Case Name: In the Matter of Warren Mosher Co., Inc., Respondent. Frieda S. Miller, as Industrial Commissioner of the State of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1943-01-14
Citations: 289 N.Y. 417
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Warren Mosher Co., Inc., Respondent. Frieda S. Miller, as Industrial Commissioner of the State of New York, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 289
Pages: 417–419

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Warren Mosher Co., Inc., Respondent. Frieda S. Miller, as Industrial Commissioner of the State of New York, Appellant.
Argued November 23, 1942;
decided January 14, 1943.
John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Leo G. Hosenfeld and W. Gerard Ryan of counsel), for appellant.
There is sufficient legal evidence to sustain the finding of the Appeal Board that the persons soliciting advertising for respondent were its employees. (Matter of Glielmi v. Netherlands Dairy Co., 254 N. Y. 60; Matter of Morton, 284 N. Y. 167.) The. claim for contributions paid in 1936 and 1937 is barred by subdivision 3 of section 523 of the Labor Law (Cons. Laws; eh. 31, as amd. L. 1938, ch. 10). (People ex rel. Bankers Trust Co. v. Graves, 270 N. Y. 316; Matter of Hoople, 179 N. Y. 308; People ex rel. International Salt Co. v. Graves, 267 N. Y. 149; Ross v. State, 186 App. Div. 156; Matter of Furey v. Graves, 148 Misc. 785; 241 App. Div. 897; 266 N. Y. 415.)
C. Murray Kavanagh for respondent.
The Appeal Board by affirming the decision of the referee has necessarily found as a fact that the respondent maintained no direction and control over the sohcitors’ time and method of work and therefore it has disclosed that the record contains no substantial legal evidence to-support, a conclusion that the solicitors were employees. (Matter of Morton, 284 N. Y. 167; Matter of Electrolux Corp., 288 N. Y. 440.) The allowance of the full amount of the refund claimed, because the solicitors are independent contractors, was proper. The Statute of Limitations does not apply where the State was without jurisdiction. (Matter of Dee v. State Tax Comm., 257 App. Div. 531; 282 N. Y. 617.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The claim of the respondent for a refund of the contributions paid during the years 1936 and 1937 was barred by the provisions of the former subdivision 3 of section 523 of the Labor Law (Cons. Laws, eh. 31). (See now, § 516-a.)
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified accordingly and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
Lehman, Ch. J., Lotjghran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.