In re the Claim of Bishai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bishai

208 A.D.2d 1103, 617 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9845

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 1103 (In re the Claim of Bishai) 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 Bishai, 208 A.D.2d 1103, 617 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 21, 1993, which ruled that Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. was not liable for unemployment insurance contributions based on earnings paid to claimant.

Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. operates a two-way radio car service business on the basis of franchise agreements. Tel-A-Car provides the franchisees access to car service customers in exchange for a fee. Claimant was hired as a driver by one of these franchisees who provided claimant with a vehicle. Tel-A-Car and the franchisee are two independent entities which conduct their relationship pursuant to a written contract, and it is the franchisees who determine nearly every aspect of the manner in which they conduct their businesses. Among other things, the franchisees set their own operational rules and provide their own vehicles, supplies and insurance, and they and their drivers are free to set their own hours and to engage in other employment. Under the circumstances, substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Board’s decision that Tel-A-Car did not exercise sufficient direction and control over claimant so as to establish his status as an employee.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Peters, 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 May 21, 1993, which ruled that Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. was not liable for unemployment insurance contributions based on earnings paid to claimant.

Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. operates a two-way radio car service business on the basis of franchise agreements. Tel-A-Car provides the franchisees access to car service customers in exchange for a fee. Claimant was hired as a driver by one of these franchisees who provided claimant with a vehicle. Tel-A-Car and the franchisee are two independent entities which conduct their relationship pursuant to a written contract, and it is the franchisees who determine nearly every aspect of the manner in which they conduct their businesses. Among other things, the franchisees set their own operational rules and provide their own vehicles, supplies and insurance, and they and their drivers are free to set their own hours and to engage in other employment. Under the circumstances, substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Board’s decision that Tel-A-Car did not exercise sufficient direction and control over claimant so as to establish his status as an employee.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 1103, 617 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bishai-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack