In re the Claim of Greenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Greenberg

220 A.D.2d 978, 632 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10673

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 978 (In re the Claim of Greenberg) 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 Greenberg, 220 A.D.2d 978, 632 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 27, 1994, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant worked as an art and design director at SherryLehmann, Inc., a wine and liquor retailer. After the cessation of her working relationship with Sherry-Lehmann, claimant was deemed eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Sherry-Lehmann asserts that claimant is not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was retained as an independent contractor. The record, however, reveals that Sherry-Lehmann, among other things, supplied claimant with materials and equipment, provided her with business cards, a desk and access to a telephone, reviewed and imposed time restrictions on claimant’s work and prohibited claimant from working for competitors. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was an employee of Sherry-Lehmann.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters 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 December 27, 1994, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant worked as an art and design director at SherryLehmann, Inc., a wine and liquor retailer. After the cessation of her working relationship with Sherry-Lehmann, claimant was deemed eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Sherry-Lehmann asserts that claimant is not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was retained as an independent contractor. The record, however, reveals that Sherry-Lehmann, among other things, supplied claimant with materials and equipment, provided her with business cards, a desk and access to a telephone, reviewed and imposed time restrictions on claimant’s work and prohibited claimant from working for competitors. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was an employee of Sherry-Lehmann.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 978, 632 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-greenberg-nyappdiv-1995.