Matter of Nkrumah v ThomasMatter of Nkrumah v Thomas
—[*1] Victoria A. Plotsky, Uninsured Employers’ Fund, Albany, for appellant.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), for Workers’ Compensation Board, respondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed February 27, 2008, which, among other things, ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and Venesen Dispatch Company.
Claimant was injured in a car accident while driving a passenger for hire in a vehicle with New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (hereinafter TLC) license plates registered to Venesen Dispatch Company. Claimant leased the vehicle from Venesen two days per week at a rate of $50 per 12-hour shift. Although the vehicle was a livery cab, which is only authorized to pick up passengers by prearrangement through a licensed base (see 35 RCNY 6-16 [f]), the vehicle did not have a dispatch radio and claimant picked up passengers through street hails. After claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, an investigation revealed that [*2]Venesen did not carry workers’ compensation insurance, so the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (hereinafter UEF) would be responsible for any benefits awarded (see
The Board‘s determination that Venesen and claimant had an employer-employee relationship is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Colin v Express Private Car & Limousine Serv., Inc., 16 AD3d 854, 855 [2005]; Matter of Singleton v Angora, 299 AD2d 620, 621 [2002]). For workers’ compensation purposes, part of the statutory definition of employer is an individual or entity “who leases or otherwise contracts with an operator or lessee for the purpose of driving, operating or leasing a taxicab as so defined in”
Here, Venesen leased the vehicle to claimant, who operated it to pick up passengers for compensation. The vehicle had TLC license plates and claimant testified that he possessed a hack license, which would permit him to drive for-hire vehicles. These facts provide substantial evidence for the Board‘s determinations that the vehicle fell under the statutory definition of taxicab, and Venesen and claimant fell within the presumptive definitions of employer and employee (see Honey Enters. Inc., 1995 WL 317057 [WCB No. 09248634, May 18, 1995]). Claimant‘s violation of TLC regulations—by picking up street hails in a livery cab (see 35 RCNY 6-01, 6-16 [f])—does not alter his status as an employee or the vehicle‘s status as a taxicab under
Even though an employer-employee relationship was established, claimant can only receive workers’ compensation benefits if his injury arose both out of and in the course of his employment (see
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Lahtinen and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.