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 Laurie A. RHODES, Respondent. Aspex Eyewear Inc., Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 24, 1996, which assessed Aspex Eyewear Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions based upon remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.
Claimant was an outside salesperson for Aspex Eyewear Inc., an eyeglass frame distributor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Aspex was liable for additional contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated upon a finding that claimant was an employee and not an independent contractor. We affirm. The record establishes that Aspex delineated claimant's sales territory, exercised final approval over all sales orders, supplied claimant with business cards and a toll-free number for customer calls, tracked claimant's productivity levels, determined claimant's rate of compensation without negotiation, provided training and performed all customer billing, collection and shipping functions. In our view, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Aspex exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant's work to establish an employer-employee relationship under the Labor Law (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 Preble [Getting to Know You Intl. # 2 -Hudacs], 206 A.D.2d 650, 614 N.Y.S.2d 618).
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: February 05, 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)