State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: May 7, 2015 518799 

518803

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

LAURA D. RACE,

Respondent.

GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION

NETWORK, INC., Doing

Business as PRESS & 

SUN-BULLETIN,

Appellant.

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

(Claim No. 1.)

________________________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In the Matter of the Claim of 

MICHAEL HARASTA,

Respondent.

GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION

NETWORK, INC., Doing

Business as PRESS &

SUN-BULLETIN,

Appellant.

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

(Claim No. 2.)

________________________________

Calendar Date: March 25, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Lynch, JJ.

__________
-2- 518799

518803 

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Peter A. Jones and

Daniel J. Pautz of counsel) and The Zinser Law Firm, P.C.,

Nashville, Tennessee (L. Michael Zinser admitted pro hac vice),

for appellant.

James W. Cooper, Warrensburg, for Laura D. Race and

another, respondents.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City

(Steven Koton of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, New York City (Mark

A. Fowler of counsel), for New York News Publishers Association,

amicus curiae.

__________

McCarthy, J.

Appeals from four decisions of the Unemployment Insurance

Appeal Board, filed July 5, 2013 and July 9, 2013, which ruled,

among other things, that Gannett Satellite Information Network,

Inc. is liable for additional unemployment insurance

contributions based on remuneration paid to claimants and others

similarly situated.

Claimants contracted with Gannett Satellite Information

Network, Inc. to deliver newspapers and other publications. 

After claimants applied for unemployment insurance benefits, the

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that

claimants were employees of Gannett and that Gannett was liable

for contributions based on remuneration paid to claimants and

others similarly situated. Gannett appeals.

For the purposes of determining whether an employment

relationship existed, the contracts that Gannett entered into

with claimants are identical in all relevant respects to those

examined in Matter of Armison (Gannett Co., Inc.–Commissioner of
-3- 518799

518803 

Labor) (122 AD3d 1101 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 1209 [2015]),

Matter of Gager (Commissioner of Labor) (___AD3d ___, 4 NYS3d 784

[2015]) and Matter of Travis (Commissioner of Labor) (___ AD3d

___, 2015 NY Slip Op 03001 [2015]). For the reasons discussed in

those decisions, substantial evidence supports the Board's

determinations that claimants were employees (see Matter of

Travis [Commissioner of Labor], 2015 NY Slip Op 03001 at *1;

Matter of Gager [Commissioner of Labor], 4 NYS3d at 785; Matter

of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d

1166, 1167-1168 [2015]; Matter of Armison [Gannett Co., Inc.–

Commissioner of Labor], 122 AD3d at 1102-1103). Gannett's

remaining contentions are without merit. 

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court