You are here: / / OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT...

OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FRANCHISOR.

The Third Department determined claimant, who operated a janitorial cleaning business, based upon a franchise agreement with Jan-Pro, was an employee of Jan-Pro and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record evidence demonstrates that Jan-Pro assigned claimant a specific geographic territory and required new franchisees to undergo initial mandatory training, which was paid for by Jan-Pro. Franchisees were also required to operate the business in accordance with the procedures established at the training and the standards set forth by Jan-Pro … . To that end, franchisees had to use Jan-Pro-sanctioned equipment, supplies, products and business forms … . Jan-Pro helped resolve any complaints between a customer and a franchisee and retained the right to discontinue a franchisee’s services to any client any time … . Jan-Pro provided franchisees with a starter set of business cards, which contained Jan-Pro’s logo, and claimant’s business card listed Jan-Pro’s name, logo and address … . Although claimant had the option of designing his own business card, any such designs required Jan-Pro’s approval. Furthermore, according to the franchise agreement, if claimant developed any new concepts or techniques that improved Jan-Pro’s business, they became Jan-Pro’s property … .

The franchise agreement also contained a non-compete provision barring claimant from operating for one year in any area of Jan-Pro’s affiliates or franchises … . Moreover, the franchise agreement gave Jan-Pro the sole right to invoice and collect from claimant’s customer accounts, maintain revenue records with respect to such accounts and accept payment from claimant’s customers. While the franchise agreement designated claimant as an independent contractor, such terms are not dispositive of claimant’s status … . Matter of Baez (PD 10276, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 07061, 3rd Dept 10-27-16

 

NEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FRANCHISOR)

You might also like
AS NO PETITION WAS BEFORE THE COURT, FAMILY COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER A FORENSIC EVALUATION (THIRD DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED.
THE HEARSAY MISBEHAVIOR REPORT, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY INVESTIGATION, DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S GUILT; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Court Should Have Held Lincoln Hearing to Learn Preferences of 12-Year-Old Child
THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED BY THE CURRENT INSURER FOR INDEMNIFICATION, PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, ONE INSURER HAD SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE CONTAMINANT, THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF THE CLAIM AS REQUIRED BY THEIR POLICIES (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW PROVISIONS, AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, NOT DEFENDANT EMPLOYER, WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEMUTUALIZATION PROCEEDS WHEN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER CONVERTED FROM A MUTUAL TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER PAID THE POLICY PREMIUMS (THIRD DEPT).
Derivative Severe Abuse Finding Reversed
PETITIONERS, RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 COMPELLING THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO HEAR RATE APPEALS WHICH CHALLENGE MEDICAID RATE PAYMENTS; BECAUSE THE REQUESTED RELIEF REQUIRED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MANDAMUS RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE (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

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF... EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL...