IN RE: the Claim of Jerzy JARZABEK (1997)

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 22, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision assessing NYC Two Way Inc. for additional unemployment insurance compensation based upon remuneration paid to claimant.

Claimant worked as a driver for NYC Two Way Inc. (hereinafter Two Way), a business that provided luxury car transportation to private customers in the New York City area.   The record contains substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that Two Way exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant's work to establish his status as its employee (see, Matter of Rivera [State Line Delivery Serv.-Roberts], 69 N.Y.2d 679, 682, 512 N.Y.S.2d 14, 504 N.E.2d 381, cert. denied 481 U.S. 1049, 107 S.Ct. 2181, 95 L.Ed.2d 837).   Two Way controlled virtually every detail of claimant's job performance by requiring him to adhere to the guidelines set forth in a rule book which claimant was required to carry in the car while on duty.   Failure to abide by these rules was punishable by fines or suspension.   Claimant kept in touch with Two Way by means of a radio through which he received his job assignments and the location of the customers he was to pick up.   Claimant was required to be available for driving assignments during certain hours and was further required to display Two Way's sign when he picked up passengers.   Two Way made all of claimant's job assignments and conducted the billing and collection of charges from its customers.   Claimant was paid and reimbursed for tolls and parking expenses by Two Way's corporate check, regardless of whether its customers had remitted payment.   These indicia of direction and control over claimant's work lead to the conclusion that the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship in this matter was supported by substantial evidence and it will not, accordingly, be disturbed (see, Matter of Hector Taxi Corp. [Hudacs], 210 A.D.2d 713, 714, 620 N.Y.S.2d 175;  Matter of Middletown [Manzi Taxi & Transp. Co.-Hartnett], 166 A.D.2d 758, 759, 562 N.Y.S.2d 807, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 803, 568 N.Y.S.2d 15, 569 N.E.2d 874;  Matter of B.S.M. Limousines Corp. [Hartnett], 143 A.D.2d 459, 460, 532 N.Y.S.2d 455, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 703, 537 N.Y.S.2d 491, 534 N.E.2d 329).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.