Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Rocita RICHARDSON, Respondent. A Caring Hand Inc., Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 1996, which ruled that A Caring Hand Inc. was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and to those similarly situated.
Claimant worked as a homemaker for A Caring Hand Inc. (hereinafter Caring Hand), a business that provided domestic help to predominantly elderly and infirm clients. The record contains substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that Caring Hand exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant's work to establish her status, and that of all other individuals similarly situated, as employees (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). Caring Hand determined the terms of claimant's employment, including the hours of her workday and the amount of her salary, which was paid directly to claimant on a weekly basis by Caring Hand, regardless of whether it had received payment from the client. Further, claimant was precluded, pursuant to a written agreement, from accepting employment from one of Caring Hand's clients within 90 days of leaving its employ and she was admonished that repeated absences from work would result in her dismissal. It is noteworthy that claimant had no business cards, business bank account or any other indicia of self-employment. We conclude that the Board's finding of an employment relationship in this matter should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Gentile Nursing Servs. [Roberts], 65 N.Y.2d 622, 491 N.Y.S.2d 156, 480 N.E.2d 745; Matter of Kimberg [Hudacs], 188 A.D.2d 781, 591 N.Y.S.2d 98).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 29, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)