Opinion
520026.
10-08-2015
In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly MORAVCIK, Respondent. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., Doing Business as Press & Sun–Bulletin, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 1.) In the Matter of the Claim of Harry Kowalski, Respondent. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., Doing Business as USA Today, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 2.) In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly Cannon, Respondent. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., Doing Business as Star–Gazette, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 3.) In the Matter of the Claim of John Engert, Respondent. Gannett Company, Inc., Doing Business as Democrat and Chronicle, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 4.) In the Matter of the Claim of Georgina M. Kemp, Respondent. Gannett Company, Inc., Doing Business as Democrat and Chronicle, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 5.).
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Peter A. Jones of counsel) and The Zinser Law Firm, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee (L. Michael Zinser admitted pro hac vice), for appellant. Cynthia Feathers, Glens Falls, for Kimberly Moravcik and others, respondents. Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP, New York City (Mark A. Fowler of counsel), for New York News Publishers Association, amicus curiae. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Koton of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Peter A. Jones of counsel) and The Zinser Law Firm, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee (L. Michael Zinser admitted pro hac vice), for appellant.
Cynthia Feathers, Glens Falls, for Kimberly Moravcik and others, respondents.
Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP, New York City (Mark A. Fowler of counsel), for New York News Publishers Association, amicus curiae.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Koton of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, GARRY and ROSE, JJ.
Opinion
PETERS, P.J.Appeals from 10 decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 23, 2014, January 27, 2014, January 28, 2014 and February 14, 2014, which ruled, among other things, that Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. and Gannett Company, Inc. are liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions based upon remuneration paid to claimants and others similarly situated.
Claimants contracted with either Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. or Gannett Company, Inc. to deliver newspapers and other publications pursuant to written distribution agreements. Following claimants' applications for unemployment insurance benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimants were employees of either Gannett Satellite or Gannett Company, and assessed those businesses for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimants and others similarly situated. These appeals ensued.We affirm. Upon our review of the records, we find that the indicia of control retained by Gannett Company and Gannett Satellite in the contracts with claimants are nearly identical to the relevant factors identified to establish an employment relationship in Matter of Armison [Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 122 A.D.3d 1101, 1102, 995 N.Y.S.2d 856 (2014), lv. dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 1209, 4 N.Y.S.3d 590, 28 N.E.3d 24 (2015) and Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 125 A.D.3d 1166, 1167, 3 N.Y.S.3d 195 (2015). As such, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decisions and they will not be disturbed (see Matter of Race [Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 128 A.D.3d 1130, 1130, 6 N.Y.S.3d 504 [2015] ; Matter of Travis [Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 127 A.D.3d 1349, 1349, 5 N.Y.S.3d 623 [2015] ; Matter of Gager [Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 127 A.D.3d 1348, 1348–1349, 4 N.Y.S.3d 784 [2015] ). We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised by Gannett Company and Gannett Satellite and find them to be unpersuasive.
ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
McCARTHY, GARRY and ROSE, JJ., concur.