In re the Claim of Wassey, 255 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
In re the Claim of Wassey, 255 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re the Claim of Lombard (nyappdiv, 2008-06-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Lombard
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Co.—Commissioner of Labor], 255 AD2d 650, 650 [1998]) and controlled the distributors’ profit margins for its national accounts (see Matter of Noel [Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 38 AD3d at 1083-1084 ; Matter of Human Performance, Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 28 AD3d 971, 972 [2006]; Matter of Braunstein [Dinaire Corp.—Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 899, 900 [1998]), which was the majority of their sales.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of George J. Wassey, Kenmark Optical Company, Appellant Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 5, 1998.
255 A.D.2d 650
Graffeo.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Graffeo, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 21, 1997, which, inter alia,- assessed Ken-mark Optical Company with additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.

Claimant worked as a sales representative for Kenmark Optical Company, a manufacturer of eyeglass frames and optical merchandise. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Kenmark exercised sufficient direction and control over claimant’s work to establish the existence of an employment relationship (see, Matter of Dolhon [United Group Agency — Sweeney], 236 AD2d 749). Various indicia of employment were shown to exist including evidence that claimant was assigned a specific sales territory, was asked to check in on a daily basis and was required to obtain permission for absences from work. All prices were set by Kenmark, orders were submitted on forms issued by Kenmark, payments from its customers were billed by and sent to Kenmark, and customer complaints and inquiries regarding merchandise were to be made directly to Kenmark. Claimant was paid on a commission basis but received a weekly “advance” of $1,000. We conclude that although evidence was submitted that might justify a different conclusion, the record contains substantial evidence in support of the Board’s finding that claimant worked as a full-time sales representative in an employment relationship; hence, its decision will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Culliten [Marlette Natl. Corp. — Sweeney], 227 AD2d 769, 770).

It should be noted that the provision in claimant’s contract specifying that he worked for Kenmark as an “independent contractor” does not dictate a contrary result. It is well settled that such contractual provisions are not dispositive in cases such as the instant matter where there are numerous indicia of an employment relationship (see, Matter of Wilde [Enesco Imports Corp. — Sweeney], 236 AD2d 722, 723, lv denied 89 NY2d 817; Matter of Pepsi Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp. [Hartnett], 144 AD2d 220, 222).

Cardona, P. J., White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.