Opinion
05-07-2015
In the Matter of the Claim of Laura D. RACE, Respondent. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., doing Business as Press & Sun–Bulletin, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 1.) In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Harasta, Respondent. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., doing Business as Press & Sun–Bulletin, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (Claim No. 2.).
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Peter A. Jones and Daniel J. Pautz of counsel) and The Zinser Law Firm, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee (L. Michael Zinser admitted pro hac vice), for appellant. James W. Cooper, Warrensburg, for Laura D. Race and another, respondents. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Koton of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent. Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, New York City (Mark A. Fowler of counsel), for New York News Publishers Association, amicus curiae.
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Peter A. Jones and Daniel J. Pautz of counsel) and The Zinser Law Firm, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee (L. Michael Zinser admitted pro hac vice), for appellant.
James W. Cooper, Warrensburg, for Laura D. Race and another, respondents.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Koton of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.
Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, New York City (Mark A. Fowler of counsel), for New York News Publishers Association, amicus curiae.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, GARRY and LYNCH, JJ.
Opinion
McCARTHY, J.Appeals from four decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 5, 2013 and July 9, 2013, which ruled, among other things, that Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. is liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimants and others similarly situated.
Claimants contracted with Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. to deliver newspapers and other publications. After claimants applied for unemployment insurance benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that claimants were employees of Gannett and that Gannett was liable for contributions based on remuneration paid to claimants and others similarly situated. Gannett appeals.
For the purposes of determining whether an employment relationship existed, the contracts that Gannett entered into with claimants are identical in all relevant respects to those examined in Matter of Armison (Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor), 122 A.D.3d 1101, 995 N.Y.S.2d 856 (2014), lv. dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 1209, 4 N.Y.S.3d 590, 28 N.E.3d 24 (2015), Matter of Gager (Commissioner of Labor), 127 A.D.3d 1348, 4 N.Y.S.3d 784 (2015) and Matter of Travis (Commissioner of Labor), 127 A.D.3d 1349, 5 N.Y.S.3d 623, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03001 (2015). For the reasons discussed in those decisions, substantial evidence supports the Board's determinations that claimants were employees (see Matter of Travis [Commissioner of Labor], 127 A.D.3d at 1349, 5 N.Y.S.3d 623, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03001 at *1; Matter of Gager [Commissioner of Labor], 127 A.D.3d 1348, 4 N.Y.S.3d at 785 ; Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 125 A.D.3d 1166, 1167–1168, 3 N.Y.S.3d 195 [2015] ; Matter
of Armison [Gannett Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor],
122 A.D.3d at 1102–1103, 995 N.Y.S.2d 856 ). Gannett's remaining contentions are without merit.
ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY and LYNCH, JJ., concur.