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
THE CARRIER’S FAILURE TO INDICATE WHEN IT OBJECTED TO THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE JUSTIFIED THE DENIAL OF THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
Unexcused Late Disclaimer of Coverage Invalid and Unenforceable
IN LIGHT OF DEFENDANT’S INVESTIGATION INTO THE FIRE WHICH CAUSED CLAIMANT’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT.
SKIN CARE SPECIALIST WORKING FOR A SKIN CARE COMPANY WITH A DISPLAY IN A BLOOMINGDALE’S STORE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SKIN CARE COMPANY AND WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS, LATE NOTICE EXCUSED, CLAIMANT FELL ON THE WAY TO THE RESTROOM (THIRD DEPT).
Statutory Provision that the Gaming Commission “Shall” Render a Determination Within 30 Days After a Hearing Is “Directory” Not “Mandatory”—A Late Determination Will Not Be Annulled Absent Prejudice
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200).
THE HISTORY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INFANT PLAINTIFF AND ANOTHER STUDENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ATTACK ON INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS FORESEEABLE FROM THE SCHOOL’S PERSPECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE ATTACKERS’ INTENT TO ROB THE VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTIONS UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE-LIABILITY THEORY REVERSED (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

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...