In re LTI, Inc.

57 A.D.3d 1067, 869 N.Y.2d 262
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 4, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1067 (In re LTI, 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 LTI, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 1067, 869 N.Y.2d 262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

[1068]*1068In a prior decision, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that LTI, Inc. was the employer of certain individuals it retained to administer tests to job candidates and found that it was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to such individuals. The Board’s decision was subsequently affirmed by this Court (Matter of La Fleur [LTI, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 27 AD3d 935 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 783 [2006]). The Court of Appeals, however, declined to undertake review because the decision was nonfinal. As a result, further administrative proceedings followed, which resulted in a second decision by the Board ruling that the amount of additional unemployment insurance contributions owed by LTI was $1,122.06. LTI appeals.

Initially, we note that LTI does not contest the Board’s calculation of the amount of the additional contributions owed. Rather, it argues that it does not owe any additional contributions because the individuals at issue were not its employees. Inasmuch as this question was squarely decided in Matter of La Fleur (LTI, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (supra), it has res judicata effect and is binding as the law of the case in the instant proceeding (see Matter of Robinson [New York Times Newspaper Div. of N.Y. Times Co.—Hartnett], 168 AD2d 746, 747 [1990], lv denied 78 NY2d 853 [1991]). In view of this, and given LTI’s concession that it has brought the instant appeal solely for the purpose of obtaining a final order reviewable by the Court of Appeals, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, 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

Related

Bennett v. Bennett
99 A.D.3d 1129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re the Claim of Shamilov
68 A.D.3d 1293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Gosse v. Saint Peter's Hospital
23 Misc. 3d 892 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.D.3d 1067, 869 N.Y.2d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lti-inc-nyappdiv-2008.