You are here: / Unemployment Insurance
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, ,

THE PURCHASE OF A CHECK CASHING BUSINESS DID NOT TRANSFER THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS OF THE SELLER TO THE PURCHASER; THE LABOR LAW 581 CRITERIA FOR THE TRANSFER OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS WERE NOT MET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined the unemployment insurance obligations of PTL Check Cashing Corp. were not transferred to PLS Check Cashiers of New York Inc. when PLS entered an asset purchase agreement with PTL in order to acquire PTL’s license to operate at PTL’s former location in the Bronx:

“Labor Law § 581 establishes an experience-rating system that allows for variations in the unemployment insurance contribution rates from the standard rate of qualified employers in certain situations” … . Under the statute, when a business is transferred either whole or in part from one employer to another, the transferee shall take over and continue the unemployment insurance experience account of the transferor … . A transfer, however, will not be deemed to have occurred if (1) the transferee has not assumed any of the transferor’s obligations, (2) the transferee has not acquired any of the transferor’s goodwill, (3) the transferee has not continued or resumed the transferor’s business either in the same establishment or elsewhere, and (4) the transferee has not employed substantially the same employees as those of the transferor … . …

It is undisputed that PLS did not assume any of PTL’s financial obligations and did not hire any of its employees. Moreover, while PLS operated from the same Bronx location, its business included a variety of financial services and was not limited to check cashing, which was PTL’s sole business. Significantly, the ability to operate from the Bronx location was necessary in order for PLS to obtain a license from the Department of Financial Services given the geographic limitations applicable to businesses that offer check cashing services. Although the asset purchase agreement listed other property included in the sale, PLS’s president testified that the tangible assets were disposed of and the only asset that was of value was the opportunity to acquire the license to operate from the Bronx location. Notwithstanding the fact that goodwill was generally referenced as property included in the sale, PLS did not use PTL’s brand, logo or phone number and had its own customer base, negating any expectation that it would be patronized by PTL’s customers. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that a transfer of business occurred under Labor Law § 581 (4) such that PLS acquired the unemployment insurance experience rating of PTL … . Matter of PLS Check Cashiers of N.Y. Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 05142, Third Dept 9-30-29

 

/0 Comments/by

CLAIMANT, WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED AT THE TIME COVID-PANDEMIC-RELATED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAME AVAILABLE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE COVID-PANDEMIC BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not entitled to COVID-pandemic-related unemployment insurance benefits because she was not employed at the time the benefits became available:

Claimant was ineligible for regular unemployment insurance benefits given her failure to work during the relevant period and contended that she was unable and unavailable to work due to one of the qualifying factors for pandemic unemployment assistance, namely, that she was “unable to reach [her] place of employment because [she was] advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19” (15 USC § 9021 [a] [3] [A] [ii] [I] [ff]). … The statutory directive that an applicant be “unable to reach the place of employment” presupposes that he or she has a place of employment to reach, however, removing from its scope individuals such as claimant who were not working or scheduled to start working at the time they were directed to self-quarantine (15 USC § 9021 [a] [3] [A] [ii] [I] [ff]). The Board read the statutory language in that manner and in accord with guidance from the United States Department of Labor — the federal agency tasked with providing operating instructions for the joint federal-state pandemic unemployment insurance program (see 15 USC § 9032 [b]) and from which we take judicial notice — that an individual “must have an attachment to the labor market and must have experienced a loss of wages and hours or [be] unable to start employment following a bona fide job offer” in order to obtain pandemic unemployment assistance … . Thus, as “‘the federal agency expressly concurs in the state’s interpretation of the statute, and the interpretation is a permissible construction of the statute,’ the interpretation is entitled to deference,” and it follows that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was not entitled to pandemic unemployment assistance … . Matter of Mangiero (Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 05062, Third Dept 9-23-21

 

/0 Comments/by

CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT PRODUCTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BROKER-DEALER AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined claimant agent was not an employee of broker-dealer AXA and therefore was not entitled to Unemployment Insurance benefits:

AXA Advisors LLC is a broker-dealer registered to sell life insurance policies and annuities, stocks, mutual funds and other investment products. Claimant began working for AXA under a three-year “training allowance” agreement in 1993. After that agreement terminated in 1996, claimant entered into a new agreement as a licensed agent, and he continued working in that capacity until AXA terminated the agreement in 2015. * * *

