| Matter of Parisi (Commissioner of Labor) |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06518 [54 AD3d 456] |
| August 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Gregory J. Parisi, Appellant. Commissioner ofLabor, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 2, 2007,which assessed Gregory J. Parisi for additional unemployment insurance contributions.
Gregory J. Parisi is an attorney who operates his own law practice. In connection therewith,he retained various attorneys to perform services on behalf of his clients, including making courtappearances, conducting depositions, handling discovery and preparing written motions and legalmemoranda. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that these attorneys were Parisi'semployees and it assessed him for additional unemployment insurance contributions as a result.Parisi now appeals.
Initially, it is well settled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factualissue for the Board to decide and its determination will not be disturbed if supported bysubstantial evidence (see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60NY2d 734, 736 [1983]; Matter of Seneca Nation of Indians [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 732,733 [1998]). In a case such as this involving the rendering of professional services, anemployment relationship will be found if there is " 'substantial evidence of control over importantaspects of the services performed other than results or means' " (Matter of InternationalStudent Exch. [Commissioner of Labor], 302 AD2d 834, 835 [2003], quoting Matter ofConcourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d at 736; see Matter of Singh [Thomas A. Sirianni,Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 43 AD3d 498, 499 [2007]). In the case at hand,Parisi instructed the attorneys with respect to the work to be performed on his clients' files andpaid them an agreed-upon hourly rate which was not dependent on receiving payment from theclients. After the attorneys performed [*2]the services, theyreported back to Parisi. Inasmuch as Parisi retained overall control of the attorneys' services,substantial evidence supports the Board's finding of an employment relationship (see Matterof Spinnell [Commissioner of Labor], 300 AD2d 770 [2002]). This is so notwithstanding theexistence of evidence in the record that supports a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Singh[Thomas A. Sirianni, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 43 AD3d at 499).
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.