You are here: / / PARALEGAL IN SMALL LAW OFFICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEF...

PARALEGAL IN SMALL LAW OFFICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined claimant, a paralegal in a small law office, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [C]laimant's work was assigned by the law office, he could not reassign his work to anyone, he was paid hourly and he was required to submit time sheets reflecting both client billable hours and administrative hours. Furthermore, claimant's work was reviewed by an attorney, any corrections were to be made by claimant, the law office was ultimately responsible for the work product, the law office supplied claimant with all of the equipment and material needed to perform the work and any expenses were reimbursed by the law office. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that the law office exercised sufficient control over claimant's work to establish an employer-employee relationship … . Matter of Kristensen (Law Offs. of David C. Birdoff–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03035, 3rd Dept 4-21-16


You might also like
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY THEORY 3RD DEPT.
COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET.
Violation of Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent Was Harmless Error—Elements of “Extreme Emotional Disturbance” Defense to Murder Explained
THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER A PRIOR ELBOW INJURY ADDED TO THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT SHOULDER INJURY; THE BOARD DEPARTED FROM PRECEDENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION (THIRD DEPT).
WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT).
CERTAIN FOIL REQUESTS RE: THE TRAINING AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (THRID DEPT).
WHEN PURELY ECONOMIC INJURY IS ALLEGED, THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES; HERE PLAINTIFF RESIDED IN FLORIDA AND, PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, THE FLORIDA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED, RENDERING THE FRAUDULENT-TRANSFER ACTION UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Did Not Link Illness Caused by Ingestion of a Ubiquitous Mold to Workplace

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

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED WATER WAS NOT DIVERTED ONTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY... RADIATION THERAPIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS,...