This is a short decision (6 pages including the dissent). The dissent is not impassioned, but rather starts with dryly reciting the facts, then says: >Althoug

This is a short decision (6 pages including the dissent). The dissent is not impassioned, but rather starts with dryly reciting the facts, then says: >Although the record contains factors that could support a contrary conclusion, including that couriers are not required to wear any uniform, can work for competitors and determine the route for delivery, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's finding that sufficient supervision, direction and control was exercised by Postmates to establish an employment relationship. It also specifically points to differences between this and another case: >Our recent decision in Matter of Courto (SCA Enterprises-Commissioner of Labor) (159 AD3d 1240 [2018]) does not, as Postmates contends, compel a different outcome. All of these cases are fact specific and there are several key factual distinctions between this case and Courto that substantiate the Board's finding of an employment relationship here, but not in Courto. It then dryly recites the facts in that other case. So this absolutely doesn't seem like the kind of thing that sets a "precedent". It is not really couched in landmark language. Read for yourself at parent's link - the ruling and dissent are together 5 and half pages. It's really quite specific and doesn't seem to generalize at all. Note: not a lawyer, not well-versed in this area of law.