In re the Claim of Brandau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Brandau

52 A.D.2d 696, 382 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12372

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

DecidedApril 22, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 696 (In re the Claim of Brandau) 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 Brandau, 52 A.D.2d 696, 382 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 18, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective August 11, 1975 because he was not totally unemployed. The question of whether or not a person is totally unemployed is factual and, hence, within the sole province of the board, so long as its decision is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Schatzberg [Catherwood], 32 AD2d 710). Here, claimant was the 100% owner of the stock of a corporation and spent three to four hours each day in the furtherance of the business of the still active corporation. Failure of the corporation to make a profit during this time period is not controlling (Matter of Schneider [697]*697[Levine], 50 AD2d 631). In addition, the fact that claimant did not realize that his activities constituted employment is of no avail to him (Matter of Schatzberg [Catherwood], supra). The board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and it must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, 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 November 18, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective August 11, 1975 because he was not totally unemployed. The question of whether or not a person is totally unemployed is factual and, hence, within the sole province of the board, so long as its decision is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Schatzberg [Catherwood], 32 AD2d 710). Here, claimant was the 100% owner of the stock of a corporation and spent three to four hours each day in the furtherance of the business of the still active corporation. Failure of the corporation to make a profit during this time period is not controlling (Matter of Schneider [697]*697[Levine], 50 AD2d 631). In addition, the fact that claimant did not realize that his activities constituted employment is of no avail to him (Matter of Schatzberg [Catherwood], supra). The board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and it must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 696, 382 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-brandau-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack