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 Jeffrey B. CARLSON, Respondent. Holland Village Inc., Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (And Another Related Claim.)
Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 13, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that Holland Village Inc. was liable for unemployment insurance contributions paid to claimant and those similarly situated.
Holland Village Inc. (hereinafter Holland) is a nonprofit corporation which was formed for the purpose of building a full-size reproduction of Henry Hudson's ship, the Half Moon. Holland had originally engaged a company, “The Rigging Gang”, to build the historic ship and claimant was among those hired to perform carpentry work. Prior to the final completion of the ship, however, The Rigging Gang's owner, Nicholas Benton, died and Holland's president, Andrew Hendricks, immediately set about interviewing employees of The Rigging Gang, including claimant, who were needed to complete construction of the ship. Claimant entered into an oral contract with Hendricks to continue performing work on the ship at a wage of $9 per hour. Hendricks acknowledged that claimant and the other workers were Benton's employees prior to his death and it was undisputed at the hearing that Holland hired “by and large the same people that were doing work previously to continue and do the work”. Hendricks occasionally visited the worksite to inspect the work and he reserved the right to require correction of mistakes. He also received weekly reports of the workers' hours and paid their hourly wages every two weeks. Hendricks was at times called in order to resolve workplace conflicts.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's conclusion that Holland exercised sufficient control over the services performed by claimant, who was not in business for himself, and others similarly situated, to establish their status as employees (see, Matter of Patino [Adderley Indus.-Commissioner of Labor], 253 A.D.2d 995, 678 N.Y.S.2d 165).
Holland's remaining arguments have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.
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: March 04, 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)