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: BELLSON FLOORS INC., doing business as E & B Floors, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 20, 1995, which assessed Bellson Floors Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.
Bellson Floors Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and installing floor-covering products. In furtherance of its business, Bellson retained “floor installers” to whom it gave assignments for the installation of floor covering purchased by its customers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the floor installers were Bellson's employees for whom it owed unemployment insurance contributions. We affirm. The record discloses that Bellson exercised a sufficient degree of direction and control over the work of its floor installers to support the Board's determination (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). Bellson gave work assignments to the installers and paid them by company check only after its customers had expressed satisfaction with the installation and had remitted payment to Bellson. If a customer expressed dissatisfaction with the installation work, Bellson would remedy the problem. While the installers were free to turn down assignments, they carried no business cards or other documents indicating independent contractor status nor did they independently advertise their services. We conclude that although the record might support a contrary ruling, there is nonetheless substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of an employment relationship (see, Matter of Molinari, Kelly Roofing & Siding Co.-Hudacs, 196 A.D.2d 922, 602 N.Y.S.2d 230, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 663, 610 N.Y.S.2d 150, 632 N.E.2d 460; see generally, Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assocs., Roberts, 60 N.Y.2d 734, 736, 469 N.Y.S.2d 78, 456 N.E.2d 1201).
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: May 01, 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)