Case ID: ad3d_138/html/1318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      McCarthy, J.P.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Claim of Steven Kristensen, Respondent. Law Offices of David C. Birdoff, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
    [30 NYS3d 380]
   McCarthy, J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 9, 2014, which ruled that the Law Offices of David C. Birdoff was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.

Claimant was employed as a paralegal at a small law office. Following claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board overruled the law office’s objection that claimant was an independent contractor and, based upon a finding of an employer-employee relationship, deemed the law office liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual determination for the Board to resolve and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Morris [Source Interlink Media, LLC—Commissioner of Labor], 131 AD3d 1287, 1287 [2015], lv dismissed 26 NY3d 1137 [2016]; Matter of Singhal [Brody—Commissioner of Labor], 128 AD3d 1308, 1308 [2015]). “While no factor is determinative and all aspects of the work arrangement must be examined, the primary focus is whether the purported employer exercises control over the results produced or, more importantly, the means by which those results are produced” (Matter of Eckert [Fox Mobile Distrib. LLC—Commissioner of Labor], 133 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Guidicipietro [Hariton & D’Angelo, LLP—Commissioner of Labor], 24 AD3d 1159, 1159-1160 [2005]). Here, the record establishes that claimant’s work was assigned by the law office, he could not reassign his work to anyone, he was paid hourly and he was required to submit time sheets reflecting both client billable hours and administrative hours. Furthermore, claimant’s work was reviewed by an attorney, any corrections were to be made by claimant, the law office was ultimately responsible for the work product, the law office supplied claimant with all of the equipment and material needed to perform the work and any expenses were reimbursed by the law office. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the law office exercised sufficient control over claimant’s work to establish an employer-employee relationship (see Matter of Singhal [Brody—Commissioner of Labor], 128 AD3d at 1309; Matter of Spinnell [Commissioner of Labor], 300 AD2d 770, 771 [2002]). As such, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.