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 Carol J. MONTALTO, Respondent. Early Intervention Center of Suffolk Inc., Doing Business as Center for Early Intervention, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (And Another Related Claim.)
Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 17, 1998, which, upon reopening and reconsideration, rescinded its prior decisions filEd january 23, 1998 and ruled Early Intervention Center of Suffolk Inc. liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.
Substantial evidence supports the decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that Early Intervention Center of Suffolk Inc. (hereinafter EIC), an agency which arranges for tutorial services for children who are not performing well academically due to poor speech, language or motor skills, exercised sufficient control over claimant and those similarly situated to establish an employer-employee relationship. After an interview, claimant, a tutor, entered into a tutorial agreement with EIC which was written by EIC. In addition to EIC retaining the right to require tutors to attend workshops and meetings, the agreement also provided that tutors could not deny their services based upon a child's race, sex, color or handicap. Tutors were required to personally render the tutoring services, any adjustments in a tutor's work schedule required EIC approval, and they were required to submit bimonthly client summary sheets and documentation of services. Any assessments, evaluations or progress reports regarding the tutored child became the property of EIC. The agreement also prohibited tutors from working for competitors while performing services for EIC as well as for two years following the termination of the agreement.
Under these circumstances we find no reason to disturb the Board's decisions, even if evidence in the record could support a contrary conclusion (see generally, Matter of Educaid Inc. [Hartnett], 176 A.D.2d 420, 574 N.Y.S.2d 408, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 751, 579 N.Y.S.2d 651, 587 N.E.2d 289; Matter of Schwartz [Creative Tutoring-Roberts], 91 A.D.2d 778, 457 N.Y.S.2d 1016).
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: July 15, 1999
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)