In re the Claim of Bluttal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bluttal

199 A.D.2d 806, 605 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12217

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 806 (In re the Claim of Bluttal) 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 Bluttal, 199 A.D.2d 806, 605 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 25, 1992, which denied claimant’s application for reconsideration of a prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Given the failure of claimant to submit new evidence to support his request for reconsideration, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rejection of the application. In any event, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant’s activities on behalf of a corporation of which he was a major stockholder constituted employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law. Claimant’s [807]*807failure to reveal his activities in this regard support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation.

Weiss, P. J., Crew III, Cardona, White and Casey, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 25, 1992, which denied claimant’s application for reconsideration of a prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Given the failure of claimant to submit new evidence to support his request for reconsideration, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rejection of the application. In any event, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant’s activities on behalf of a corporation of which he was a major stockholder constituted employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law. Claimant’s [807]*807failure to reveal his activities in this regard support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation.

Weiss, P. J., Crew III, Cardona, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 806, 605 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bluttal-nyappdiv-1993.