You are here: / / SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE.

SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE.

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant security officer was not an employee of TMR, which was essentially a placement service which posted security jobs on a secure website:

TMR posted security-related jobs on a secure website for its clients, who dictated the hours to be worked, as well as the scope of services that were needed. The security officers, after browsing through these postings, would request to work on any particular job, which TMR ultimately awarded on a “first come, first serve” basis. The security officers were free to select a job that they wanted and were not prohibited from seeking jobs from TMR’s competitors. TMR did not provide the security officers with training or equipment nor did TMR pay the security officers a set hourly rate. Furthermore, once TMR placed the security officer with a client, TMR did not enter into a contract with the security officer. While a security officer could be in the middle of a continuing job for a client, he or she was nonetheless free to leave at any point and work elsewhere. In addition, if an issue arose with the security officer’s performance, the client dealt with the security officer directly, and TMR would be notified if it needed to provide a substitute security officer. Matter of TMR Sec. Consultants, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08922, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE)/SECURITY OFFICERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE)

You might also like
Dry-Cleaning Chemical, PERC, Is Not “Petroleum” Within the Meaning of the Navigation Law—Plaintiff’s Suit for Clean-Up of PERC Under the Navigation Law Properly Dismissed
Events Before Last Custody Order Could Be Considered re: “Best Interests of Child” Even Though Only Post-Custody-Order Events Can Be Considered re: “Change of Circumstances”
IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
SKIDMORE COLLEGE STUDENT REINSTATED AFTER EXPULSION, SCHOOL DID NOT FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES IN THE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATION, SEVERELY PREJUDICING THE STUDENT 3RD DEPT.
Two-Part Inquiry for Determining Whether a Dispute is Arbitrable Under a Collective Bargaining Agreement Clearly Explained and Applied
THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION CONSTITUTED A FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (THIRD DEPT).
DAMAGE TO A LEG MUSCLE, HERE THE HAMSTRING, SUPPORTED A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL REPORT DID NOT ADHERE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 137 AND COULD BE DEEMED INADMISSIBLE FOR THAT REASON, THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO MAKE A TIMELY OBJECTION TO THE REPORT; THE PRECLUSION OF THE REPORT WAS THEREFORE ERROR (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

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HUSBAND CREDIT FOR HIGHER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS... BIG APPLE MAP RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY WAS AWARE OF MANHOLE-SIDEWALK...