In re the Claim of Arnold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Arnold

104 A.D.2d 685, 479 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20098

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 685 (In re the Claim of Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 685, 479 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 22,1984, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, and imposed a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

On January 11,1983, claimant filed an application for unemployment benefits, stating that his last employment terminated on January 1, 1983. Actually, for a considerable period of time prior to the application and during the time that he received unemployment benefits, he was working in Mark’s Grill in the Town of Macedón, Wayne County, on a part-time, irregular basis. There was no formal arrangement for pay but he received in his words, from $2 to $5 to spend at the bar after finishing his work. At no time prior to the receipt of a notice of ineligibility did claimant acknowledge that he was employed in any capacity.

It appears to be well-settled law that financial gain from employment is not a prerequisite in determining whether an applicant is entitled to unemployment benefits (Matter of Giordano [Ross], 85 AD2d 824; Matter of Smith [Ross], 78 AD2d 961, 962; Matter of Black [Ross], 64 AD2d 995, 996, mot for lv to app den 46 NY2d 707). The board found that claimant was employed [686]*686throughout the period of time he received benefits and that he willfully and falsely made statements to the contrary. Whether a claimant is totally unemployed is a factual question for the board’s determination (Matter of Smith [Ross], supra), as is the question of whether there has been a willful misrepresentation (Matter of Murphy [Ross], 83 AD2d 734, 735). The board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 22,1984, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, and imposed a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

On January 11,1983, claimant filed an application for unemployment benefits, stating that his last employment terminated on January 1, 1983. Actually, for a considerable period of time prior to the application and during the time that he received unemployment benefits, he was working in Mark’s Grill in the Town of Macedón, Wayne County, on a part-time, irregular basis. There was no formal arrangement for pay but he received in his words, from $2 to $5 to spend at the bar after finishing his work. At no time prior to the receipt of a notice of ineligibility did claimant acknowledge that he was employed in any capacity.

It appears to be well-settled law that financial gain from employment is not a prerequisite in determining whether an applicant is entitled to unemployment benefits (Matter of Giordano [Ross], 85 AD2d 824; Matter of Smith [Ross], 78 AD2d 961, 962; Matter of Black [Ross], 64 AD2d 995, 996, mot for lv to app den 46 NY2d 707). The board found that claimant was employed [686]*686throughout the period of time he received benefits and that he willfully and falsely made statements to the contrary. Whether a claimant is totally unemployed is a factual question for the board’s determination (Matter of Smith [Ross], supra), as is the question of whether there has been a willful misrepresentation (Matter of Murphy [Ross], 83 AD2d 734, 735). The board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 685, 479 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-arnold-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack