Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Comm'r of Labor (In re Rodriguez)

• Decision Date: 08 April 2021
• Docket Number: 528753
• Citation: 193 A.D.3d 1190,147 N.Y.S.3d 187
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the Claim of Rudy A. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant. v. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

193 A.D.3d 1190
147 N.Y.S.3d 187

In the MATTER OF the Claim of Rudy A. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.

Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant.
v.
Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

528753

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

Calendar Date: March 17, 2021
Decided and Entered: April 8, 2021

147 N.Y.S.3d 188

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York City (Sarah L. Huff of counsel), for appellant.

Salvatore C. Adamo, Albany, for Rudy A. Rodriguez, respondent.

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

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed

147 N.Y.S.3d 189

February 19, 2019, which ruled that Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company was liable for unemployment insurance contributions based upon remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

In May 2013, claimant, a licensed insurance broker and agent during the time period in question, entered into a written agreement with Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company (hereinafter Penn Mutual) to act as an agent for Penn Mutual selling insurance. Thereafter, in August 2013, claimant and Penn Mutual executed a written Full–Time Soliciting Agent's Contract (Individual Variable and Nonvariable Products), which superseded the prior agreement but otherwise maintained his responsibilities. In 2014, Penn Mutual terminated its relationship with claimant, prompting claimant to file for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding that claimant was eligible for benefits based upon remuneration paid to him and others similarly situated. Penn Mutual objected and, following hearings, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter the ALJ), among other things, overruled the Department's determination and found that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits based upon his status as an independent contractor. Upon review, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the decision of the ALJ, finding that claimant was an employee and therefore was eligible for benefits based upon remuneration paid to him and others similarly situated. Penn Mutual appeals.

As an initial matter, Penn Mutual does not challenge that portion of the Board's decision finding that its written agreements with claimant failed to satisfy the requirements of Labor Law § 511(21), which, if satisfied, would exclude the services provided by claimant from the definition of "employment" and render him ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits (see Labor Law § 511[21][d][i]-[vii] ; Matter of Joyce [Coface N. Am. Ins. Co.-Commissioner of Labor], 116 A.D.3d 1132, 1133, 983 N.Y.S.2d 136 [2014] ). Instead, Penn Mutual contends that the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. "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 appeal 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...