
TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO COMPEL THE WITNESS WHO ASSERTED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION TO TESTIFY OR TO ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE IN FRONT OF THE JURY (THIRD DEPT).
Court Erred In Applying the “15% Increase in Income” Criteria for Support Modification to an Order Which Predated the 2010 Effective Date of the “15% Increase” Statutory Amendment/the 2008 Order Was Incorporated But Not Merged Into a 2012 Judgment
Injury Caused by Dog’s Rambunctious Behavior Not Actionable
Criteria for Court Review of Agency Action Explained
THE DOCTOR ORDERED A CERTAIN DOSAGE OF MEDICATION BE ADMINISTERED FOR “1” MINUTE TO ADDRESS SYMPTOMS OF A STROKE, BUT A NURSE MISTAKENLY PROGRAMMED THE MACHINE TO ADMINISTER THE MEDICATION FOR “11” MINUTES; THE ACTION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE (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

PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED... QUORUM REQUIREMENT NOT MET, CERTIFICATES OF NOMINATION INVALID (THIRD DEPT)...