In re the Claim of Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Diaz

57 A.D.3d 1150, 868 N.Y.2d 554

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1150 (In re the Claim of Diaz) 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 Diaz, 57 A.D.3d 1150, 868 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant made willful misrepresentations to obtain unemployment insurance benefits, thereby justifying the imposition of a recoverable overpayment and forfeiture of future benefits (see Matter of Sexton [Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1312, 1312 [2008]), notwithstanding claimant’s contention that the misrepresentations were not knowingly made (see Matter of McBurney [Commissioner of Labor], 46 AD3d 1308 [2007]; Matter of Piccirilli [Roberts], 92 AD2d 686 [1983]). Specifically, the record reveals that, during the benefits [1151]*1151period when claimant repeatedly certified that she was not employed or self-employed, she was engaged in start-up activities for a home daycare business, including acquiring a business certifícate and tax identification number, registering with the Office of Children and Family Services, taking appropriate training and classes, purchasing business supplies and advertising for the business (see Matter of Raspallo [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 751, 751-752 [2004]). Accordingly, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, 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

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant made willful misrepresentations to obtain unemployment insurance benefits, thereby justifying the imposition of a recoverable overpayment and forfeiture of future benefits (see Matter of Sexton [Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1312, 1312 [2008]), notwithstanding claimant’s contention that the misrepresentations were not knowingly made (see Matter of McBurney [Commissioner of Labor], 46 AD3d 1308 [2007]; Matter of Piccirilli [Roberts], 92 AD2d 686 [1983]). Specifically, the record reveals that, during the benefits [1151]*1151period when claimant repeatedly certified that she was not employed or self-employed, she was engaged in start-up activities for a home daycare business, including acquiring a business certifícate and tax identification number, registering with the Office of Children and Family Services, taking appropriate training and classes, purchasing business supplies and advertising for the business (see Matter of Raspallo [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 751, 751-752 [2004]). Accordingly, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 1150, 868 N.Y.2d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-diaz-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack