In re Citizens National Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Citizens National Bank

1 A.D.2d 865, 148 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6307

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 865 (In re Citizens National Bank) 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

In re Citizens National Bank, 1 A.D.2d 865, 148 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the Citizens National Bank of Hammond from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that it was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The appellant bank had three full time employees. In addition, in the years in question, it had a cleaning woman come in one day a week to work for about two hours, mopping the floor, sweeping and dusting, washing the windows and polishing brass work. She was paid a flat rate of $1, later $3, for this work. The only question is whether the cleaning woman was an employee, thus making the bank the employer of four persons, or whether she was an independent contractor. The board rejected the independent contractor theory and held that the cleaning woman was an employee. This finding, which was sustained by substantial evidence, is conclusive. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Bergan, Halpern, Zeller and Gibson, JJ.

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

Appeal by the Citizens National Bank of Hammond from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that it was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The appellant bank had three full time employees. In addition, in the years in question, it had a cleaning woman come in one day a week to work for about two hours, mopping the floor, sweeping and dusting, washing the windows and polishing brass work. She was paid a flat rate of $1, later $3, for this work. The only question is whether the cleaning woman was an employee, thus making the bank the employer of four persons, or whether she was an independent contractor. The board rejected the independent contractor theory and held that the cleaning woman was an employee. This finding, which was sustained by substantial evidence, is conclusive. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Bergan, Halpern, Zeller and Gibson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 865, 148 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-citizens-national-bank-nyappdiv-1956.