Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re the Claim of Willette 127 A.D.3d 1400

← Cases

In re the Claim of Willette

127 A.D.3d 1400 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2015-04-09 English

Judges Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 1400
In the Matter of the Claim of Jill Willette, Respondent. Park Ride Fly USA, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
[5 NYS3d 620]—

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 13, 2013, which ruled, among other things, that Park Ride Fly USA was liable for unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Substantial evidence supports the decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant and others similarly situated were the employees of Park Ride Fly USA. Park Ride operates a website where individuals can reserve parking near airports across the United States, and claimant worked for it as a customer service agent. Claimant was required to answer telephone calls from customers, which were routed to her home using specialized equipment that Park Ride provided. She received several weeks of training to perform that work, and thereafter worked hours selected by her and approved by her supervisor. Customer complaints were handled by Park Ride, and supervisors monitored calls in order to ensure quality control. Claimant was further required to

p. 1401
detail the hours she worked, was paid a set amount per hour on a weekly basis, and was reimbursed for expenses. Notwithstanding contrary evidence in the record, the Board could readily find from the foregoing that Park Ride “exercised sufficient direction and control over the services performed by claimant and other persons similarly situated to establish their status as employees” (Matter of Noblitt [Oxford Univ. Press —Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1033 , 1033 [1993]; see Matter of Noel [Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 38 AD3d 1082 , 1083-1084 [2007]; Matter of Frattallone [Victor Addressing Corp.— Levine], 39 AD2d 984 , 984 [1972]).

Park Ride’s remaining argument has been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cases cited