Respondents correctly relied on federal law in determining whether petitioners were the claimants' employers ( see CPLR 7803). The definition of "employer" is the same under New York State and federal law ( see Labor Law § 2; § 190 [3]; 29 USC § 203 [d]). "[T]he test for determining whether an entity or person is an `employer`" is the same under New York State and federal law ( Chu Chung v New Silver Palace Rests., Inc., 272 F Supp 2d 314, 318 n 6 [2003]). Petitioners contend that Bynog v Cipriani Group ( 1 NY3d 193) is controlling here. However, the issue in Bynog was whether the putative employees were independent contractors, not whether a joint employment relationship existed in the context of a subcontract.
Respondents' determination that petitioners were the claimants' joint employers is supported by substantial evidence ( see CPLR 7803). A worker may be employed by more than one individual or entity at the same time ( Zheng v Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., 355 F3d 61, 66 [2d Cir 2003]). The determination is based on "the circumstances of the whole activity, viewed in light of economic reality," as uilluminat[ed]" by a number of factors ( id. at 71 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, petitioners supplied the materials used by the claimants in their work; the claimants performed discrete jobs as masons and bricklayers within petitioners' integrated construction project; the claimants were hired to work full time for petitioners until the masonry work was completed, and thus could not work on other projects at the same time; and petitioners' principal was on the job site daily and supervised the work with the subcontractor ( see id. at 72).
We have reviewed petitioners' remaining arguments and find them without merit.