In re Claim of Autotte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Claim of Autotte

172 A.D.2d 900, 568 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264

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

DecidedApril 4, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 900 (In re Claim of Autotte) 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 Claim of Autotte, 172 A.D.2d 900, 568 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 6, 1989, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board decided, in a factual pattern strikingly similar to Matter of Chopik (Newman—Hartnett) (145 AD2d 747), that the employer herein was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated because the models involved were employees and not independent contractors. In our view, no material distinction or difference can be drawn between the factual pattern in Matter of Chopik and the situation involved here. We add that we find no merit in the employer’s contention that the Board’s decision herein violated the rule of "prior precedent” (see, Matter of Martin [Troy Publ. Co.—Roberts], 70 NY2d 679). The case of Matter of Lerczak (Hartnett) (156 AD2d 882), relied upon by the employer, is clearly distinguishable from the situation involved in this appeal. Accordingly, the Board’s decision should be affirmed.

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Commissioner of Labor. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 6, 1989, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board decided, in a factual pattern strikingly similar to Matter of Chopik (Newman—Hartnett) (145 AD2d 747), that the employer herein was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated because the models involved were employees and not independent contractors. In our view, no material distinction or difference can be drawn between the factual pattern in Matter of Chopik and the situation involved here. We add that we find no merit in the employer’s contention that the Board’s decision herein violated the rule of "prior precedent” (see, Matter of Martin [Troy Publ. Co.—Roberts], 70 NY2d 679). The case of Matter of Lerczak (Hartnett) (156 AD2d 882), relied upon by the employer, is clearly distinguishable from the situation involved in this appeal. Accordingly, the Board’s decision should be affirmed.

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Commissioner of Labor. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 900, 568 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-claim-of-autotte-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack