Hunter v. Gannett Co.

• Decision Date: 19 February 2015
• Citation: 3 N.Y.S.3d 195,125 A.D.3d 1166,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01509
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Camille HUNTER, Respondent. Gannett Company, Inc., Doing Business as Democrat and Chronicle, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

?125 A.D.3d 1166
3 N.Y.S.3d 195
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01509

In the Matter of the Claim of Camille HUNTER, Respondent.
Gannett Company, Inc., Doing Business as Democrat and Chronicle, Appellant.
Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

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

Feb. 19, 2015

Affirmed.

[3 N.Y.S.3d 196]

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Daniel J. Pautz of counsel) and The Zinser Law Firm, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee (L. Michael Zinser admitted pro hac vice), for appellant.

James W. Cooper, Warrensburg, for Camille Hunter, respondent.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Koton of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.
Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP, New York City (Mark A. Fowler), for New York News Publishers Association, amicus curiae.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY, LYNCH and CLARK, JJ.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 25, 2013, which ruled, among other things, that Gannett Company, Inc. is liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Claimant contracted with Gannett Company, Inc. to deliver newspapers to residential customers. After the Commissioner of Labor deemed claimant an employee, Gannett objected and, following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge disagreed and concluded that claimant was an independent contractor. On appeal by the Commissioner of Labor, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed that determination and found claimant and all motor-route carriers similarly situated to be employees. Gannett now appeals, and we affirm.

The essence of Gannett's argument is that the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

[3 N.Y.S.3d 197]

“Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” ( Matter of John Lack Assoc., LLC [Commissioner of Labor], 112 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 977 N.Y.S.2d 760 [2013] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 N.Y.2d 734, 736, 469 N.Y.S.2d 78, 456 N.E.2d 1201 [1983] ). “While no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important” ( Matter of Joyce [Coface N. Am. Ins. Co.-Commissioner...