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 Kanakasubba GANAPATHY, Respondent. Zurich Depository Corporation, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 20, 1996, which ruled that Zurich Depository Corporation was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.
We affirm. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's determination that Zurich Depository Corporation exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant's work as a courier-driver established an employment relationship even though there is evidence in the record which might support a contrary conclusion (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; Matter of Lafayette Stor. & Moving Corp. [Hudacs], 197 A.D.2d 742, 602 N.Y.S.2d 740, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 758, 615 N.Y.S.2d 875, 639 N.E.2d 416). Various indicia of employment were shown to exist including evidence that claimant received job training from Zurich, that Zurich designated claimant's route and scheduled the delivery times, established claimant's remuneration, required him to provide certain security devices in his delivery van and gave him a badge identifying him as a Zurich courier. Further, claimant was required to give advance notice of any time off and would be reprimanded and threatened with dismissal if a delivery was missed or late. In our view, these indicia constitute substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding of an employment relationship (see, Matter of McKenna [Can Am Rapid Courier-Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 704, 649 N.Y.S.2d 953, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 810, 656 N.Y.S.2d 738, 678 N.E.2d 1354).
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: October 23, 1997
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)