649 N.Y.S.2d 955 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1996
Mercure, J. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 29, 1995, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
In November 1988, claimant, an independent freight hauler and sole proprietor of Big John’s Trucking, entered into a
We affirm. The evidence adduced at the administrative hearing established that Ranger arranged all of claimant’s jobs, set the freight charges and supplied invoices and shipping orders for claimant’s loads. Although claimant was the owner of the tractor trailer and was responsible for keeping it insured and in good repair, Ranger’s name was painted on the truck’s doors. In addition, claimant was informed by a Ranger representative when and where to pick up loads and where to deliver them. Although claimant was free to decline loads, he could not haul for anyone else without Ranger’s permission. During hauls, claimant was required to keep in touch with Ranger’s various satellite offices by radio, and claimant carried a Ranger identification card, was given a Ranger toll-free telephone number for emergencies and held himself out to customers to be a representative of Ranger. In the event that claimant required a helper, that individual was compensated by Ranger and not by claimant. Finally, Ranger distributed memoranda to drivers, including claimant, threatening fines and other disciplinary sanctions for unacceptable work performance. In fact, there were occasions when Ranger actually threatened claimant with fines, although no such fines were ever imposed, and failed to cancel the memos even after it discovered that it lacked the power to impose fines.
The question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists involves a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence of either control over the results achieved or control over the means used to achieve those results (see, Matter of Rivera [State Line Delivery Serv.—Roberts], 69 NY2d 679, cert denied 481 US 1049). Here, there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Board that Ranger exercised sufficient overall control over claimant’s services to establish his status as an employee (see, Matter of McKenna [Can Am Rapid
Cardona, P. J., Casey, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.