Matter of Farley (Commr. of Labor)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Farley (Commr. of Labor)

131 A.D.3d 1295, 15 N.Y.S.3d 871

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

DecidedSeptember 3, 2015

Docket520307

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1295 (Matter of Farley (Commr. of Labor)) 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

Matter of Farley (Commr. of Labor), 131 A.D.3d 1295, 15 N.Y.S.3d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Garry, J.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 28, 2014, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was an independent contractor.

Claimant challenges decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that reversed an Administrative Law Judge decision and ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because the nature of his contracting services with Toyota Tsusho America Inc. was that *1296 of an independent contractor rather than an employee. The record establishes that claimant’s position as vice-president of human resources with Tomen America Inc. was eliminated when Toyota negotiated to purchase assets of Tomen and acquire many of its employees. Claimant negotiated and drafted an agreement with both Tomen and Toyota whereby he served as a consultant for both companies, during set periods, to provide post-integration support in human resource matters with regard to the Tomen employees being assimilated by Toyota. As a consultant with Toyota, claimant worked three to five days a month and set his own schedule. He was not required to report to any supervisor, was not given any direction by anyone, did not submit his work for review, did not participate in regular human resource meetings and was issued an identification badge indicating that he was a contractor. Claimant submitted a monthly invoice for an agreed-upon payment, which, pursuant to the agreement drafted by claimant, withheld no taxes. Although claimant points to evidence that could support a contrary result, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that no employer-employee relationship existed inasmuch as claimant “acted essentially autonomously” as a human resources consultant for Tomen (Matter of Bedin [Trussardi (USA)—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 809, 810 [1999]; see Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 NY3d 433, 438 [2010]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

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

Garry, J.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 28, 2014, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was an independent contractor.

Claimant challenges decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that reversed an Administrative Law Judge decision and ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because the nature of his contracting services with Toyota Tsusho America Inc. was that *1296 of an independent contractor rather than an employee. The record establishes that claimant’s position as vice-president of human resources with Tomen America Inc. was eliminated when Toyota negotiated to purchase assets of Tomen and acquire many of its employees. Claimant negotiated and drafted an agreement with both Tomen and Toyota whereby he served as a consultant for both companies, during set periods, to provide post-integration support in human resource matters with regard to the Tomen employees being assimilated by Toyota. As a consultant with Toyota, claimant worked three to five days a month and set his own schedule. He was not required to report to any supervisor, was not given any direction by anyone, did not submit his work for review, did not participate in regular human resource meetings and was issued an identification badge indicating that he was a contractor. Claimant submitted a monthly invoice for an agreed-upon payment, which, pursuant to the agreement drafted by claimant, withheld no taxes. Although claimant points to evidence that could support a contrary result, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that no employer-employee relationship existed inasmuch as claimant “acted essentially autonomously” as a human resources consultant for Tomen (Matter of Bedin [Trussardi (USA)—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 809, 810 [1999]; see Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 NY3d 433, 438 [2010]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 1295, 15 N.Y.S.3d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-farley-commr-of-labor-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack