In re Stephen E. Feldman, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stephen E. Feldman, P. C.

216 A.D.2d 626, 627 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5866

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 1, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 8, 1994, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision assessing Stephen E. Feldman, P.C. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

After a hearing, the Board found Stephen E. Feldman, P. C. (hereinafter the corporation) liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions attributable to its employment of Kenneth Feldman, a part-time attorney. The corporation contends that the Board erred in making this decision because Feldman was not an employee, but rather was an independent contractor. However, inasmuch as the record reveals that, among other things, the corporation reviewed Feldman’s work, provided Feldman with use of its office and staff, billed clients and paid Feldman directly, we reject this contention and find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Spain, 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 March 8, 1994, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision assessing Stephen E. Feldman, P.C. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

After a hearing, the Board found Stephen E. Feldman, P. C. (hereinafter the corporation) liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions attributable to its employment of Kenneth Feldman, a part-time attorney. The corporation contends that the Board erred in making this decision because Feldman was not an employee, but rather was an independent contractor. However, inasmuch as the record reveals that, among other things, the corporation reviewed Feldman’s work, provided Feldman with use of its office and staff, billed clients and paid Feldman directly, we reject this contention and find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re Stephen E. Feldman, P. C., 216 A.D.2d 626, 627 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

216 A.D.2d 626 (In re Stephen E. Feldman, P. C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related