You are here: / / MUSIC TEACHERS ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

MUSIC TEACHERS ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

The Third Department determined a business, Eray Inc., which matched students with music teachers, was required to pay unemployment insurance contributions. The court affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that the musicians were employees, not independent contractors:

 

… [W]here the provision of professional services is involved, the relevant inquiry becomes “whether the purported employer retains overall control of important aspects of the services performed” … . The “overall control” test “has been applied to musicians who ‘do not easily lend themselves to direct supervision or control'” … .

During the period in question, Eray matched students with music instructors based upon its assessment of the students’ needs and the instructors’ qualifications, scheduled the lessons and followed up with both the instructors and the students to ensure that they were matched appropriately. While Eray did not dictate the curriculum or the method of instruction, it rented and provided the space in which the teachers almost exclusively conducted their lessons, equipped the space with chairs, music stands, a piano, a drum set and a collection of music books that could be used during those lessons, billed the students, paid the teachers an agreed-upon portion of the fee collected from each student and fielded student complaints. In addition, Eray required the teachers to submit any scheduling changes to it for its approval and notify it if they were going to be late to a lesson or send a substitute in their stead and, when requested, Eray would arrange for substitute instructors. Furthermore, although Eray maintained that the agreements were not enforced, several of the instructors signed agreements that, among other things, prohibited them from contacting students directly or providing private lessons to their students in the two years following their resignation. Matter of Eray Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01024, 3rd Dept 2-11-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (MUSICIAN/MUSIC TEACHERS ARE EMPLOYEES)

You might also like
“For Cause” Challenge to Juror Who Socialized with District Attorney Should Have Been Granted—Concept of “Implied Bias” Explained
GROUNDANYWHERE DRIVERS, LIKE UBER DRIVERS, ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
FOR PURPOSES OF A PERMANENT NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, DIRECT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH A SUITABLE PERSON MEETS THE DEFINITION OF PLACEMENT IN THE “CARE OF AN AUTHORIZED AGENCY” SUCH THAT A PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDING IS AVAILABLE AFTER DIRECT PLACEMENT FOR ONE YEAR; ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN TERMINATED WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED, THE “EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE” WAS INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).
AN UNPAID PENALTY ASSESSED FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE WAS ENTERED AS A SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BY THE COUNTY CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DEFENDANT COULD NOT MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INCONVENIENT FORUM FACTORS MANDATED BY THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITH THE CHILDREN AND FATHER WAS SEEKING TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).
Town, In Reviewing a Special Use Permit Application Under Its Zoning Regulations after the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process Is Complete, Must Rely on the SEQRA Findings and Cannot Make Further Environmental Impact Findings
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; TWO OF THE THREE PRONGS OF THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A SNOWMAKING MA... OIL-SPILL DAMAGES INVESTIGATOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BEN...