In re Santoro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Santoro

173 A.D.2d 1042, 570 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7241

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

DecidedMay 16, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 1042 (In re Santoro) 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 Santoro, 173 A.D.2d 1042, 570 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 21, 1990, which assessed Joseph F. Santoro for unemployment insurance contributions.

Substantial evidence in the record supports the determination that the distributors engaged by Joseph F. Santoro, a wholesaler of snack food, were his employees and not independent contractors. Although the distributors signed independent contractor agreements, those same agreements vested Santoro with substantial control over their activities (see, Matter of Pepsi Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp. [Hartnett], 144 AD2d 220, 222). For example, Santoro set the terms and prices at which the distributors buy the product, the distributors were limited to a designated area and any replacements were subject to Santoro’s approval (see, Matter of Oakes [Stroehman Bakeries—Roberts], 137 AD2d 927). In addition, in the case of unsatisfactory service to a particular outlet, after giving 10 days’ notice Santoro could deem those outlets abandoned and make other arrangements to serve them if the problem per[1043]*1043sisted. While other factors may support Santoro’s contention that the distributors were independent contractors, affirmance is required as the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of CDK Delivery Serv. [Hartnett], 151 AD2d 932, 933).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, 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 February 21, 1990, which assessed Joseph F. Santoro for unemployment insurance contributions.

Substantial evidence in the record supports the determination that the distributors engaged by Joseph F. Santoro, a wholesaler of snack food, were his employees and not independent contractors. Although the distributors signed independent contractor agreements, those same agreements vested Santoro with substantial control over their activities (see, Matter of Pepsi Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp. [Hartnett], 144 AD2d 220, 222). For example, Santoro set the terms and prices at which the distributors buy the product, the distributors were limited to a designated area and any replacements were subject to Santoro’s approval (see, Matter of Oakes [Stroehman Bakeries—Roberts], 137 AD2d 927). In addition, in the case of unsatisfactory service to a particular outlet, after giving 10 days’ notice Santoro could deem those outlets abandoned and make other arrangements to serve them if the problem per[1043]*1043sisted. While other factors may support Santoro’s contention that the distributors were independent contractors, affirmance is required as the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of CDK Delivery Serv. [Hartnett], 151 AD2d 932, 933).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 1042, 570 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-santoro-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack