In re Human Performance, Inc.

28 A.D.3d 971, 814 N.Y.S.2d 317
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 20, 2006·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 28, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision assessing Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance [972] contributions on remuneration paid to massage therapists and others similarly situated.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness (hereinafter Woodstock), is a wellness center and day spa that provides a variety of services and employs many different professionals, including yoga instructors, exercise physiologists, aestheticians, massage therapists and nail technicians. It was assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians (hereinafter collectively referred to as therapists) who the Department of Labor regarded as Woodstock’s employees. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that the therapists were Woodstock’s employees and adhered to this decision upon reconsideration. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. Evidence was presented that Woodstock established the fees charged for the services rendered by the therapists, a percentage of which they received, scheduled services for its clients during times when the therapists agreed to be available for work, fielded customer complaints, furnished the therapists with workers’ compensation coverage and provided the space, equipment and supplies for the therapists to perform their services. In our view, such evidence establishes that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists’ work so as to be considered their employer, notwithstanding other evidence in the record that would support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Kloss [Greater Saratoga Corp.— Sweeney], 220 AD2d 964 [1995]). Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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

In re Human Performance, Inc., 28 A.D.3d 971, 814 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

28 A.D.3d 971 (In re Human Performance, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Campbell (Commr. of Labor)
143 A.D.3d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Raynor (Commr. of Labor)
135 A.D.3d 1261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re Exotic Island Enterprises
135 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Fatone (Commr. of Labor)
133 A.D.3d 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
MatterofYogaVidaNYC,Inc.[Commr.ofLabor]
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
In re Yoga Vida NYC, Inc.
119 A.D.3d 1314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Automotive Service Systems, Inc.
56 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Lombard
52 A.D.3d 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)