From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Claim of Foster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 11, 2002
293 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

90012

April 11, 2002.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 18, 2000, which ruled that Peter A. Tacy Jr. was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and other similarly situated employees.

Richard B. Wolf, Poughkeepsie, for appellant.

McNamee, Lochner, Titus Williams P.C., Albany (Francis J. Smith of counsel), for George D. Foster, respondent.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and, Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Citing evidence in the record which would support the conclusion that claimant and other mortgage consultants who work for Peter A. Tacy Jr., a licensed mortgage broker, are independent contractors, Tacy contends that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board erred in concluding that they are employees. However, the record also contains evidence of Tacy's control over claimant and others similarly situated. For example, there is evidence that claimant consulted Tacy with regard to the appropriate fee to charge a customer and submitted all loan documents to Tacy for review. Claimant obtained customer leads through a rotating system used to route customer calls to the office number listed in Tacy's advertisements. Claimant was required to follow up on calls assigned to him and the office manager periodically checked on whether claimant was doing so. Claimant was paid by commission but was allowed a weekly draw against commissions in an amount fixed by Tacy.

Inasmuch as there is substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Tacy exercised sufficient control over claimant and others similarly situated to demonstrate an employer-employee relationship, the Board's decision must be affirmed, despite the existence of record evidence which could have supported a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assocs., 60 N.Y.2d 734;Matter of Barnhart [Hudacs], 189 A.D.2d 1050).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Claim of Foster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 11, 2002
293 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Matter of Claim of Foster

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF GEORGE D. FOSTER, Respondent. PETER A. TACY…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 520

Citing Cases

Matter of the Claim of Karastathis

We find there to be sufficient proof to constitute substantial evidence that claimant left his employment for…

In re Antonio Interlandi

Here, evidence was adduced supporting the Board's determination, including that Cremosa assigned claimant a…