In re the Claim of Mauro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Mauro

79 A.D.2d 1049, 435 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9973

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 1049 (In re the Claim of Mauro) 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 Mauro, 79 A.D.2d 1049, 435 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 24, 1979, which affirmed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant Nadine Mauro to be eligible to receive benefits, effective May 1,1978, without disqualifying conditions. Although the agreement executed by claimant referred to her as an independent contractor, the board was free to credit her testimony that she was required to attend weekly meetings and to report on the outcome of leads previously furnished to her. Moreover, despite the absence of any withholdings from her commissions and the lack of reimbursement for any expenses, claimant’s sales presentation was largely, if not wholly, developed by the employer and she indicated that a notification procedure was to be followed if scheduled appointments could not be kept. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the board’s finding of an employment relationship (cf. Matter of Rich Plan of Syracuse [Levine], 47 AD2d 573). However, mindful of the provisions of section 620 (subd 1, par [b]) of the Labor Law, we note that the present record does not establish whether other representatives were subject to identical policies. Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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 24, 1979, which affirmed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant Nadine Mauro to be eligible to receive benefits, effective May 1,1978, without disqualifying conditions. Although the agreement executed by claimant referred to her as an independent contractor, the board was free to credit her testimony that she was required to attend weekly meetings and to report on the outcome of leads previously furnished to her. Moreover, despite the absence of any withholdings from her commissions and the lack of reimbursement for any expenses, claimant’s sales presentation was largely, if not wholly, developed by the employer and she indicated that a notification procedure was to be followed if scheduled appointments could not be kept. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the board’s finding of an employment relationship (cf. Matter of Rich Plan of Syracuse [Levine], 47 AD2d 573). However, mindful of the provisions of section 620 (subd 1, par [b]) of the Labor Law, we note that the present record does not establish whether other representatives were subject to identical policies. Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 1049, 435 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mauro-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack