Opinion
October 29, 1998
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Claimant was employed as a salesperson for Upstate Merchandising, Inc., a manufacturer's and supplier's representative. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's conclusion that Upstate exercised sufficient direction and control over the work of claimant and those similarly situated to establish their status as employees rather than independent contractors. The record discloses that Upstate paid claimant a $500 weekly draw against commissions, required claimant to attend manufacturer's meetings and trade shows, furnished sales leads, business cards and other office supplies, reimbursed claimant for travel and telephone expenses and required claimant to check into the office daily. Upstate further directed the manner in which claimant performed his work by prohibiting him from disclosing confidential information and from selling competing products for other manufacturers. This proof constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that an employer-employee relationship existed ( see, Matter of Rhodes [Aspex Eyewear — Sweeney], 247 A.D.2d 689; Matter of Dolhon [United Group Agency — Sweeney], 236 A.D.2d 749), notwithstanding that the record contains proof to support a contrary conclusion ( see, Matter of Roman [Berglund — Commissioner of Labor], 252 A.D.2d 707). We have considered Upstate's remaining contentions, including that it was improperly denied the right to cross-examine claimant, and find them to be without merit.
Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.