Decided January 10, 1991 Appeal from (3d Dept: 161 A.D.2d 922) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED

Decided September 18, 1990 Appeal from (3d Dept: 161 A.D.2d 922) APPEALS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS

The question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists involves a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence of either control over the results achieved or control over the means used to achieve those results ( see, Matter of Rivera [State Line Delivery Serv. Roberts], 69 NY2d 679, cert denied 481 US 1049). Here, there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Board that Ranger exercised sufficient overall control over claimant's services to establish his status as an employee ( see, Matter of McKenna [Can Am RapidCourier — Sweeney], 233 AD2d 704 [decided herewith]; Matter of Santamore [Hudacs], 193 AD2d 849; Matter of Sortina [Gant Assocs. "Hartnett], 161 AD2d 922, 923, appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 888, lv denied 77 NY2d 801). The fact that the contract between Ranger and Big John's was characterized as a lease agreement is not determinative of the parties' actual status ( see, Matter of McKenna [Can Am Rapid Courier "Sweeney], supra; Matter of Pepsi Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp. [Hartnett], 144 AD2d 220). Finally, the fact that certain of the elements of Ranger's control were designed to meet certain statutory and regulatory requirements does not compel a contrary result ( see, Matter of Sortina [Gant Assocs. " Hartnett], supra; see also, Matter of Santamore [Hudacs], supra [employer paid for insurance and inspection]; Matter of Davis [RTC Transp. "

We reject claimant's contention that this statute infringes upon his right to equal protection. In dealing with this same issue previously, this Court has specifically stated that "the distinction made in the statute * * * is rational and bears a direct relationship to the underlying purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Law, which is to provide income to unemployed workers who are without earned income" (Matter of Liss [Ross], 80 A.D.2d 716; see, Matter of Sortina [Gant Assocs. — Hartnett], 161 A.D.2d 922, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 888, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 801). There is simply no merit to claimant's argument that the statutory classification constitutes age discrimination. Weiss, P.J., Levine, Mercure and Mahoney, JJ., concur.

Significantly, State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (1) expressly excludes the Board from the scope of the application of that statute. Moreover, as this court held in Matter of Sortina (Gant Assocs. — Hartnett) ( 161 A.D.2d 922, 923, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 888, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 801), the Board "bears no burden to give notice to the employer of `what conduct is forbidden or required'" in order to establish or avoid unemployment insurance liability. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.