In re the Claim of Atac

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Atac

265 A.D.2d 777, 697 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10914

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 777 (In re the Claim of Atac) 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 the Claim of Atac, 265 A.D.2d 777, 697 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 25, 1998, which ruled that Fashion Realty Group, Ltd. was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.

Claimant worked as a sales representative and broker for Fashion Realty Group, Ltd. a commercial real estate brokerage firm which acted as a liaison for companies seeking to lease property. Notably, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board credited evidence indicating that, inter alia, claimant had no written contract with Fashion Realty (cf., Labor Law § 511 [19]), was paid a rate set by the company and was sometimes asked to attend office meetings. In addition, claimant was forbidden to work for Fashion Realty’s competitors and was expected to let someone in the office know in advance if he was not going to be in. Other indicia of employment included Fashion Realty providing claimant with training, some client leads, business cards, supplies and forms, office space, a telephone and a computer. Under the circumstances, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Fashion Realty exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant’s work to establish that he was an employee and not an independent contractor (see, Matter of Feldstein [Feathered Nest — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 992; cf., Matter of 12 Cornelia St. [Ross], 56 NY2d 895, 897). Fashion Realty’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, 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 June 25, 1998, which ruled that Fashion Realty Group, Ltd. was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.

Claimant worked as a sales representative and broker for Fashion Realty Group, Ltd. a commercial real estate brokerage firm which acted as a liaison for companies seeking to lease property. Notably, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board credited evidence indicating that, inter alia, claimant had no written contract with Fashion Realty (cf., Labor Law § 511 [19]), was paid a rate set by the company and was sometimes asked to attend office meetings. In addition, claimant was forbidden to work for Fashion Realty’s competitors and was expected to let someone in the office know in advance if he was not going to be in. Other indicia of employment included Fashion Realty providing claimant with training, some client leads, business cards, supplies and forms, office space, a telephone and a computer. Under the circumstances, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Fashion Realty exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant’s work to establish that he was an employee and not an independent contractor (see, Matter of Feldstein [Feathered Nest — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 992; cf., Matter of 12 Cornelia St. [Ross], 56 NY2d 895, 897). Fashion Realty’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 777, 697 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-atac-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack