In re the Claim of Cestaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cestaro

184 A.D.2d 986, 585 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8583

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 25, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 15, 1991, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Given the activities claimant engaged in for her husband’s business, which included a substantial amount of checkwriting, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that she was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 AD2d 884). Consequently, the unemployment insurance benefits she received were properly held recoverable (see, Labor Law § 597 [4]; Matter of Barber [Roberts], 121 AD2d 767). Finally, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s factual finding that the nature of claimant’s activities was so concerted as to generate an awareness that her certifications of unemployment were false (see, Matter of O’Leary [Roberts], 93 AD2d 915; Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806). Claimant’s contentions with regard to the issue of willfulness involve questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Woods [Ross], 54 AD2d 515).

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, 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 March 15, 1991, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Given the activities claimant engaged in for her husband’s business, which included a substantial amount of checkwriting, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that she was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 AD2d 884). Consequently, the unemployment insurance benefits she received were properly held recoverable (see, Labor Law § 597 [4]; Matter of Barber [Roberts], 121 AD2d 767). Finally, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s factual finding that the nature of claimant’s activities was so concerted as to generate an awareness that her certifications of unemployment were false (see, Matter of O’Leary [Roberts], 93 AD2d 915; Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806). Claimant’s contentions with regard to the issue of willfulness involve questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Woods [Ross], 54 AD2d 515).

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Cestaro, 184 A.D.2d 986, 585 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

184 A.D.2d 986 (In re the Claim of Cestaro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related