| Matter of Yoga Vida NYC, Inc. (Commissioner ofLabor) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05597 [119 AD3d 1314] |
| July 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of Yoga Vida NYC, Inc., Appellant.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. |
Andrew S. Goldman, Baltimore, Maryland, for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Mary Hughes of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June19, 2013, which assessed Yoga Vida NYC, Inc. for additional unemployment insurancecontributions.
Yoga Vida NYC, Inc. operates yoga studios in Manhattan. Instructors are eitherrecruited by Yoga Vida's president, Michael Patton, or they contact him after hearingabout the company through word of mouth. In May 2010, the Department of Laborconcluded that the instructors were employees of Yoga Vida and assessed additionalunemployment insurance contributions against it. The Unemployment Insurance AppealBoard ultimately agreed, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. The finding that "an employer-employee relationship exists is a factualdetermination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantialevidence" (Matter of John LackAssoc., LLC [Commissioner of Labor], 112 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2013]; seeMatter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]).As a general matter, an employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence showsthat "the employer exercised control over the results produced or the means used toachieve those results, with the latter being more important" (Matter of Anwer [ExclusiveFragrance & Cosmetics, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 114 AD3d1114, 1115 [2014]; see Matter of John Lack Assoc., LLC [Commissioner ofLabor], 112 AD3d at 1043).
Classes were held in Yoga Vida's studios and students were solicited by thecompany. [*2]Yoga Vida published class schedules on itswebsite and set the duration of each class. Instructors were compensated by checkaccording to a negotiated rate, with some instructors preferring a set rate for each classand others electing to take a percentage of the fees that were collected from students whoattended classes. Patton averred that the instructors were an integral part of Yoga Vida'sbusiness (see Matter ofProfessional Career Ctr., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1219, 1220[2013]), and he personally ensured that they were properly certified and had adequatetraining and expertise to conduct classes. While Yoga Vida disputed that it supervisedthe instructors, Patton conceded that he would personally address instructors regardingtheir manner of instruction if it posed a risk of injury to the students or if they wereotherwise engaged in conduct that he found objectionable. Overall, despite the existenceof evidence that could result in a contrary result, the record contains substantial evidenceto support the Board's decision that Yoga Vida had sufficient control over the instructors'work, thereby allowing for a finding of an employer-employee relationship (seeMatter of Anwer [Exclusive Fragrance & Cosmetics, Inc.—Commissioner ofLabor], 114 AD3d at 1115 [2014]; Matter of Human Performance, Inc. [Commissioner of Labor],28 AD3d 971, 972 [2006]; Matter of Fitness Plus [Commissioner of Labor],293 AD2d 909, 910 [2002]).
Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.