You are here: / / Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an...

Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined the board’s finding that claimant was an employee of ASISS was supported by substantial evidence, despite evidence suggesting an independent contractor relationship:

Whether there exists an employment relationship is a factual issue for resolution by the Board and its decision will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence … . In making such a determination, the Board considers whether the putative employer exercised control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results, with the means being the more important consideration … . Here, the testimony of both claimant and Anthony Stone, the principal of ASISS, established that claimant completed an application for employment and was hired at a rate of pay established exclusively by Stone. ASISS assigned claimant to a specific location, established his hours of work and covered him under its workers’ compensation insurance. Furthermore, it provided him with an employee code of conduct and required him to call in to an automated system at the beginning and end of each shift, to sign a time sheet and to submit incident reports. The client was not informed that claimant was an independent contractor, claimant was required to request time off two weeks in advance and ASISS would find a replacement if claimant was unavailable for his shift. Claimant was required to adhere to the company dress code by wearing a dark suit and tie, as well as a company lapel pin, while on duty. Furthermore, any complaints about claimant’s performance would be handled by ASISS and claimant would receive his pay even if the client did not pay ASISS. Accordingly, while there was other evidence in the record suggestive of an independent contractor relationship, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was an employee … . Matter of Thomas J Dunno…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06348, 3rd Dept 9-25-14

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED INCARCERATED FATHER’S PRO SE PETITION SEEKING VISITATION BASED UPON THE EXISTENCE OF TWO ORDERS OF PROTECTION, THE FAMILY COURT ORDER OF PROTECTION, BY LAW, EXPIRED AFTER ONE YEAR, NOT WITHSTANDING A 2022 EXPIRATION DATE IN THE ORDER, AND THE ORDER OF PROTECTION IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).
“Out-of-Title” Work Did Not Warrant Higher Pay
PRISONER CONVICTED OF A CRIME COMMITTED WHEN HE WAS SIXTEEN AND SUBJECT TO A LIFE SENTENCE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO A PAROLE HEARING WHICH TAKES HIS YOUTH AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE INTO ACCOUNT.
Disclosure of Appraisal Documents Not Entitled to Conditional Immunity Even If Prepared Solely for Litigation/No Other Way for Claimants to Obtain Relevant Evidence
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S RELEASE ON PAROLE WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF PAROLE AND UPHELD THE DENIAL OF PAROLE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATUTORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING WAS VIOLATED, DESPITE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY (THIRD DEPT).
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISION MAKING LITIGATION THE SOLE METHOD FOR RESOLVING A DISPUTE RENDERED VOID BY GENERAL BUSINESS LAW. 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plea Colloquy of Co-Defendant Was Inadmissible Hearsay—Court’s Granting... Claimant Did Not Receive a Bona Fide Offer of Suitable Employment that She Was...