In re the Claim of DiPietro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of DiPietro

250 A.D.2d 916, 672 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5383

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

DecidedMay 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 916 (In re the Claim of DiPietro) 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 DiPietro, 250 A.D.2d 916, 672 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 10, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled [917]*917that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was not totally unemployed at the time he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits and charging him with a recoverable overpayment and the loss of benefit days. Claimant was the president and sole shareholder of MJD Landscaping Corporation. During the winter months, when business was dormant, claimant continued to engage in activities in furtherance of the business, e.g., writing checks on and depositing payments into the corporate bank account, ordering office supplies and maintaining the company’s 'equipment. That the business was not remunerative or not in full operation during the relevant time period, or that claimant’s activities on its behalf were minimal, does not preclude the finding that claimant was not totally unemployed, within the meaning of the Labor Law (see, Matter of Valvano [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 729; Matter of Monro [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 885).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 10, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled [917]*917that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was not totally unemployed at the time he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits and charging him with a recoverable overpayment and the loss of benefit days. Claimant was the president and sole shareholder of MJD Landscaping Corporation. During the winter months, when business was dormant, claimant continued to engage in activities in furtherance of the business, e.g., writing checks on and depositing payments into the corporate bank account, ordering office supplies and maintaining the company’s 'equipment. That the business was not remunerative or not in full operation during the relevant time period, or that claimant’s activities on its behalf were minimal, does not preclude the finding that claimant was not totally unemployed, within the meaning of the Labor Law (see, Matter of Valvano [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 729; Matter of Monro [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 885).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 916, 672 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dipietro-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack