In re the Claim of Brenenstuhl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Brenenstuhl

173 A.D.2d 993, 569 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554

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

DecidedMay 9, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 993 (In re the Claim of Brenenstuhl) 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 Brenenstuhl, 173 A.D.2d 993, 569 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 30, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, charged her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, and imposed a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

The evidence supports the conclusion that, during the period that claimant was collecting unemployment insurance [994]*994benefits, she was not totally unemployed as she was a partner in a viable family business for which she rendered services, including writing checks and preparing documents (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 AD2d 884). Although there were no employees, claimant’s involvement was minimal and the business was not doing well during her involvement, these facts are not controlling as claimant nonetheless stood to gain financially (see, Matter of DeVivo [Levine] 51 AD2d 619; Matter of Muller [Levine] 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806). Finally, we note that despite claimant’s awareness of her relationship to the business as a partner, she failed to reveal her connection or activities with the business. These findings support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation (see, Matter of Muller [Levine] supra).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercure, Crew III 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 October 30, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, charged her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, and imposed a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

The evidence supports the conclusion that, during the period that claimant was collecting unemployment insurance [994]*994benefits, she was not totally unemployed as she was a partner in a viable family business for which she rendered services, including writing checks and preparing documents (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 AD2d 884). Although there were no employees, claimant’s involvement was minimal and the business was not doing well during her involvement, these facts are not controlling as claimant nonetheless stood to gain financially (see, Matter of DeVivo [Levine] 51 AD2d 619; Matter of Muller [Levine] 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806). Finally, we note that despite claimant’s awareness of her relationship to the business as a partner, she failed to reveal her connection or activities with the business. These findings support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation (see, Matter of Muller [Levine] supra).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 993, 569 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-brenenstuhl-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack