From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Aleinikoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 7, 1991
170 A.D.2d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 7, 1991

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


The record supports the conclusion that Eugene N. Aleinikoff exercised sufficient direction and control over his typists to establish their status as employees (see, Matter of Frattallone [Victor Addressing Corp. — Levine], 39 A.D.2d 984). He provided them with their assignments, which they were required to pick up at a mutually suitable time, and he directed them as to the priority of their work. They had access to his office when he was not there and could use his supplies and equipment. He also reviewed their work and had them make corrections (see, supra; see also, Matter of Eastern Dist. Ct. Reporters [Levine], 48 A.D.2d 744). While there may have been factors which point to a contrary conclusion, the evidence presented shows a sufficient amount of control to support the determination of the existence of an employer/employee relationship (see, Matter of Publications Data [Ross], 78 A.D.2d 747).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Aleinikoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 7, 1991
170 A.D.2d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Aleinikoff

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EUGENE N. ALEINIKOFF, Appellant. THOMAS F. HARTNETT, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Feb 7, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
565 N.Y.S.2d 599

Citing Cases

Matter of Eichenbaum

Further, claimant was not in business for herself and had no business cards or any other indicia of…