In re the Claim of Breitrose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Breitrose

253 A.D.2d 930, 678 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9344

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 930 (In re the Claim of Breitrose) 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 Breitrose, 253 A.D.2d 930, 678 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 13, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

While collecting unemployment insurance benefits, claimant failed to report that she was rendering services on behalf of a photo processing business that she co-owned with her husband. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed. The Board further charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of benefits and reduced her right to future earnings based upon a finding that she made willful false statements to obtain benefits. The record reveals that claimant made capital contributions toward the purchase price of the photo processing business. Moreover, as vice-president and 50% shareholder, she was a signatory on the business checking account and wrote 6 to 10 checks per week in payment for various business expenses. Such check-writing activities, performed by an officer and shareholder in an active corporation, have previously been held to constitute “employ[931]*931ment” under the Labor Law (see, Matter of Warren [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 942; Matter of Bartfeld [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 642). Finally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements to obtain benefits and the reasons given by claimant for failing to report her activities to the local unemployment office do not persuade us otherwise (see, Matter of Rotter [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 800).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, 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 June 13, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

While collecting unemployment insurance benefits, claimant failed to report that she was rendering services on behalf of a photo processing business that she co-owned with her husband. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed. The Board further charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of benefits and reduced her right to future earnings based upon a finding that she made willful false statements to obtain benefits. The record reveals that claimant made capital contributions toward the purchase price of the photo processing business. Moreover, as vice-president and 50% shareholder, she was a signatory on the business checking account and wrote 6 to 10 checks per week in payment for various business expenses. Such check-writing activities, performed by an officer and shareholder in an active corporation, have previously been held to constitute “employ[931]*931ment” under the Labor Law (see, Matter of Warren [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 942; Matter of Bartfeld [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 642). Finally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements to obtain benefits and the reasons given by claimant for failing to report her activities to the local unemployment office do not persuade us otherwise (see, Matter of Rotter [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 800).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 930, 678 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-breitrose-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack