In re the Claim of Kloss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Kloss

220 A.D.2d 964, 633 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10431

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 964 (In re the Claim of Kloss) 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 Kloss, 220 A.D.2d 964, 633 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 22, 1994, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant, a massage therapist, worked at a health spa operated by Greater Saratoga Corporation (hereinafter GSC). She was found by the Board to be an employee of GSC and, therefore, entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. GSC argues that claimant was an independent contractor and that the Board’s finding to the contrary is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The evidence established that GSC, among other things, provided the rooms, equipment and supplies necessary for claimant to perform her services, scheduled claimant’s appointments, assigned clients to claimant and set the fee for claimant’s services. In view of this, the Board could properly conclude that claimant was not an independent contractor. Moreover, upon our review of the record, we also find substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that claimant did not engage in misconduct justifying her termination.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. 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 July 22, 1994, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant, a massage therapist, worked at a health spa operated by Greater Saratoga Corporation (hereinafter GSC). She was found by the Board to be an employee of GSC and, therefore, entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. GSC argues that claimant was an independent contractor and that the Board’s finding to the contrary is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The evidence established that GSC, among other things, provided the rooms, equipment and supplies necessary for claimant to perform her services, scheduled claimant’s appointments, assigned clients to claimant and set the fee for claimant’s services. In view of this, the Board could properly conclude that claimant was not an independent contractor. Moreover, upon our review of the record, we also find substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that claimant did not engage in misconduct justifying her termination.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 964, 633 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kloss-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack