Opinion
May 16, 1991
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Substantial evidence in the record supports the determination that the distributors engaged by Joseph F. Santoro, a wholesaler of snack food, were his employees and not independent contractors. Although the distributors signed independent contractor agreements, those same agreements vested Santoro with substantial control over their activities (see, Matter of Pepsi Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp. [Hartnett], 144 A.D.2d 220, 222). For example, Santoro set the terms and prices at which the distributors buy the product, the distributors were limited to a designated area and any replacements were subject to Santoro's approval (see, Matter of Oakes [Stroehman Bakeries — Roberts], 137 A.D.2d 927). In addition, in the case of unsatisfactory service to a particular outlet, after giving 10 days' notice Santoro could deem those outlets abandoned and make other arrangements to serve them if the problem persisted. While other factors may support Santoro's contention that the distributors were independent contractors, affirmance is required as the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of CDK Delivery Serv. [Hartnett], 151 A.D.2d 932, 933).
Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.