In re the Claim of Di Giacomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Di Giacomo

183 A.D.2d 1095, 583 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7375

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

DecidedMay 21, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 1095 (In re the Claim of Di Giacomo) 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 Di Giacomo, 183 A.D.2d 1095, 583 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 13, 1991, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Whether a claimant is totally unemployed and whether there has been a willful misrepresentation are questions of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Arnold [Roberts], 104 AD2d 685, 686). Here, claimant does not dispute that she wrote and signed checks on behalf of her husband’s corporation on 43 separate days during the benefit period. Because this type of checkwriting activity has been held to constitute employment for purposes of the Labor Law (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 AD2d 884), the Board’s determination that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Barber [Roberts], 121 AD2d 767, 768). Furthermore, given [1096]*1096the amount of her checkwriting, there is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s negative answer on her claim form with respect to whether she was engaged in any business that does or may bring in income amounted to a willful false statement (see, Matter of O'Leary [Roberts], 93 AD2d 915).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Casey, 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 February 13, 1991, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Whether a claimant is totally unemployed and whether there has been a willful misrepresentation are questions of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Arnold [Roberts], 104 AD2d 685, 686). Here, claimant does not dispute that she wrote and signed checks on behalf of her husband’s corporation on 43 separate days during the benefit period. Because this type of checkwriting activity has been held to constitute employment for purposes of the Labor Law (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 AD2d 884), the Board’s determination that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Barber [Roberts], 121 AD2d 767, 768). Furthermore, given [1096]*1096the amount of her checkwriting, there is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s negative answer on her claim form with respect to whether she was engaged in any business that does or may bring in income amounted to a willful false statement (see, Matter of O'Leary [Roberts], 93 AD2d 915).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 1095, 583 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-di-giacomo-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack