Matter of LTI, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)
2008 NY Slip Op 09524 [57 AD3d 1067]
December 4, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


In the Matter of LTI, Inc., Appellant. Commissioner of Labor,Respondent.

[*1]Archer, Byington, Glennon & Levine, L.L.P., Melville (Robert T. McGovern of counsel), forappellant.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 24, 2007,which assessed LTI, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

In a prior decision, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that LTI, Inc. was theemployer of certain individuals it retained to administer tests to job candidates and found that it wasliable for additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to suchindividuals. The Board's decision was subsequently affirmed by this Court (Matter of La Fleur [LTI,Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 27 AD3d 935 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d783 [2006]). The Court of Appeals, however, declined to undertake review because the decision wasnonfinal. As a result, further administrative proceedings followed, which resulted in a second decisionby the Board ruling that the amount of additional unemployment insurance contributions owed by LTIwas $1,122.06. LTI appeals.

Initially, we note that LTI does not contest the Board's calculation of the amount of the additionalcontributions owed. Rather, it argues that it does not owe any additional contributions because theindividuals at issue were not its employees. Inasmuch as this question was squarely decided inMatter of La Fleur (LTI, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (supra), it has resjudicata effect and is binding as the law of the case in the instant proceeding (see Matter ofRobinson [New York Times Newspaper Div. of N.Y. Times Co.—Hartnett], 168 AD2d746, 747 [1990], lv denied 78 NY2d 853 [1991]). In view of this, and given LTI's concessionthat it has brought the instant appeal solely for the purpose of obtaining a final order reviewable by the[*2]Court of Appeals, we decline to disturb the Board's decision.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.