From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ted Is Back Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 20, 1984
64 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. 1984)

Summary

noting that "control over the means is the more important factor to be considered"

Summary of this case from Padovano v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.

Opinion

Decided December 20, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Frederick M. Paola and Peter Sherwood of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Haskel for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that an employment relationship exists between Ted Is Back Corporation and its salespeople is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Although a determination that an employer-employee relationship exists may rest upon evidence that the employer exercises either control over the results produced or over the means used to achieve the results ( Matter of 12 Cornelia St. [ Ross], 56 N.Y.2d 895, 897; Matter of Sullivan Co. [ Miller], 289 N.Y. 110, 112), control over the means is the more important factor to be considered. Thus, incidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship.

The administrative law judge emphasized the importance of the fact that the salespeople acted as agents for the corporation and that the corporation retained the right to approve the final price negotiated by them. That these salespeople acted as agents cannot be decisive, for this is equally true where salespeople are determined to be independent contractors (see, e.g., Matter of Levine [ Miller], 258 App. Div. 1023, affd 283 N.Y. 577; Matter of Waroshill, 263 App. Div. 546). Nor is approval of price determinative for this is no more than the kind of incidental control over results that is "a necessarily wise business decision" ( Matter of Green Engraving Corp. [ Roberts], 95 A.D.2d 904, 905). Here, the evidence does not support a finding of control over the means of achieving the results. The salespeople worked at their own convenience, were free to hold outside employment and were not limited to any particular territory. They were not reimbursed for expenses and received no salary or drawing account, but were paid strictly on a commission basis. No taxes were withheld from their compensation. The corporation sometimes provided its salespeople with leads to potential sales, but when the sale resulted, 10% of the contract price was deducted before computing the salesperson's commission to compensate the corporation for the lead. That it provided leads and retained the right to approve the contract price and supplied form contracts for their use does not constitute substantial evidence to sustain the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision ( Matter of 12 Cornelia St. [ Ross], supra; Matter of Sullivan Co. [ Miller], supra).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

In re Ted Is Back Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 20, 1984
64 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. 1984)

noting that "control over the means is the more important factor to be considered"

Summary of this case from Padovano v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.

stating that "incidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship"

Summary of this case from Padovano v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.

In Matter of Ted Is Back Corp. (Roberts) (64 N.Y.2d 725, 726), the Court of Appeals noted that "incidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship".

Summary of this case from Matter of Werner
Case details for

In re Ted Is Back Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TED IS BACK CORPORATION, Respondent. LILLIAN ROBERTS, as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 20, 1984

Citations

64 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. 1984)
485 N.Y.S.2d 742
475 N.E.2d 113

Citing Cases

Vega v. Comm'r of Labor

Under the control test of employee status, "the critical inquiry in determining whether an employment…

In re Vega

Of our opinions in the unemployment insurance cases since 1981, Villa Maria Inst. of Music v Ross (54 NY2d…