Claim of Blotko v. Solomon Oliver Mechanical Contracting

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Blotko v. Solomon Oliver Mechanical Contracting

91 A.D.3d 990, 935 N.Y.2d 910

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 990 (Claim of Blotko v. Solomon Oliver Mechanical Contracting) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Blotko v. Solomon Oliver Mechanical Contracting, 91 A.D.3d 990, 935 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, A.P.J.

[991]*991We affirm. “The existence of an employer-employee relationship in a particular case is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its finding must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Mendoza v Dolgetta, 81 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Duma v Baca, 83 AD3d 1228, 1228 [2011]). Here, there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that Oliver did not hire claimant to perform demolition work at the time of the accident. The opposing testimony from claimant and his witnesses created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Mendoza v Dolgetta, 81 AD3d at 1044). Thus, despite proof in the record that would support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Lai Pock Lew v Younger, 69 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2010]), we find no basis to disturb the Board’s decision that claimant was not SOMC’s employee.

Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mercure, A.P.J.

[991]*991We affirm. “The existence of an employer-employee relationship in a particular case is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its finding must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Mendoza v Dolgetta, 81 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Duma v Baca, 83 AD3d 1228, 1228 [2011]). Here, there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that Oliver did not hire claimant to perform demolition work at the time of the accident. The opposing testimony from claimant and his witnesses created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Mendoza v Dolgetta, 81 AD3d at 1044). Thus, despite proof in the record that would support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Lai Pock Lew v Younger, 69 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2010]), we find no basis to disturb the Board’s decision that claimant was not SOMC’s employee.

Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 990, 935 N.Y.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-blotko-v-solomon-oliver-mechanical-contracting-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack