Freelancers with Assistants Covered Under New York’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act

On April 24, 2025, the New York Supreme Court First Appellate Department held that freelance workers can bring claims pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-930 et seq., also known as the Freelance Isn’t Free Act (“FIFA”), even where they work with other people to fulfill a freelance project.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Joseph Chen, a photographer, and Dina Kozlovksa, a model, brought their claims against a bridal shop under FIFA for unpaid compensation of freelance services rendered. The Defendant-Appellant argued, on appeal after denial of their motion for summary judgment, that Chen was not considered a freelance worker because he brought three assistants, viewed as being counter to the statutory definition of a “freelance worker” under FIFA as “any natural person or any organization composed of no more than one natural person […].”

The Court was not persuaded by this statutory interpretation, finding that “nothing in the statutory definition of ‘freelance worker’ negates such status where a person or single-person organization uses assistants temporarily hired as independent contractors to fulfill a freelance project.” Accordingly, Chen was entitled to summary judgment as against Defendant-Appellant.

Separately, prior to commencing litigation, Chen and Kozlovska checked a box on an administrative complaint form filed with the Office of Labor Policy & Standards stating that they did not work individually, but “as part of a group of two or more people.” Defendant-Appellant further contended that because of this representation, they were also precluded from recovery under FIFA. The court rejected this argument. The Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Labor Policy & Standards stated that a “checked box on the complaint form is not dispositive of whether a freelancer has a valid claim, or whether FIFA applies to the freelancer’s claim. Legal questions concerning how FIFA applies in a particular case are reserved for a court of competent jurisdiction to decide.”

As to Kozlovska, the court found that her prior use of a modeling agency does not alter her status as a freelancer. The law does not “mandate direct contracting between a freelance worker and the hiring party,” the court said.

The Appellate Court’s ruling modifies a lower court order that denied summary judgment to the Plaintiffs-Appellants.