Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Claim of Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 25, 1985Published

1Dissent

Harvey, J. (dissenting).

We respectfully dissent.

By a written contract in which both parties stipulated that claimant would become an independent contractor, claimant undertook to act as a sales representative of Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc., a stockbroker. Generally speaking, the contract did not provide any control over claimant’s activities *688other than the control necessitated by securities laws and regulations. Claimant was paid no salary and had no drawing account. He received a percentage of the broker’s commissions and was free to discount his commission at his own option in dealing…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In re Ted Is Back Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. State Tax CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. In re 12 Cornelia Street, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Matter of Sullivan Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
  5. In re Ted Is Back Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API