You are here: / / Motor-Route Newspaper Carriers Were Employees, Not Independent Contrac...

Motor-Route Newspaper Carriers Were Employees, Not Independent Contractors

The Third Department determined motor-route newspaper carriers were employee, despited “independent contractor” characterization in the distribution agreement:

“Whether an employer- employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . “While no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important” … .

Recently, in Matter of Armison [Gannett Co., Inc.— Commissioner of Labor] (122 AD3d 1101 [2014]), this Court upheld a finding of an employer-employee relationship between Gannett and certain newspaper delivery persons. Here, as we did in Armison, we find that the requisite level of control was present to support the Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship. Claimant was required to make deliveries within set time frames and according to other conditions. Claimant was also required to be a licensed driver with a registered and insured vehicle, and was obligated to provide Gannett with a copy of her driver’s license and proof of liability insurance. Additionally, under the terms of the distribution agreement, all substitutes were required to be licensed and insured. Claimant was provided a route set by Gannett and, if claimant was not available to deliver her route, she was responsible for finding a substitute. In the event that deliveries were not made by claimant, Gannett would use an employee to make the delivery and charge claimant a fee. Further, Gannett controlled other aspects of claimant’s work, including prohibiting placing foreign materials on or in the publications. Claimant was also provided access to accident insurance from Gannett’s policy. In light of the foregoing, and despite the existence of other evidence in the record suggestive of an independent contractor relationship — including the distribution agreement expressly designating claimant as an independent contractor — we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was an employee … . Matter of Hunter…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01509, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

You might also like
BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Did Not Demonstrate a Compelling Reason to Close His Business—Unemployment Insurance Benefits Denied
Expert Who Evaluated Sex Offender As Part of the Initial Case Review Team Was Properly Allowed to Testify at the Civil Commitment Hearing
County Court Should Have Afforded Defendant Opportunity to Withdraw His Plea Before Imposing an Enhanced Sentence Based Upon Post-Plea Events
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, DEFENDANT CROSSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY.
THE WIFE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT (1) THE FAIRNESS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, (2) WHETHER HER ATTORNEY, CHOSEN FOR HER, ENGAGED IN MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS, (3) WHETHER SHE RATIFIED THE AGREEMENT, AND (4) WHETHER SHE WAS ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOWINGLY CONSENT AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE PROSECUTION; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

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

Delivery Driver Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee Insurance Agent Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor