Rivera v. Ne. Logistics, Inc.

204 A.D.3d 1185

167 N.Y.S.3d 191

In the Matter of the Claim of Paul RIVERA, Respondent.

v.NORTHEAST LOGISTICS, INC., Appellant.

Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

532504

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

Calendar Date: March 23, 2022

Decided and Entered: April 14, 2022

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

Salvatore C. Adamo, for Paul Rivera, respondent.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Egan Jr., J.P. Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 20, 2020, which ruled, among other things, that Northeast Logistics, Inc. was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Northeast Logistics, Inc. (hereinafter NEL) is a logistics company that, among other things, connects delivery drivers to its clients who seek to transport products. Claimant was engaged as a delivery driver for NEL in 2016, but thereafter applied for unemployment insurance benefits. In June and November 2017, the Department of Labor issued initial determinations finding that claimant was an employee of NEL for purposes of unemployment insurance benefits and that NEL was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated. Upon NEL's objection, and following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) reversed the Department's determinations and found no employment relationship. Claimant appealed and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the ALJ's determination and sustained the Department's determinations. NEL appeals.

"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" ( Matter of Thomas [US Pack Logistics, LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 189 A.D.3d 1858, 1859, 138 N.Y.S.3d 244 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Paratore [Bankers Life & Cas. Co. -Commissioner of Labor], 199 A.D.3d 1196, 1197, 158 N.Y.S.3d 296 [2021] ). This is so "even [where] there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary conclusion" ( 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] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "Substantial evidence is a minimal standard that demands only such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" ( Matter of Blomstrom [Katz–Commissioner of Labor], 200 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 160 N.Y.S.3d 392 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Quesada [Columbus Mgt. Sys., Inc. -Commissioner of Labor], 198 A.D.3d 1036, 1036, 155 N.Y.S.3d 456 [2021] ). "Traditionally, the Board considers a number of factors in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, examining all aspects of the arrangement. But the touchstone of the analysis is whether the employer exercised control over the results produced by the worker or the means used to achieve the results. The doctrine is necessarily flexible because no enumerated list of factors can apply to every situation faced by a worker, and the relevant indicia of control will necessarily vary depending on the nature of the work" ( Matter of Vega [Postmates Inc. -Commissioner of Labor], 35 N.Y.3d at 137, 125 N.Y.S.3d 640, 149 N.E.3d 401 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Hawkins [A Place for Rover Inc. -Commissioner of Labor], 198 A.D.3d 1120, 1121, 155 N.Y.S.3d 243 [2021] ).

The record reflects that, although claimant initially...