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 Qavi QAVI, Respondent, v. UTOG 2-WAY RADIO INC. et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 24, 1997, which ruled, inter alia, that an employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and Utog 2-Way Radio Inc.
Claimant was injured in an automobile collision while working as a limousine driver for Utog 2-Way Radio Inc., a corporation providing dispatched car service. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that an employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and Utog and that claimant was therefore eligible for benefits. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if there is evidence that would support a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Banful v. Skyline Credit Ride, 222 A.D.2d 871, 872, 635 N.Y.S.2d 730). Here, as we previously found in a nearly identical case involving a different limousine driver's claim for workers' compensation benefits against Utog (see, Matter of Savino v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, 215 A.D.2d 964, 627 N.Y.S.2d 162), there was sufficient evidence of control over claimant to support the Board's finding that an employer-employee relationship existed (see, Matter of Banful v. Skyline Credit Ride, supra; Matter of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Serv., 183 A.D.2d 964, 583 N.Y.S.2d 316, lv. dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 924, 589 N.Y.S.2d 311, 602 N.E.2d 1127). The assertion by Utog that claimant's lease agreement with Silver Car is determinative is rejected when viewed in light of all the other factors considered by the Board. Finally, Utog's contention that it did not receive proper notice of the claim for benefits was not raised at the administrative hearing and is therefore unpreserved for our review.
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: July 09, 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)