You are here: / / CRISIS COUNSELOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

CRISIS COUNSELOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a counselor (called a “specialist”) who worked for Crisis Care Network (CCN), a provider of crisis intervention services to employers which have experienced tragedies, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. CCN contracts with an employer's designated employee assistance program (EAP):

… [A]fter contracting with an EAP, CCN recruits specialists from its self-created database and screens them to ensure that they have the qualifications required by the EAP. If a specialist has the proper qualifications, CCN offers that individual the assignment at a set hourly rate of pay. If accepted, as in claimant's case, the parties enter into a written agreement governing that particular assignment and CCN informs the specialist, based upon instructions from the EAP, of the date, time and location that the specialist is to report. While on assignment, the specialist must represent that he or she is from the EAP and is not permitted to solicit clients, although there is no prohibition against a specialist otherwise engaging in private practice or working for CCN's competitors. Except in very limited circumstances, CCN pays specialists within 45 days after services are rendered upon the submission of the proper paper work by the specialist regardless of whether it has yet been paid by the EAP, and CCN also provides reimbursement for travel expenses. CCN also provides voluntary training. If a specialist is unable to report to an assignment, he or she must notify CCN and cannot select a replacement. Furthermore, CCN provides specialists with informational handouts to be used on assignments, as well as professional guidelines that are based upon the expectations of the EAP, and the specialists must provide reports summarizing the counseling sessions per the requirements of the EAP. Matter of Torres (Crisis Care Network, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01710, 3rd Dept 3-10-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CRISIS COUNSELOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT GIVE TIMELY NOTICE OF ALIBI EVIDENCE, COUNTY COURT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY PRECLUDING THE ALIBI EVIDENCE; THE UNPRESERVED ERROR WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA.
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).
THE CITY FIREFIGHTERS WHO, AS ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES, WERE REQUIRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER TO WORK DURING THE PANDEMIC, SOUGHT TIME-OFF OR MONETARY COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO THE TIME-OFF AFFORDED THE NONESSENTIAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE SENT HOME DURING THE PANDEMIC PURSUANT TO THE SAME THE EXECUTIVE ORDER; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT DETERMINED ARBITRATION OF THE ISSUE WAS PRECLUDED BY PUBLIC POLICY (THIRD DEPT).
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE RESPONDENTS (MOTHER AND FATHER) VIOLATED THE ORDER OF SUPERVISION; IN THIS ORDER-VIOLATION PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED UPON AND REFERRED TO EVIDENCE, SOME OF WHICH WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, FROM THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, DECIDED TO ENHANCE DEFENDANT’S AGREED-UPON SENTENCE BASED UPON HER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY PROBATION FOR THE PRESENTENCE REPORT; THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT ASK FOR THE ENHANCED SENTENCE; THE DEFENSE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, THEREBY DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS (THIRD DEPT).
Service Requirements of Business Corporation Law Trumped CPLR
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT TO CONCURRENT SENTENCES, THE PLEA AGREEMENT CONTEMPLATED CONCURRENT SENTENCES AND THE JUDGE’S STATEMENTS CREATED CONFUSION ON THE ISSUE; IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTENTS OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT, THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE VACATED AND CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE IMPOSED (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

PROMOTIONAL SALES MODEL WAS AN EMPLOYEE. PART-TIME BOOKKEEPER WAS AN EMPLOYEE