Opinion
July 8, 1970
Appeal from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board, filed August 22, 1967, which held that the board had no jurisdiction under the New York Workmen's Compensation Law to consider the claim filed by claimant under that law. Claimant, a resident of Millard, Nebraska, entered into an agreement with the employer purporting to be a sales franchise agreement. The agreement was signed by claimant in Nebraska, and signed by the president of the employer in New York. Under the agreement claimant was to sell the employer's products in the State of Nebraska, and two or three towns in the State of Iowa being paid on a commission basis with a draw of $100 weekly against commissions. Claimant was also permitted to sell products manufactured by others as long as they were not the same or similar to the employer's products. The agreement also provided that claimant, and not the employer, was to pay for all expenses including travel, entertainment, and automobile expenses. At the time of signing the agreement, claimant also signed a letter wherein it was stated: "I am conducting my own business and consider myself independent of your organization", and "You will, therefore, not consider me an employee and not subject me to the various payroll deductions or compensation insurance, including Social Security or State Unemployment Insurance." On November 13, 1964 claimant was injured in an automobile accident near Millard, Nebraska while driving to the post office to pick up his check and mail, and to mail orders to the employer. Claimant filed a claim for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law which was controverted by the employer on the grounds that (1) the accident did not arise out of and during the course of employment; (2) claimant was not an employee; and (3) the New York Workmen's Compensation Board did not have jurisdiction of the matter. The board determined that "the claimant was hired to work exclusively in Nebraska and Iowa and that such control, if any, as emanated from New York, is insufficient to confer New York State jurisdiction." The determination of the board is supported by substantial evidence and may not be disturbed. At the time of the accident the work which claimant was performing was at a fixed geographic area outside the State of New York. It was permanent and not transitory in nature, and claimant was never hired to work in New York, and was not scheduled to return to New York for other work. Where a person is employed to work at a fixed place outside this State and where there are no sufficient significant contacts with this State, he cannot avail himself of the benefits of our Workmen's Compensation Law (cf. Matter of Nashko v. Standard Water Proofing Co., 4 N.Y.2d 199). The record here is replete with evidence that claimant, whatever his status as an employee, was hired to work solely in the States of Iowa and Nebraska and he cannot, therefore, avail himself of the benefits of the New York Workmen's Compensation Law. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P.J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.