In re the Claim of Belle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Belle

225 A.D.2d 826, 638 N.Y.2d 530, 638 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2056

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 826 (In re the Claim of Belle) 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 Belle, 225 A.D.2d 826, 638 N.Y.2d 530, 638 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon discovering that claimant served as a Councilman for the Town of Camillus in Onondaga County during the period of time he collected unemployment insurance benefits, the Board issued a decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed. Claimant concedes that he served as Councilman during the period at issue but asserts that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because, inter alia, his service as Councilman did not constitute employment. Inasmuch as the evidence is undisputed that claimant received an annual salary for his work as Councilman, performed a variety of duties in that capacity and was subject to inquiries by his constituents, we reject claimant’s contentions and find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Salisbury [Catherwood], 27 AD2d 587).

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

Upon discovering that claimant served as a Councilman for the Town of Camillus in Onondaga County during the period of time he collected unemployment insurance benefits, the Board issued a decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed. Claimant concedes that he served as Councilman during the period at issue but asserts that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because, inter alia, his service as Councilman did not constitute employment. Inasmuch as the evidence is undisputed that claimant received an annual salary for his work as Councilman, performed a variety of duties in that capacity and was subject to inquiries by his constituents, we reject claimant’s contentions and find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Salisbury [Catherwood], 27 AD2d 587).

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 826, 638 N.Y.2d 530, 638 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-belle-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack