In re the Claim of Del Ponte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Del Ponte

221 A.D.2d 712, 632 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10710

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 712 (In re the Claim of Del Ponte) 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 Del Ponte, 221 A.D.2d 712, 632 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 8, 1994, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

As compensation for his referral of four accounts, claimant received four checks from Samsung of America totaling the sum of $7,097.62. The Board found Samsung to be claimant’s employer and ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant asserts that because he was an independent contractor and not Samsung’s employee and that these referrals were made before he laid claim to unemployment benefits, the Board’s decision is in error.

We disagree. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that, in addition to furnishing the subject accounts, claimant used Samsung’s office to make business calls to customers during the relevant period. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. 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 September 8, 1994, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

As compensation for his referral of four accounts, claimant received four checks from Samsung of America totaling the sum of $7,097.62. The Board found Samsung to be claimant’s employer and ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant asserts that because he was an independent contractor and not Samsung’s employee and that these referrals were made before he laid claim to unemployment benefits, the Board’s decision is in error.

We disagree. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that, in addition to furnishing the subject accounts, claimant used Samsung’s office to make business calls to customers during the relevant period. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 712, 632 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-del-ponte-nyappdiv-1995.