Epstein v. Comm'r of Labor (In re Mayo)

• Decision Date: 08 April 2021
• Docket Number: 529931
• Citation: 193 A.D.3d 1199,145 N.Y.S.3d 675
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the Claim of Geraldine M. MAYO, Respondent. Stephen P. Epstein, as Receiver, Appellant. v. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

193 A.D.3d 1199

145 N.Y.S.3d 675

In the MATTER OF the Claim of Geraldine M. MAYO, Respondent.Stephen P. Epstein, as Receiver, Appellant.

v.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

529931

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

Calendar Date: March 16, 2021

Decided and Entered: April 8, 2021

Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City (Edward H. Grimmett of counsel), for appellant.

Teresa C. Mulliken, Harpersfield, for Geraldine M. Mayo, respondent.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Egan Jr., J.P.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 19, 2019, which ruled, among other things, that Stephen P. Epstein was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Stephen P. Epstein was appointed receiver to manage certain commercial real property that was being foreclosed upon and, with judicial approval, entered into a written agreement retaining claimant as the property manager (see 22 NYCRR 36.1 [a][10]; 36.2). Claimant was employed by a company that provided property management services at the time she was retained, but continued to serve as property manager for Epstein after that employment ended. When the receivership ended, she filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding that claimant was Epstein's employee in his capacity as receiver and, following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge agreed. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, and Epstein appeals.

We affirm. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Thomas [US Pack Logistics, LLC—Commissioner of Labor], 189 A.D.3d 1858, 1859, 138 N.Y.S.3d 244 [2020] ; Matter of Thorndike [Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. -Commissioner of Labor], 185 A.D.3d 1255, 1256, 127 N.Y.S.3d 213 [2020] ). Although all aspects of the working arrangement are considered in discerning that relationship, the key question "is whether the [putative] employer exercised control over the results produced by the worker or the means used to achieve the results" ( Matter of Vega [Postmates Inc. -Commissioner of Labor], 35 N.Y.3d 131, 137, 125 N.Y.S.3d 640, 149 N.E.3d 401 [2020] ; see Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 N.Y.3d 433, 437, 912 N.Y.S.2d 551, 938 N.E.2d 984 [2010] ; Matter of Thomas [US Pack Logistics, LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 189 A.D.3d at 1859, 138 N.Y.S.3d 244 ).

Here, the written agreement specified the tasks that claimant was expected to perform as property manager, and both it and the hearing testimony reflected that she needed Epstein's approval for most significant management decisions, including evicting tenants and contracting for maintenance and repair work. In fact, claimant's authority was even more limited than the agreement contemplated, as Epstein treated maintenance workers at the property as receivership employees and eventually deprived claimant of...