In re Aleinikoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Aleinikoff

170 A.D.2d 742, 565 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1407

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 1991·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 27, 1989, which assessed Eugene N. Aleinikoff for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

The record supports the conclusion that Eugene N. Aleinikoff exercised sufficient direction and control over his typists to establish their status as employees (see, Matter of Frattallone [Victor Addressing Corp.—Levine], 39 AD2d 984). He provided them with their assignments, which they were required to pick up at a mutually suitable time, and he directed them as to the priority of their work. They had access to his office when he was not there and could use his supplies and equipment. He also reviewed their work and had them make corrections (see, supra; see also, Matter of Eastern Dist. Ct. Reporters [Levine], 48 AD2d 744). While there may have been factors which point to a contrary conclusion, the evidence presented shows a sufficient amount of control to support the determination of the existence of an employer/employee relationship (see, Matter of Publications Data [Ross], 78 AD2d 747).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 27, 1989, which assessed Eugene N. Aleinikoff for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

The record supports the conclusion that Eugene N. Aleinikoff exercised sufficient direction and control over his typists to establish their status as employees (see, Matter of Frattallone [Victor Addressing Corp.—Levine], 39 AD2d 984). He provided them with their assignments, which they were required to pick up at a mutually suitable time, and he directed them as to the priority of their work. They had access to his office when he was not there and could use his supplies and equipment. He also reviewed their work and had them make corrections (see, supra; see also, Matter of Eastern Dist. Ct. Reporters [Levine], 48 AD2d 744). While there may have been factors which point to a contrary conclusion, the evidence presented shows a sufficient amount of control to support the determination of the existence of an employer/employee relationship (see, Matter of Publications Data [Ross], 78 AD2d 747).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

In re Aleinikoff, 170 A.D.2d 742, 565 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

170 A.D.2d 742 (In re Aleinikoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related