The record reflects that, under the 1996 agreement, claimant did not have a set work schedule or work location, he was not assigned a sales territory and did not have to turn in any reports. Claimant was not supervised, could work from home and could use his own computer. Claimant had to pay for the cost of his liability insurance and was not paid for any expenses. AXA required reimbursement from claimant for the cost of business cards and stationery and claimant had to pay for the use of AXA’s clerical staff and office space. Claimant was responsible for developing his own client base and, although AXA would sometimes provide a sales lead, claimant testified that he did not have to pursue it. Claimant determined what products best suited his clients’ needs and he could sell the products of AXA’s competitors. AXA did provide claimant with promotional materials, and claimant was paid by commission, with the commission rate set by AXA or whichever company offered the product that he sold to the client. Matter of Lee (AXA Advisors LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 04518, Third Dept 7-22-21

 

/by
, ,

THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF SELLER’S BUSINESS TO BUYER DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA IN LABOR LAW 581; THEREFORE THE TRANSFER DID NOT TRIGGER THE TAKEOVER OF THE SELLER’S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPERIENCE ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the HOP’s purchase of certain aspects of a competing business, Playground, did not trigger HOP’s takeover of Playground’s unemployment insurance experience account:

The statute provides that where a business has been transferred from one employer to another, either in whole or in part, the transferee shall take over and continue the unemployment insurance experience account of the transferor (see Labor Law § 581 [4] [a] …). A transfer, however, will not be deemed to have occurred “if the transferee has not assumed any of the transferring employer’s obligations, has not acquired any of the transferring employer’s good[]will, has not continued or resumed the business of the transferring employer either in the same establishment or elsewhere, and has not employed substantially the same employees as those of the transferring employer” … . To negate a transfer, all four of these requirements must be met … . …

… [U]ndisputed evidence was presented that, in connection with its purchase of assets from Playground, HOP did not assume any of Playground’s obligations, did not continue or resume operation of Playground’s screening room … and did not retain any of Playground’s employees. The sole basis upon which the Board concluded that a transfer had occurred was HOP’s alleged acquisition of Playground’s goodwill. The record, however, does not support the Board’s finding in this regard.

The asset purchase agreement did not identify goodwill as an asset encompassed by the agreement, nor was it specifically mentioned on the list of property set forth on schedule 2.1 of the agreement. Matter of HOP N.Y. Entertainment, LLC (Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 03093, Third Dept 5-13-21

 

/by

UBER DRIVERS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that Uber drivers are employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Uber controls the drivers’ access to their customers, calculates and collects the fares and sets the drivers’ rate of compensation. Drivers may choose the route to take in transporting customers, but Uber provides a navigation system, tracks the drivers’ location on the app throughout the trip and reserves the right to adjust the fare if the drivers take an inefficient route. Uber also controls the vehicle used, precludes certain driver behavior and uses its rating system to encourage and promote drivers to conduct themselves in a way that maintains “a positive environment” and “a fun atmosphere in the car.” Considering the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding of an employment relationship … . Matter of Lowry (Uber Tech., Inc–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 07645, Third Dept 12-17-20

 

/by

CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH FACILITATES DELIVERIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of a logistics company (US Pack) which facilitates deliveries and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record reflects that claimant was assigned specific workdays and hours by US Pack’s operations manager and was issued an identification badge bearing US Pack’s name. Claimant was required to sit in the client’s parking lot during set hours — for which he was paid a set fee — and wait for US Pack to contact him with assignments. The client would notify US Pack about assignments, which, in turn, would call claimant to retrieve the assignments. Claimant was required to call dispatch at US Pack once the assignments were loaded into his car. Once a delivery was completed, claimant was required to call dispatch again, providing the name of the person who accepted the delivery and the time delivery was complete, before moving onto the next delivery. Although claimant could refuse an assignment, he testified that when he did, he was told he could be fired, and the following day was punished by being passed over for assignments. Some compensation was negotiated, although claimant testified that US Pack set the compensation of some of the deliveries.

Although the record establishes that claimant used his own vehicle and was not reimbursed any expenses, the record nevertheless supports the Board’s conclusion that US Pack exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over significant aspects of claimant’s work to establish an employer-employee relationship … . Matter of Thomas (US Pack Logistics, LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 07642, Third Dept 12-17-20

 

/by
,

CLAIMANT TRUCK DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FLS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND UNDER THE LABOR LAW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT FLS DID NOT MAINTAIN A FLEET OF TRUCKS; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Fundamental Labor Strategies (FLS) was claimant truck driver’s employer, pursuant to common law and the Labor Law (NYS Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act), despite the fact FLS did not maintain a fleet of trucks:

Labor Law § 862-b (1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny person performing commercial goods transportation services for a commercial goods transportation contractor shall be classified as an employee of the commercial goods transportation contractor unless” such person is either a separate business entity as defined by Labor Law § 862-b (2) or an independent contractor within the meaning of Labor Law § 862-b (1) (a)-(c). The statutory scheme further defines “commercial goods transportation services” as “the transportation of goods for compensation by a driver who possesses a state-issued driver’s license, transports goods in . . . New York, and operates a commercial motor vehicle” (Labor Law § 862-a [3]), and a “commercial goods transportation contractor” includes any legal entity that compensates a driver for performing such services (Labor Law § 862-a [1]). …

FLS falls squarely within the definition of a commercial goods transportation contractor as set forth in Labor Law § 862-a (1). Hence, the statutory presumption of employment applies in the first instance (see Labor Law § 862-b [1]).

To overcome the statutory presumption, FLS needed to establish that claimant was “free from control and direction in performing [his] job,” both under the terms of his letter agreement with FLS and “in fact” (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [a]), that the services rendered by claimant were “performed outside [FLS’s] usual course of business” (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [b]) and that claimant was “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business that is similar to the service” he performed for FLS (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [c]). All three criteria — commonly referred to as the ABC test — had to be met in order for claimant to be classified as an independent contractor (see Labor Law § 862-b [1]).

… [S]ubstantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that FLS failed to establish that claimant was free from direction and control in performing his job. Matter of Doster (Fundamental Labor Strategies–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05262, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

/by

CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRODUCER OF THE HAIRCARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant, a haircare product sales representative, was not an employee of Alterna Holding Corporation, the producer of the haircare products:

Alterna Holding Corporation produces haircare products that are sold at various retail stores. To facilitate its business, Alterna places sales and education representatives at the stores. These representatives educate store employees and customers about Alterna’s products. Claimant was a representative for Alterna at Sephora stores in the New York City area from April 2012 to September 2014. * * *

The record reflects that claimant received no initial training or instruction on how to perform her duties. Claimant was not required to submit reports, attend meetings or regularly check in with Alterna. Claimant was not responsible for supplying the product to the Sephora stores, and the sales of the product were carried out by Sephora employees. Although Alterna provided claimant with a list of Sephora stores for her to visit, she was not required to visit all the stores on the list if she did not want to, and claimant testified that there were some stores that she never visited. Claimant was never supervised while at the stores or had her performance reviewed. Claimant was advised to work five days a week, but she set her own schedule and she could take time off, including a week at a time, without notifying Alterna. Matter of Jordan (Alterna Holdings Corp.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05266, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

/by

CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH ARRANGED DELIVERIES FOR ITS CLIENTS; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant delivery driver was an employee of TN Couriers (TNC) entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

TN Couriers LLC (hereinafter TNC) is a business logistics company that acts as a broker between delivery drivers and clients seeking to have products transported from one location to another. Claimant was retained by TNC to deliver auto parts for The Radiator Store, one of TNC’s clients. * * *

Although the daily delivery activities of claimant and other drivers were directed by TNC’s client, TNC retained control over other important aspects of the work. These included screening driver applicants, assigning drivers to clients, setting the rate of pay, partially reimbursing expenses, establishing performance standards, requiring valid licenses and insurance, and handling client complaints. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that TNC exercised a sufficient indicia of control over claimant to be deemed his employer and liable for additional contributions … . Matter of Murray (TN Couriers LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05269, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

/by
, , , , , ,

DESPITE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE DRIVER HAD LOGGED OFF THE UBER APP PRIOR TO THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY; THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD’S FINDING THAT THE DRIVER WAS EMPLOYED BY UBER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT; ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case, determined: (1) a ruling by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that defendant driver was an employee of defendant Uber was not entitled collateral-estoppel effect pursuant to Labor Law 623( 2); (2) although the Labor Law 623(2) argument was not raised below, it raised a question of law which could not have been avoided below and therefore was considered on appeal; (3) the claim that defendant driver had logged off the Uber app at the time of the accident did not warrant summary judgment in favor of Uber on the vicarious liability theory:

An action may be considered to be within the scope of employment, thus rendering an employer vicariously liable for the conduct, when “the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . Whether an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment is generally a question of fact for the jury … .

Here, contrary to Uber’s contention, the averments [that the driver] had logged off of the Uber app 40 minutes before the accident were simply insufficient, without more, to eliminate all questions of fact as to whether Hussein was acting within the scope of his alleged employment with Uber at the time of the incident … . Uy v Hussein, 2020 NY Slip Op 05080, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy