Ne. Logistics, Inc. v. Comm'r of Labor (In re McIntyre)

213 A.D.3d 1003

183 N.Y.S.3d 598

In the MATTER OF the Claim of Talita MCINTYRE, Respondent.

Northeast Logistics, Inc., Appellant.

v.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

532506

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: December 15, 2022

Decided and Entered: February 2, 2023

Dorf & Nelson LLP, Rye (David S. Warner of counsel), for appellant.

Catherine A. Barber, Guilderland, for Talita McIntyre, respondent.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J. Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 27, 2020, which ruled that Northeast Logistics, Inc. is liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Northeast Logistics, Inc. (hereinafter NEL) is a business logistics company that, as relevant here, acts as a broker between delivery drivers and clients seeking to have products transported from one location to another. Claimant entered into an agreement with NEL as a delivery driver and was directed to deliver auto parts for one of NEL's clients. After this relationship ended, claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding that claimant was an employee of NEL and that NEL was liable for unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and other similarly situated delivery drivers. NEL objected and, following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained the Department's determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed. These appeals ensued.

"Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the Board, if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary conclusion" ( Matter of Fiorelli [Stallion Express, LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 201 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 161 N.Y.S.3d 465 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Vega [Postmates Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 35 N.Y.3d 131, 136, 125 N.Y.S.3d 640, 149 N.E.3d 401 [2020] ).

"Substantial evidence is a minimal standard requiring less than a preponderance of the evidence. As such, if the evidence reasonably supports the Board's choice, we may not interpose our judgment to reach a contrary conclusion" ( Matter of Vega [Postmates Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 35 N.Y.3d at 136–137, 125 N.Y.S.3d 640, 149 N.E.3d 401 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Sow [NY Minute Messenger, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 201 A.D.3d 1064, 1065, 161 N.Y.S.3d 445 [3d Dept. 2022] ).

The record reflects that, after claimant applied to be a delivery driver, NEL conducted a screening process that included a verification of claimant's driver's license, a Department of Motor Vehicles background check and proof by claimant of relevant insurance coverage. Thereafter, NEL and claimant executed a written "Owner Operator Agreement," wherein claimant was required, among other things, to provide a safe vehicle, maintain relevant licenses and insurance and to provide NEL with invoices for completed client engagements in order to be paid. Claimant and NEL negotiated a set rate of pay and claimant was responsible for all expenses, including the cost of fuel and equipment, but NEL provided that claimant's pay could be increased during times of high fuel prices by way of a fuel surcharge. Claimant was required to pay an administrative fee to NEL for each day of provided services. Claimant could refuse any assignment and could subcontract out an accepted assignment. If an accepted assignment could not be completed, claimant was required to notify NEL, and it was then NEL that provided another delivery driver. NEL also provided claimant with the client's address and the time that claimant was to report there. Any complaints made to NEL's client regarding clai...