In re the Claim of Contro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Contro

270 A.D.2d 557, 703 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2364

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 557 (In re the Claim of Contro) 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 Contro, 270 A.D.2d 557, 703 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 16, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

On this appeal, claimant contends that she was discharged from her employment due to lack of work. We disagree. The record indicates that claimant established a pattern of working for her husband’s plumbing business, then claiming unemployment insurance benefits for 26 weeks and then returning back to work once the benefits were exhausted. The record also reveals that, as a part of this pattern, claimant’s husband received paychecks in similar amounts to those paid claimant once claimant was off the payroll but that he stopped receiving these paychecks once claimant returned to work. This pattern of separation from claimant’s employment supports the finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that there were no compelling reasons for claimant’s unemployment and that [558]*558these periods of unemployment were contrived by claimant and her husband (see, Matter of McNeil [Hudacs], 180 AD2d 994). Furthermore, given that claimant indicated on her application for unemployment insurance benefits that she separated from her employment due to lack of work when, in fact, business necessity did not warrant her discharge, we decline to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Yaminian [Misicom Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 678, lv denied 93 NY2d 801; Matter of Pelkey [Hudacs], 180 AD2d 995). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello 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 December 16, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

On this appeal, claimant contends that she was discharged from her employment due to lack of work. We disagree. The record indicates that claimant established a pattern of working for her husband’s plumbing business, then claiming unemployment insurance benefits for 26 weeks and then returning back to work once the benefits were exhausted. The record also reveals that, as a part of this pattern, claimant’s husband received paychecks in similar amounts to those paid claimant once claimant was off the payroll but that he stopped receiving these paychecks once claimant returned to work. This pattern of separation from claimant’s employment supports the finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that there were no compelling reasons for claimant’s unemployment and that [558]*558these periods of unemployment were contrived by claimant and her husband (see, Matter of McNeil [Hudacs], 180 AD2d 994). Furthermore, given that claimant indicated on her application for unemployment insurance benefits that she separated from her employment due to lack of work when, in fact, business necessity did not warrant her discharge, we decline to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Yaminian [Misicom Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 678, lv denied 93 NY2d 801; Matter of Pelkey [Hudacs], 180 AD2d 995). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 557, 703 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-contro-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack