You are here: / / SECURITY CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE OF OFF-TRACK BETTING FACILITY DESPITE...

SECURITY CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE OF OFF-TRACK BETTING FACILITY DESPITE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DESIGNATION IN AGREEMENT.

The Third Department determined a security consultant who worked undercover at an Off-Track Betting (OTB) facility (Race Palace) was an employee despite the “independent contractor” designation in the written agreement:

… Claimant and the other security consultants provided services exclusively at the location of the Race Palace and claimant's work schedule was established through consultation with another security consultant. He was compensated at a negotiated hourly rate of pay that was set forth in an independent contractor agreement and was required to submit claim forms and activity reports detailing his services within established time frames in order to receive payment from OTB. In addition, he was reimbursed by OTB for certain preapproved expenses and was required to keep all information regarding his services strictly confidential. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that OTB retained the requisite control necessary to establish the existence of an employment relationship … . Although the written agreement designated claimant as an independent contractor, it is not dispositive of claimant's employment status … . Matter of Dwyer (Nassau Regional Off-Track Corp. — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03232, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


You might also like
“Constructive Possession” Theory Applied to Weapon Deemed to Have Been Discarded by Defendant During a Police Pursuit
THE DENIAL OF RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS TO THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​
IN A TAYLOR LAW ARBITRATION, WHERE THE PARTIES CHOOSE THE ARBITRATORS, THE PARTIALITY OF A CHOSEN ARBITRATOR, WITHOUT MORE, IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE OUT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT; CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A CAR CROSSING THE STREET IN FRONT OF HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Derivative Neglect Finding Reversed—Operative Principles Explained
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW TRUST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
TERMINATION OF FATHER’S VISITATION RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED HEARSAY (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

NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES OF... MECHANIC WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF USED CAR SELLER.