Case Name: 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. 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
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-05-07
Citations: 128 A.D.3d 1130
Docket Number: Claim No. 1; Claim No. 2
Parties: 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. 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.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 1130–1131

Head Matter:
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. 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. 1.)
(Claim No. 2.)
[6 NYS3d 504]

Opinion:
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 Labor) (122 AD3d 1101 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 1209 [2015]), Matter of Gager (Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (127 AD3d 1348 [2015]) and Matter of Travis (Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (127 AD3d 1349 [2015]). For the reasons discussed in those decisions, substantial evidence supports the Board's determinations that claimants were employees (see Matter of Travis [Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 127 AD3d at 1349 [2015]; Matter of Gager [Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 127 AD3d at 1348; 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.