Summary
holding that Unified Court System is not liable for unemployment insurance benefits on behalf of city marshals both because they are independent contractors and not employees of the State and because they are local rather than state officers who would be deemed "employees" of the city if deemed government employees at all
Summary of this case from Opn. No. 2006-7Opinion
Submitted January 4, 1983
Decided February 10, 1983
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.
Patricia P. Satterfield, Michael Colodner and Paul A. Feigenbaum for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Paul S. Shemin of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the charges imposed by the respondent against the experience rating account of the Unified Court System with respect to city marshals should be canceled.
We agree that for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum of Justice PAUL J. YESAWICH, JR., at the Appellate Division ( 88 A.D.2d 717, 718), city marshals are independent contractors, not employees. We hold, further, that city marshals are local not State officers (see Public Officers Law, § 2), appointed by the Mayor, not paid by the State, and who, if they could be deemed "employees" of any governmental body, would, under the Unified Court Budget Act (Judiciary Law, § 39, subd 3, par [c]), remain employees of the city, not of the State. For both reasons, therefore, the charges imposed by respondent against the Unified Court System with respect to city marshals must be canceled.
Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG, MEYER and SIMONS concur in memorandum; Chief Judge COOKE taking no part.
Order reversed, etc.