State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 519270 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

JUNE-IL KIM,

Respondent.

SUK INCORPORATED, Doing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 Business as RAINBOW 

 LIMOUSINE,

Appellant.

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: March 23, 2015

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Dawn M. Cardi & Associates, New York City (Chad L. Edgar of

counsel), for appellant.

Bidol-Lee Law, PC, Ridgewood, New Jersey (HyoSung Bidol-Lee

of counsel), for June-Il Kim, respondent.

__________

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed August 27, 2013, which ruled that claimant was

eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

SUK Incorporated operates a black car limousine business

that transports clients in and around New York City. Claimant

worked for SUK for several years and, after he was terminated in

2010, applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The

Department of Labor concluded that claimant's base period

employment with SUK was not covered employment under Labor Law
-2- 519270 

§ 511 because there was insufficient evidence to establish that

an employment relationship existed between SUK and claimant. The

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately disagreed and

found that, because claimant was an employee of SUK, he was

eligible to receive benefits. SUK now appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that "the existence of an

employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to

decide and its decision will be not disturbed if supported by

substantial evidence" (Matter of Anwer [Exclusive Fragrance &

Cosmetics, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 114 AD3d 1114, 1115

[2014]; see Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc.

[Commissioner of Labor], 15 NY3d 433, 437 [2010]). "An employeremployee relationship exists when the evidence shows that the

employer exercises control over the results produced or the means

used to achieve the results," with control over the latter being

more important (Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn.,

Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 NY3d at 437 [citation omitted];

see Matter of Anwer [Exclusive Fragrance & Cosmetics,

Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 114 AD3d at 1115). 

Here, the record establishes that SUK assigned jobs to

claimant and fielded complaints from its customers. 

Additionally, SUK imposed numerous restrictions upon claimant,

including prohibiting him from working with its competitors,

imposing detailed rules as to acceptable work dress and behavior

and requiring him to drive a specific type of car. SUK also set

the rate collected from the passengers and handled all voucher

billing. Thus, despite proof that might support a different

conclusion, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision

that claimant was an employee of SUK (see Matter of Khan [Mirage

Limousine Serv., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 66 AD3d 1098, 1100

[2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 717 [2010]; Matter of Spectacular Limo

Link, Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 21 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2005]). 

As a final matter, the Board need not "explicitly distinguish in

its written decisions each and every arguably similar case that

it previously has decided" and, hence, was not required to

address the distinguishable cases relied upon by SUK (Matter of

Westney [Classic Airport Share-Ride], 262 AD2d 894, 895 [1999]).

McCarthy, J.P., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.
-3- 519270 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court