Opinion
March 18, 1993
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that Henry Boeckmann, Jr. Associates, Inc. (hereinafter the company) exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over claimants' services to establish their status as employees (see, Matter of Di Martino [Buffalo Courier Express Co. — Ross], 59 N.Y.2d 638). The company appraises real property. Claimant Eric Kripps worked for the company as a word processor. He received his assignments from the company and the company made the required corrections to his work. The company was responsible to its clients for the quality of the work product. Kripps was required to complete the work within a time frame set by the company. Although he could set his own hours, Kripps had to work at the company's premises and used its word processing equipment and supplies. He was paid directly by the company. Based on this evidence, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision (see, Matter of Bertsch [Intertek Servs. Corp. — Hartnett], 159 A.D.2d 898; Matter of Royce Computer Servs. [Roberts], 132 A.D.2d 827).
The same result obtains for claimant Charles H. Sweeney. He performed such tasks as acquiring deeds and mortgages for the company, as well as taking pictures of various properties and comparing real estate listings. When he was hired, the company instructed him on how to perform his duties. Although he had no set hours, he called in daily for his assignments. He received his supplies from the company and was reimbursed for his expenses and mileage. He also used a desk and phone at the company's premises. The company set his salary and instructed him on how to format his work product (cf., Matter of Lauritano [Hartnett], 153 A.D.2d 997). To the extent that the company's president described a different relationship than did Sweeney, this merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Basch Constr. [Roberts], 94 A.D.2d 846, lv denied 60 N.Y.2d 558).
We also note that because the Board's determination is supported by the testimony of the company's president alone, the company was in no way prejudiced by Kripps' absence at the hearings (see, Matter of O'Connor [Howell — Hartnett], 165 A.D.2d 946). Finally, there was no error in the Board's conclusion that its decision also applied to others similarly situated to claimants (see, Matter of Robinson [New York Times Newspaper Div. Hartnett], 168 A.D.2d 746, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 853).
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.