## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment 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