Villa Maria Institute of Music v. Ross

• Decision Date: 06 July 1981
• Citation: 54 N.Y.2d 691,442 N.Y.S.2d 972,426 N.E.2d 466
• Parties: , 426 N.E.2d 466 In the Matter of VILLA MARIA INSTITUTE OF MUSIC, Appellant. v. Philip ROSS, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 972

442 N.Y.S.2d 972

54 N.Y.2d 691, 426 N.E.2d 466

In the Matter of VILLA MARIA INSTITUTE OF MUSIC, Appellant. v. Philip ROSS, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 6, 1981.

Raymond V. Wylegala, Buffalo, for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Peter Crary, Asst. Atty. Gen., Shirley Adelson Siegel, Sol. Gen., Paul S. Shemin and Iris A. Steel, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 77 A.D.2d 775, 432 N.Y.S.2d 861, should be affirmed, with costs.

There was substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that an employment relationship existed between the Villa Maria Institute of Music and the instructors. Whether an employment relationship exists necessarily is a question of fact, involving a determination of "the existence of a right of control over the agent in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done" (Matter of Morton, 284 N.Y. 167, 172, 30 N.E.2d 369; see Matter of Liberman v. Gallman, 41 N.Y.2d 774, 778, 396 N.Y.S.2d 159, 364 N.E.2d 832). All aspects of the arrangement must be examined to determine whether the degree of control and direction reserved to the employer establishes an employment relationship (Matter of Morton, 284 N.Y., at p. 173, 30 N.E.2d 369, supra; Matter of Liberman v. Gallman, 41 N.Y.2d, at p. 778, 396 N.Y.S.2d 159, 364 N.E.2d 832, supra; cf. iMatter of Wittenstein v. Fugazy Cont. Corp., 59 A.D.2d 249, 399 N.Y.S.2d 314; mot. for lv. to app. den., 43 N.Y.2d 648, 403 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 374 N.E.2d 399).

4] Contrary to petitioner's argument, the record as a whole provides sufficient support for the board's determination. While there was evidence from which a contrary conclusion could have been drawn, the board was not required to accept petitioner's characterization of the instructors as independent contractors (see Matter of MNORX, Inc. 46 N.Y.2d 985, 986, 416 N.Y.S.2d 228, 389 N.E.2d 823; Matter of Liberman v. Gallman, supra, at p. 779, 396 N.Y.S.2d 159, 364 N.E.2d 832). The conclusion that evidence exists to sustain the determination ends the judicial inquiry (see Matter of Burger 303 N.Y. 654, 656, 101 N.E.2d 763).

COOKE, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER, JJ., concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.