In re the Claim of Reich

55 A.D.3d 1077, 865 N.Y.S.2d 760
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 23, 2008·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 13, 2007, which, among other things, ruled that the employer was liable for unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Claimant, an attorney, worked for the law firm of Posner & Gaier from June 2002 until her employment was terminated in March 2005. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits and, after several hearings, it was determined that Posner was liable for contributions for claimant and similarly situated attorneys in its employ, claimant was not disqualified from receiving benefits since she did not lose her employment because of misconduct, and claimant was eligible to receive benefits in March 2005. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed and Posner now appeals.

We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Posner exercised sufficient “control over important aspects of the services performed” (Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]) by claimant thereby creating an employer-employee relationship. The record reflects that claimant worked on cases accepted by Posner, clients brought to the firm by claimant became clients of Posner, claimant was required to accept all work assignments, Posner determined claimant’s billing rate, claimant performed supervisory functions when the principals of the firm were out of the office, and claimant’s duties did not change when she became a W-2 employee in February 2005

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re the Claim of Reich, 55 A.D.3d 1077, 865 N.Y.S.2d 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

55 A.D.3d 1077 (In re the Claim of Reich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Claim of McCollum
118 A.D.3d 1203 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)