In re Jack Prince, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jack Prince, Inc.

206 A.D.2d 567, 614 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7195

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 567 (In re Jack Prince, 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

In re Jack Prince, Inc., 206 A.D.2d 567, 614 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 1, 1992, which assessed Jack Prince, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

Substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Jack Prince, Inc., a textile design producer, exercised sufficient direction and control over the services of its design marketers to establish their status as employees. For example, Prince controlled the terms of the sales and serviced and billed the clients upon execution of a sales contract. The marketers were also reimbursed for entertainment, promotion and other sales-related expenses. They were also prohibited from representing direct competitors. The remaining procedural arguments raised on this appeal have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive.

[568]*568Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 1, 1992, which assessed Jack Prince, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

Substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Jack Prince, Inc., a textile design producer, exercised sufficient direction and control over the services of its design marketers to establish their status as employees. For example, Prince controlled the terms of the sales and serviced and billed the clients upon execution of a sales contract. The marketers were also reimbursed for entertainment, promotion and other sales-related expenses. They were also prohibited from representing direct competitors. The remaining procedural arguments raised on this appeal have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive.

[568]*568Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 567, 614 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jack-prince-inc-nyappdiv-1994.