In re the Claim of England
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Borak Reporting Service (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- In re Body Electric Corp. of America (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re Troy Publishing Company, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- In re the Claim of Oakes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- In re Studio Theatre School Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- In re Pinti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- In re Samuel Green Engraving Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- In re the Claim of Morales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Claim of Shelli v. Ross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- In re Williman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- In re the Claim of Higgins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- In re Publication Data, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- In re Westchester Reporting Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- In re Capital Hill Reporting, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- In re Levy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Memorandum. Employment, for purposes of determining employer liability for contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, is defined as “any service under any contract of employment for hire, express or implied, written or oral”. (Labor Law, § 511, subd 1, par [a].) Whether a given relationship is to be classified as employer-employee or as customer-independent contractor is basically a question of fact to be decided by the agency charged with the responsibility for administering the unemployment insurance statutes. (See, e.g., Matter of Basin St. [Lubin], 6 NY2d 276; Matter of Frattallone [Victor Addressing Corp.—Levine], 39 AD2d 984.) A decision as to existence of an employment relationship made by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is conclusive if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Green [Republic Steel Corp.—Levine] 37 NY2d 554; Matter of Fisher [Levine] 36 NY2d 146, 150.) In this case, the administrative finding that the petitioner’s arrangement with its reporters and typists constituted an employment relationship was supported by substantial evidence. It was error, therefore, for the Appellate Division to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative officials directly responsible for the administration of the State labor laws, even if the record might also have sustained a contrary interpretation. (Matter of Green [Republic Steel Corp.—Levine], supra.)
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reinstated.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order reversed, without costs, and the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reinstated in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.