You are here: / / TUTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TUTORING SERVICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT...

TUTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TUTORING SERVICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined a tutor employed by a tutoring service, Mulberry, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Mulberry did not advertise for tutors, but received inquiries directly from potential tutors who heard about Mulberry through various means. It then collected their resumes and notified them when an opening became available. When claimant was notified, Mulberry’s director reviewed his resume and qualifications, verified his certifications and met with him to discuss the details of the tutoring position, including the pay rate, which was set at $40 per hour and was a percentage of the fee that it charged to its clients. After Mulberry matched a tutor with a student, it provided the tutor with a “student profile” containing pertinent information about the student, but it did not dictate the lesson plan, observe the tutoring sessions or oversee the instruction. Once a tutor accepted an assignment, the tutor set up the instructional schedule directly with the student and/or parent and Mulberry did not impose set work hours. A tutor, however, was free to reject an assignment.

Although tutors could conduct tutoring sessions at other locations, most sessions occurred at Mulberry’s learning center where it had books, supplies, computers and equipment available for the tutors to use even though they typically used either their own or their students’ instructional materials. When tutors worked at Mulberry’s learning center, they completed a time sheet or calendar detailing their hours and the students they tutored. Folders that were provided by Mulberry containing student information were maintained at the learning center. Mulberry also provided the tutors with a “tutoring record” to help them keep track of their hours, the students they instructed and the material covered, as well as a monthly invoice form that the tutors could submit to receive payment, which was tendered regardless of whether Mulberry received payment from its clients. Mulberry did not reimburse tutors for expenses, withhold taxes from their compensation or prohibit them from working for others. However, it sometimes assisted in resolving scheduling issues and intervened in the rare case when there was a problem with a student. Moreover, if a tutor had accepted an assignment and then became unavailable for an extended period of time, Mulberry would find a replacement. Significantly, Mulberry labeled the tutors “our teachers” and referred to their instruction as “our lesson plans” in its marketing literature, giving the impression that the tutors were, in fact, Mulberry’s employees.

In view of the foregoing, we find that Mulberry exercised control over important aspects of the tutors’ work notwithstanding its lack of involvement in the actual instruction provided by the tutors. Mulberry was not simply a referral agency, but held itself out as the tutors’ employer and acted as such. Matter of Eidelson (Mulberry Tree Ctr. LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 05645, Third Dept 8-2-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TUTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TUTORING SERVICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/TUTORS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, TUTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TUTORING SERVICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old Respondent In Favor of Petitioner’s 13-Year-Old Daughter Pursuant to Family Court Act 812—Respondent and Daughter Had Been Boyfriend-Girlfriend and Had Been Intimate But They Were Not Members of the Same Family or Household and Never Lived Together—Respondent Fit Within the Expanded Definition of “Member of the Same Family or Household” As the Phrase Is Used In Family Court Act 812, Thereby Providing Family Court with Jurisdiction Over the Proceedings
THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, NOT THE PRIOR RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL WITH THE LETTER ATTACHED, TRIGGERED THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THE OMISSION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE SERVED WITH THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE COULD BE REMEDIED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B (THIRD DEPT).
TRADE SECRET EXEMPTION DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF DISCLOSURE WOULD RESULT IN COMPETITIVE INJURY.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS.
Summary Judgment in Neglect Proceeding Based Upon Proceeding Concerning Other Children in Another County Upheld​
EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S FINDING PLAINTIFF’S HEAD INJURY WAS A SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HUSBAND CREDIT FOR HIGHER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER FINAL CHILD SUPPORT AWARD UPON DIVORCE.
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL DURING TRYOUTS CONDUCTED IN THE GYMNASIUM DUE TO WEATHER.

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

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION... ATTORNEY HIRED FOR DOCUMENT REVIEW WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT...