at the Defendant’s facility until 4:00 p.m. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Considering the substance of the Plaintiffs work was done off the Defendant’s premises, but he did have to report to the Defendant’s premises, the Court finds that this factor “do[es] not meaningfully cut in favor of either the conclusion that the worker [was] an employee or the conclusion that he ... [was] an independent contractor.” Eisenberg, 237 F.3d at 114. e.Duration of the Relationship The Plaintiff began driving for the Defendant in September 2004 under a one-year contract, which was renewable for successive one-year terms. In the Court’s view, this factor weighs in favor of finding that the Plaintiff was an independent contractor. Clesi v. Zinc Corp., No. 5:01-CV-374, 2001 WL 1223456, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2001) (<HOLDING>). f.Hiring Party’s Right to Assign Additional
holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous holding that the condominium association was not a thirdparty beneficiary of contracts between the owner and contractor of the condominium building and between the general contractor and the subcontractors holding that even though the relationship lasted over a six year period the yeartoyear contracts between the parties weighed in favor of independent contractor holding that duty to ensure that independent contractor performs its work in safe manner arises if the general contractor retains some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs its work holding that putative employers control over result but not manner in which work was performed is factor that weighs in favor of independent contractor status