Crystal Cargo Inc. v. Comm'r of Labor (In re Hosang)

• Decision Date: 10 February 2022
• Docket Number: 532729
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the Claim of Reinaldo HOSANG, Respondent. Crystal Cargo Inc., Appellant. v. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

202 A.D.3d 1241

163 N.Y.S.3d 647

In the MATTER OF the Claim of Reinaldo HOSANG, Respondent.Crystal Cargo Inc., Appellant.

v.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

532729

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

Calendar Date: January 4, 2022

Decided and Entered: February 10, 2022

Peter Fidopiastis, Glens Falls, for appellant.

Bruce Evans Knoll, Albany, for Reinaldo Hosang, respondent.

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

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Lynch, J. Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, filed June 19, 2020, which ruled, among other things, that Crystal Cargo Inc. was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Crystal Cargo Inc. is a logistics company that, among other things, offers delivery services for clients in the metropolitan New York City area. Claimant delivered packages for Crystal Cargo from January 2015 to August 2016 pursuant to an independent contractor agreement. Crystal Cargo, in turn, paid claimant through a third-party administrator, and claimant was issued a 1099 form for such services. Claimant also worked as a dispatcher for Crystal Cargo from September 2016 to June 2017, during which time he admittedly was deemed to be an employee of that entity and was issued a W–2 form in connection therewith. While working as a dispatcher, claimant was permitted to supplement his income by performing delivery services as well.

Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits in June 2017, and the Department of Labor initially ruled that claimant was employed by Crystal Cargo as a delivery driver. Crystal Cargo objected to the claim insofar as it pertained to claimant's 1099 earnings, contending that claimant performed such services as an independent contractor. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge upheld that determination, concluding that Crystal Cargo exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over claimant's delivery services as to give rise to an employment relationship. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, and these appeals ensued.

We affirm. As summarized by this Court, "[w]hether an employee-employer relationship exists is a factual question to be resolved by the Board[,] and we will not disturb its determination when it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 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. Where substantial evidence exists to support a decision being reviewed by the courts, the determination must be sustained, irrespective of whether a similar quantum of evidence is available to support other varying conclusions. The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists rests not on one single factor, but consideration is given to whether control was exercised over the results or the means used to achieve those results, with the latter factor deemed more important" ( Matter of Blomstrom [Katz–Commissioner of Labor], 200 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 160 N.Y.S.3d 392 [2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Quesada [Columbus Mgt. Sys., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 198 A.D.3d 1036, 1036–1037, 155 N.Y.S.3d 456 [2021] ; Matter of Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 154 A.D.3d 1034, 1034–1035, 61 N.Y.S.3d 732 [2017] ). Additionally, "the evaluation of evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom are within the exclusive province of the Board" (Matter of Kupiec [Commissioner of Labor], 193 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 147 N.Y.S.3d 163 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), and the Board is the "final arbiter" of witness credibility ( Matter of Rodriguez [Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 185 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 126 N.Y.S.3d 587 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Crystal Cargo points out, and the record indeed establishes, that claimant received no training as a delivery driver,...