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
COURT ORDER WAS AMBIGUOUS AND ERRONEOUS AND COULD NOT THEREFORE BE THE BASIS OF A CONTEMPT FINDING AND SANCTIONS (THIRD DEPT). ​
EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF BENEFITS.
IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE REMOTELY OPERATED CRANE COULD FEASIBLY BE MADE SAFER; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERLY DECLARED A RENTAL-UNIT SHORTAGE-EMERGENCY AND PROPERLY IMPOSED LIMITATIONS ON RENT INCREASES DURING THE EMERGENCY PERIOD (THIRD DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT THE EXPERT TESTIMONY PLAINTIFF COULD OFFER AT TRIAL DID NOT LIMIT THE ISSUES TO BE TRIED; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST AWAIT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Transcriber of Administrative Hearings Was an Employee Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Appeals Board Not Required to Follow or to Explain Why It Didn’t Follow an “Unappealed” Ruing by an Administrative Law Judge
MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS.

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...