Opinion
Decided and Entered: June 22, 2000.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 4, 1999, which ruled that City Suburban Delivery Systems Inc. was liable for unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.
Proskauer Rose LLP (Fredric C. Leffler of counsel), New York City, for appellant.
Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga Springs, for Leon T. Priester, respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Graffeo and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
City Suburban Delivery Systems Inc. (hereinafter C S), a distributor of newspapers and periodicals, challenges the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding it liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions upon a finding that claimant and other similarly situated individuals are employees rather than independent contractors. We affirm. The record reveals that C S utilized the services of persons known as "hawkers" to sell its newspapers and such persons were required to sign a written agreement designating each individual as an independent contractor. Despite this contract, the testimony demonstrates that these hawkers were not totally free from supervision. Their supervisor determined where, when and how many newspapers were to be distributed to each hawker. There was a call-in procedure for absenteeism and each of them had assigned shifts. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that C S exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship (see, Matter of Salamatian [Louis Lasky Mem. Dental Ctrs. — Commissioner of Labor], 263 A.D.2d 748;Matter of Rivera [AIA Envtl. Corp. — Commissioner of Labor], 262 A.D.2d 898). Contrary to C S' argument, "the fact that claimant signed an agreement identifying him as an `independent contractor' does not mandate a contrary result" (Matter of Kienle [Hunter Eng'g Co. — Commissioner of Labor], 261 A.D.2d 769).
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Graffeo and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.