work at home that the home achieves the status of a place of employment,” is within “the course of ... employment” under New York’s worker’s compensation statute, even if injured while driving home. Fine v. S.M.C. Microsystems Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 912, 554 N.Y.S.2d 827, 553 N.E.2d 1337, 1338-39 (1990). As we have said, we think it plain that a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Irene Lifson was traveling home in order to carry out “a specific work assignment for the employer’s benefit at the end of the particular homeward trip.” The magistrate judge noted that there was not much evidence that Irene worked regularly at home. But that is probative only of the second branch of New York’s dual purpose test; a claimant satisfies the test by meeting 965, 667 N.Y.S.2d 116, 117 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Donnell v. Waccabuc Country Club, 29 A.D.2d
holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee holding that a doctor who was traveling to the hospital simply to be on call and not in response to a page was in the course of business even though she was not required to be in any particular location while on call holding a tape of a telephone call was admissible because one party to the call consented to the recording holding that lifeguard on call was in course of employment because she was in a position to return quickly to work and employer benefitted from her availability holding that a truck driver who was on call was not compensated for an injury in a motel room provided by his employer