Claim of Jennings v. Avanti Express, Inc.

91 A.D.3d 999, 936 N.Y.2d 718
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 5, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 999 (Claim of Jennings v. Avanti Express, Inc.) 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 Jennings v. Avanti Express, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 999, 936 N.Y.2d 718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Garry, J.

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual issue to be resolved by the Board and such determination will be upheld if substantial evidence exists in the record to support it (see Matter of Duma v Baca, 83 AD3d 1228, 1228 [2011]; Matter of Brown v City of Rome, 66 AD3d 1092, 1092 [2009]; Matter of Ellingwood v Liberty Group Publ., Inc., 38 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2007]). Factors relevant to the determination of an employer-[1000]*1000employee relationship include the right to control the alleged employee’s work and set his or her schedule, the manner and method of payment, the right to discharge and the furnishing of equipment (see Matter of Duma v Baca, 83 AD3d at 1228-1229; Matter of Brown v City of Rome, 66 AD3d at 1092). The record reveals that decedent’s delivery schedule was determined by the employer, and the employer provided decedent with a vehicle, an E-ZPass for the payment of tolls and GPS device. Further, the employer required decedent to dress in a certain manner and the employer paid decedent through a payroll service on a weekly basis according to a formula devised by the employer. We thus find that the Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, and must be affirmed, despite the existence of evidence that could support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Duma v Baca, 83 AD3d at 1229; Matter of Enriquez v Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc., 77 AD3d 1149, 1151 [2010]; Matter of Brown v City of Rome, 66 AD3d at 1093).

Peters, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and McCarthy, 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

Related

Matter of Saratoga Skydiving Adventures v. Workers' Compensation Board
145 A.D.3d 1333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Schwenger v. NYU School of Medicine
126 A.D.3d 1056 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Claim of Malave v. Beef & Bourbon, LLC
114 A.D.3d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Claim of Brzezinski v. Gambino
100 A.D.3d 1192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Claim of Ward v. General Utilities
100 A.D.3d 1113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 A.D.3d 999, 936 N.Y.2d 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-jennings-v-avanti-express-inc-nyappdiv-2012.