In re Professional Newspaper Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Professional Newspaper Service, Inc.

54 A.D.2d 1015, 388 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14978

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 1015 (In re Professional Newspaper Service, 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 Professional Newspaper Service, Inc., 54 A.D.2d 1015, 388 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 25, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding that appellant was subject to the Unemployment Insurance Law as a covered employer, effective January 1, 1971, and assessing appellant for additional unemployment insurance contributions in the amount of $1,079.89. The appellant is engaged primarily as a newspaper delivery service at a large apartment complex in The Bronx in New York City. It maintains an office and warehouse at the apartment complex. It engaged persons to deliver newspapers to appellant’s customers. The deliverymen are required to pick up and deliver the papers between 2:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The customers pay appellant directly monthly. Appellant pays the deliverymen weekly on the basis of the newspapers delivered. On this appeal appellant claims the board erred (1) in finding that the relationship between appellant and the deliverymen was that of employer-employee and that (2) in failing to dismiss respondent’s case at the close of respondent’s evidence. We disagree. As there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that appellant was an employer of the deliverymen within the meaning of the Labor Law, the decision should be affirmed. The question of whether or not the deliverymen were appellant’s employees or independent contractors was a question of fact and when the board’s findings, as here, are supported by substantial evidence, the board’s decision cannot be disturbed (Matter of Electrolux Corp., 288 NY 440). Appellant’s president testified that its deliverymen were employees prior to August or September of 1972 when appellant made the current arrangement gradually starting around September, 1972. From the evidence of the present arrangement with the deliverymen either of two conflicting inferences might be drawn, and the duty to weigh the evidence and to make the choice rested solely upon the board (Matter of Electrolux Corp., supra, p 443). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Mahoney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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 September 25, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding that appellant was subject to the Unemployment Insurance Law as a covered employer, effective January 1, 1971, and assessing appellant for additional unemployment insurance contributions in the amount of $1,079.89. The appellant is engaged primarily as a newspaper delivery service at a large apartment complex in The Bronx in New York City. It maintains an office and warehouse at the apartment complex. It engaged persons to deliver newspapers to appellant’s customers. The deliverymen are required to pick up and deliver the papers between 2:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The customers pay appellant directly monthly. Appellant pays the deliverymen weekly on the basis of the newspapers delivered. On this appeal appellant claims the board erred (1) in finding that the relationship between appellant and the deliverymen was that of employer-employee and that (2) in failing to dismiss respondent’s case at the close of respondent’s evidence. We disagree. As there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that appellant was an employer of the deliverymen within the meaning of the Labor Law, the decision should be affirmed. The question of whether or not the deliverymen were appellant’s employees or independent contractors was a question of fact and when the board’s findings, as here, are supported by substantial evidence, the board’s decision cannot be disturbed (Matter of Electrolux Corp., 288 NY 440). Appellant’s president testified that its deliverymen were employees prior to August or September of 1972 when appellant made the current arrangement gradually starting around September, 1972. From the evidence of the present arrangement with the deliverymen either of two conflicting inferences might be drawn, and the duty to weigh the evidence and to make the choice rested solely upon the board (Matter of Electrolux Corp., supra, p 443). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Mahoney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 1015, 388 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-professional-newspaper-service-inc-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack