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 Guillermo RAMIREZ, Respondent. Gottlieb Jewelry Inc., Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (And Another Related Claim.)
Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 11, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that Gottlieb Jewelry Inc. was liable for unemployment insurance contributions based upon remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.
Claimant is a diamond setter who performed services for Gottlieb Jewelry Inc. Gottlieb challenges separate decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant and others similarly situated are employees rather than independent contractors and assessing Gottlieb for additional unemployment insurance contributions. We affirm. Claimant testified that he contacted Gottlieb for work in response to a newspaper advertisement, was required to work hours set by Gottlieb and had to phone in when he could not come in to work. Gottlieb unilaterally set the rates to be paid and claimant was required to complete a form provided by Gottlieb in order to receive compensation, which was paid out on a regular basis. According to claimant, Gottlieb provided some of the equipment and materials needed to perform the work and claimant was required to submit his work for approval. The Board was entitled to credit the proof demonstrating that Gottlieb exercises overall control with regard to important aspects of the services rendered (see, Matter of Braunstein [Dinaire Corp.-Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 899, 900, 672 N.Y.S.2d 522, 523). Thus, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship despite the presence in the record of evidence to support a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Yank [National Evaluation Sys.-Sweeney], 247 A.D.2d 806, 669 N.Y.S.2d 429, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 804, 677 N.Y.S.2d 780, 700 N.E.2d 319).
ORDERED that the decisions are 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: December 03, 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)