You are here: / / CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE...

CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRODUCER OF THE HAIRCARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant, a haircare product sales representative, was not an employee of Alterna Holding Corporation, the producer of the haircare products:

Alterna Holding Corporation produces haircare products that are sold at various retail stores. To facilitate its business, Alterna places sales and education representatives at the stores. These representatives educate store employees and customers about Alterna’s products. Claimant was a representative for Alterna at Sephora stores in the New York City area from April 2012 to September 2014. * * *

The record reflects that claimant received no initial training or instruction on how to perform her duties. Claimant was not required to submit reports, attend meetings or regularly check in with Alterna. Claimant was not responsible for supplying the product to the Sephora stores, and the sales of the product were carried out by Sephora employees. Although Alterna provided claimant with a list of Sephora stores for her to visit, she was not required to visit all the stores on the list if she did not want to, and claimant testified that there were some stores that she never visited. Claimant was never supervised while at the stores or had her performance reviewed. Claimant was advised to work five days a week, but she set her own schedule and she could take time off, including a week at a time, without notifying Alterna. Matter of Jordan (Alterna Holdings Corp.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05266, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

You might also like
MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS, OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AWARE OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY SUCH THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY COUNSEL WAS TRIGGERED (THIRD DEPT).
IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ON AN “EMERGENCY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION AND AN “INVOLUNTARY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION, IT IS ERROR TO COMBINE THEM; HOWEVER A PATIENT COULD REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE COMBINED HEARING IN THIS CASE (THIRD DEPT).
NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY.
FATHER PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE SEVERELY ABUSED ALL THE CHILDREN IN THE HOME; DESPITE THE WORDING OF THE SEVERE ABUSE STATUTE, WHICH USES THE TERM “PARENT,” THE COVERAGE OF THE STATUTE IS NOT LIMITED TO BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).
Independent Reason for Incarceration Precludes Habeas Corpus Relief
PLAINTIFF COUNTY, ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE NURSING HOME WHERE DECEDENT WAS CARED FOR, WAS ENTITLED TO DISCLOSURE OF DECEDENT’S TAX RETURNS; THE RETURNS ARE RELEVANT TO WHETHER DECEDENT’S SON BREACHED THE “RESPONSIBLE PARTY AGREEMENT” WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO USE THE DECEDENT’S INCOME TO PAY THE NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).
Delivery Driver Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee
Sex Offender May Not Avoid Civil Commitment Proceeding by Renouncing Citizenship and Leaving the Country

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

CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH... CLAIMANT TRUCK DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FLS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND UNDER...