free to engage in other employment, (3) received fringe benefits, (4) was on the employer’s payroll and (5) was on a fixed schedule.” Bynog, 770 N.Y.S.2d 692, 802 N.E.2d at 1093; see Browning v. Ceva Freight, LLC, 885 F.Supp.2d 590, 598 (E.D.N.Y.2012). For similar reasons to those stated above, Plaintiffs allegations that the individual defendants had authority over personnel decisions, payroll, supervision of employees, and hiring and firing power over both Adderley and ACI employees, and that Adderley and ACI shared common ownership, payroll, funds, and materials, are sufficient to plausibly allege con trol and thus an employment relationship for both ACI and the individual defendants under the NYLL. See Connor v. Pier Sixty, LLC, 23 Misc.3d 435, 870 N.Y.S.2d 899, 901 (Sup.Ct.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court finds that the PAC
holding that the extent of  control is a matter which should be explored in discovery and is not an issue which is amenable to a motion to dismiss holding that presumption is applicable in motion to dismiss context holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable holding that motion to dismiss should not  be granted unless the moving party has established that there is no material issue of fact to resolve and that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable 