In re the Claim of Benjamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Benjamin

265 A.D.2d 772, 697 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10954

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 772 (In re the Claim of Benjamin) 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 Benjamin, 265 A.D.2d 772, 697 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 28, 1998, which ruled, inter alia, that Northgate Barber Shop was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.

Claimant, a barber, responded to an advertisement and, following an interview, rented a chair from Northgate Barber Shop for percentage of his weekly fees. Following the termination of this relationship, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the determination of an Administrative Law Judge which found that while the parties may have initially intended an independent contractor relationship as an area renter, it evolved into an employer-employee relationship in [773]*773light of the day-to-day practices. We affirm. Claimant testified that while he used his own tools, Northgate provided the other needed supplies, set the hours that the barber shop was open as well as the price for a haircut, which claimant could not discount. Claimant followed Northgate’s procedures with regard to answering the telephone, setting appointments and dealing with walk-in clients. Claimant also testified that North-gate would not permit him to shave a client’s head and suggested that he not wear jeans to work. Although the record may support a contrary conclusion, substantial evidence nevertheless supports the Board’s decisions (see, Matter of Hair [Hartnett], 142 AD2d 800).

Furthermore, the Board is not bound by the fact that claimant was required to obtain an area renter license pursuant to the General Business Law in determining claimant’s employment status (see generally, Matter of Bakal [Trendata, Inc.— Hudacs], 192 AD2d 817).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 28, 1998, which ruled, inter alia, that Northgate Barber Shop was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.

Claimant, a barber, responded to an advertisement and, following an interview, rented a chair from Northgate Barber Shop for percentage of his weekly fees. Following the termination of this relationship, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the determination of an Administrative Law Judge which found that while the parties may have initially intended an independent contractor relationship as an area renter, it evolved into an employer-employee relationship in [773]*773light of the day-to-day practices. We affirm. Claimant testified that while he used his own tools, Northgate provided the other needed supplies, set the hours that the barber shop was open as well as the price for a haircut, which claimant could not discount. Claimant followed Northgate’s procedures with regard to answering the telephone, setting appointments and dealing with walk-in clients. Claimant also testified that North-gate would not permit him to shave a client’s head and suggested that he not wear jeans to work. Although the record may support a contrary conclusion, substantial evidence nevertheless supports the Board’s decisions (see, Matter of Hair [Hartnett], 142 AD2d 800).

Furthermore, the Board is not bound by the fact that claimant was required to obtain an area renter license pursuant to the General Business Law in determining claimant’s employment status (see generally, Matter of Bakal [Trendata, Inc.— Hudacs], 192 AD2d 817).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 772, 697 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-benjamin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack