In re the Claim of Schillace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Schillace

199 A.D.2d 675, 605 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11768

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 675 (In re the Claim of Schillace) 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 Schillace, 199 A.D.2d 675, 605 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 8, 1992, which, inter alia, assessed Ronpak, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

In addition to assigning claimant to a specific geographic area and providing him with detailed order lists and business cards bearing its name, Ronpak Inc., a manufacturer of paper and plastic bags, required claimant, one of its salespersons, to make monthly phone calls to its president. These circumstances, among other things, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of the Board that Ronpak exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant so as to establish his status as an employee.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Cardona and Mahoney, 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 May 8, 1992, which, inter alia, assessed Ronpak, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

In addition to assigning claimant to a specific geographic area and providing him with detailed order lists and business cards bearing its name, Ronpak Inc., a manufacturer of paper and plastic bags, required claimant, one of its salespersons, to make monthly phone calls to its president. These circumstances, among other things, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of the Board that Ronpak exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant so as to establish his status as an employee.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Cardona and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 675, 605 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-schillace-nyappdiv-1993.