In re Klosner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Klosner

33 A.D.2d 811, 305 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2755

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 811 (In re Klosner) 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 Klosner, 33 A.D.2d 811, 305 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding claimant to be an employee and thus making the employer-appellant liable for unemployment contributions for her benefit. Whether claimant was an employee or an independent contractor, as appellant urges, is a factual issue, and thus the board’s decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Chauffeurs Unlimited [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 1044). The instant record contains more than ample evidence of direction and control by the alleged employer to support the board’s decision. Decision affirmed, with costs to respondent filing brief. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding claimant to be an employee and thus making the employer-appellant liable for unemployment contributions for her benefit. Whether claimant was an employee or an independent contractor, as appellant urges, is a factual issue, and thus the board’s decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Chauffeurs Unlimited [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 1044). The instant record contains more than ample evidence of direction and control by the alleged employer to support the board’s decision. Decision affirmed, with costs to respondent filing brief. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 811, 305 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-klosner-nyappdiv-1969.