State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 17, 2015 519710 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of

KARINE KARAPETYAN,

Respondent.

CP LANGUAGE INSTITUTE INC., MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appellant.

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 22, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Law Offices of Samuel Chuang, Flushing (Samuel Chuang of

counsel) and Law Firm of James Scott Yoh, Flushing (James Scott

Yoh of counsel), for appellant.

Catherine A. Barber, Albany, for Karine Karapetyan,

respondent.

__________

Rose, J.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance

Appeal Board, filed November 20, 2013, which ruled, among other

things, that CP Language Institute Inc. was liable for

unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to

claimant and others similarly situated.

CP Language Institute Inc. (hereinafter CPLI) is engaged in

the business of providing interpreter services, primarily for

medical facilities, social service agencies and legal practices.

CPLI challenges two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance
-2- 519710 

Appeal Board finding that claimant, a Russian interpreter, and

those similarly situated were employees of CPLI and not

independent contractors. 

The record establishes that CPLI advertises for language

service interpreters, like claimant, to provide translation

services for its clients. An interpreter is required to submit a

resume and, after being interviewed by CPLI and receiving a

sufficient score on a written language proficiency test, CPLI

adds the interpreter to its roster. CPLI maintains a file of

each interpreter's qualifications that includes a resume,

reference letters, proficiency exam and availability. CPLI

notifies an interpreter of assignments, which can be accepted or

declined by the interpreter. Once an assignment is accepted,

however, the interpreter is required to notify CPLI if he or she

becomes unavailable and CPLI, not the interpreter, provides a

substitute if needed. 

Furthermore, claimant signed an agreement with CPLI that

included guidelines regarding punctuality, attire, performance

and conduct when providing services to CPLI clients. Although

claimant could work for other agencies that provided translation

services, she was subject to a 12-month noncompete clause

following termination of her relationship with CPLI. In

addition, claimant was provided with a picture identification

badge with CPLI's name. Claimant was paid by CPLI following the

submission of time sheets, regardless of whether CPLI was paid by

the client. Any complaints from a client were handled by CPLI. 

Although there is evidence in the record that could support a

contrary conclusion, the foregoing provides substantial evidence

to support the decision of the Board that an employer-employee

relationship exists (see Matter of Ruano [Interpreting Servs.,

Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2014], lv

dismissed 24 NY3d 1039 [2014]; Matter of FMI Interpreting Servs.

[Hudacs], 192 AD2d 1006, 1007 [1993]). CPLI's remaining

contentions, including that we should strike the brief filed by

claimant's assigned counsel, have been reviewed and found to be

without merit. 

Peters, P.J., Garry and Clark, JJ., concur.
-3- 519710 

ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court