Upon administrative review, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted those findings. MDS appealed, and we reversed the Board's decisions on the ground that MDS was improperly prevented from eliciting relevant testimony from one of its witnesses and remitted the matter to the Board for a new hearing (140 AD3d 1363 [2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1059 [2016]). Following that hearing, the Board again found that an employer-employee relationship existed between MDS and claimant and ruled that MDS was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.
The allegation of coercion is unsupported. To the extent that ATA complains about the manner in which the hearing was conducted, the record reflects that the ALJ explained and properly maintained orderly procedure, answered questions to the extent permissible, and permitted the pro se parties to introduce evidence and argue their positions; no due process violation is apparent (see 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; compareMatter of Gawrys [Medical Delivery Servs.-Commissioner of Labor], 140 A.D.3d 1363, 1364, 33 N.Y.S.3d 553 [2016], lv dismissed 28 N.Y.3d 1059, 43 N.Y.S.3d 241, 65 N.E.3d 1276 [2016] ). With regard to ATA's claim that Temen was not advised of the right to counsel, this is belied by the record.
The allegation of coercion is unsupported. To the extent that ATA complains about the manner in which the hearing was conducted, the record reflects that the ALJ explained and properly maintained orderly procedure, answered questions to the extent permissible, and permitted the pro se parties to introduce evidence and argue their positions; no due process violation is apparent (see 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; compare Matter of Gawrys [Medical Delivery Servs.-Commissioner of Labor], 140 AD3d 1363, 1364 [2016], lv dismissed 28 NY3d 1059 [2016]). With regard to ATA's claim that Temen was not advised of the right to counsel, this is belied by the record.