Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Claim of Ziegler v. Fillmore Car Service, Inc.
Citations: 83 A.D.2d 692; 442 N.Y.S.2d 276; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15005
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 16, 1981; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that established an employer-employee relationship between Fillmore Car Service, Inc. and the claimant at the time of the claimant's accident. The primary issue was whether substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of this relationship. Fillmore operates a licensed radio dispatch service and provided dispatching for independent taxi operators, including the claimant, who drove a cab owned by Ferry-Grider Car Service. The claimant was instructed to accept calls from Fillmore’s dispatcher while retaining the ability to solicit other passengers. Under the agreement with Ferry-Grider, the claimant was responsible for fuel costs, with remaining earnings split between them. On March 5, 1974, the claimant was shot and robbed by a passenger, prompting the current claim. The Board noted that cabs using Fillmore’s services were dispatched through them, and the presence of a "Fillmore" dome light on the claimant's cab indicated Fillmore's control. Additionally, Fillmore enforced an age requirement for drivers, which Ferry-Grider was tasked with upholding. The Board concluded that these factors demonstrated sufficient control to establish a dual employer-employee relationship involving both Ferry-Grider and Fillmore. In reviewing the appeal, the court emphasized that the determination of an employment relationship is a factual matter, requiring substantial evidence to uphold the Board's findings. Key considerations included the right to control, payment methods, provision of equipment, discharge rights, and the nature of the work. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion, noting Fillmore’s control over the claimant’s duties and the benefits it derived from the claimant's work. Consequently, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed without costs.