In re the Claim of Turchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Turchetti

200 A.D.2d 843, 606 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 228

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 843 (In re the Claim of Turchetti) 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 Turchetti, 200 A.D.2d 843, 606 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 4, 1992, which, inter alia, assessed Thomas O’Sullivan for unemployment insurance contributions.

Claimant was one of a number of caregivers hired by Thomas O’Sullivan to attend to the needs of his bedridden son. On the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant and others similarly situated were O’Sullivan’s employees. As the Board noted, inter alia, O’Sullivan posted a chart indicating the procedures to be followed in providing care, claimant was paid for working extra hours and she was not in her own business of providing such services. O’Sullivan’s remaining contentions have been examined and found unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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 4, 1992, which, inter alia, assessed Thomas O’Sullivan for unemployment insurance contributions.

Claimant was one of a number of caregivers hired by Thomas O’Sullivan to attend to the needs of his bedridden son. On the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant and others similarly situated were O’Sullivan’s employees. As the Board noted, inter alia, O’Sullivan posted a chart indicating the procedures to be followed in providing care, claimant was paid for working extra hours and she was not in her own business of providing such services. O’Sullivan’s remaining contentions have been examined and found unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 843, 606 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-turchetti-nyappdiv-1994.