In re the Claim of Kloss

220 A.D.2d 964, 633 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10431
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 26, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

220 A.D.2d 964 (In re the Claim of Kloss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Human Performance, Inc.
28 A.D.3d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)