In re the Claim of De Vaul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of De Vaul

243 A.D.2d 802, 665 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 802 (In re the Claim of De Vaul) 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 De Vaul, 243 A.D.2d 802, 665 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 12, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant was not totally unemployed at the time he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Documentary and testimonial evidence presented at the hearing established that claimant operated his own design and planning business while receiving benefits, thereby supporting the Board’s finding that he was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Mizener [Sweeney], 240 AD2d 801; Matter of Monro [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 885, 886). Inasmuch as claimant failed to disclose his involvement in this business, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that he willfully made false statements to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Gross [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 742).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, 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 12, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant was not totally unemployed at the time he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Documentary and testimonial evidence presented at the hearing established that claimant operated his own design and planning business while receiving benefits, thereby supporting the Board’s finding that he was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Mizener [Sweeney], 240 AD2d 801; Matter of Monro [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 885, 886). Inasmuch as claimant failed to disclose his involvement in this business, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that he willfully made false statements to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Gross [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 742).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 802, 665 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-de-vaul-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack