Case ID: ad2d_260/html/0880-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Claim of Craig A. Cohen, Respondent. Partymaster Productions, Inc., Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (And Another Related Claim.)
    [690 NYS2d 280]
    —Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 14, 1997, which, inter alia, assessed Partymaster Productions, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.
    Partymaster Productions, Inc. operates a business providing disc jockeys and other entertainers for nightclubs and catered functions. When claimant, a disc jockey, approached Partymaster for an assignment, Partymaster’s president, Perry Gips, met with claimant and listened to an audiotape of his work. Gips would not discuss salary with claimant until “after [he] saw what kind of talent [claimant] had”. Claimant thereafter received a steady assignment to work weekend nights and occasional week nights at a hotel nightclub. The nightclub was billed for claimant’s services by Partymaster and Partymaster would then pay claimant. Gips testified that he would speak with the nightclub’s manager once a week to check and see how claimant “was doing”.
    Upon review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that Partymaster exercised sufficient' control over the services performed by claimant and those performing similar services to establish their status as employees (see, Matter of Hacic [Hudacs], 193 AD2d 982; Matter of Wolf [Upstate Music & Promotion — Hartnett], 178 AD2d 700, 701), despite the existence of other evidence in the record that could support a contrary result (see, Matter of Captain Kishka [Hartnett], 158 AD2d 814, 816, Iv denied 76 NY2d 708). Party-master’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive.
    Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.