In re the Claim of Falco

246 A.D.2d 711, 667 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 79
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 8, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 711 (In re the Claim of Falco) 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 Falco, 246 A.D.2d 711, 667 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 79 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 19, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Claimant was the president and 50% shareholder of a realty and mortgaging company until August 1989 when he sold his shares in the business to his father. Claimant thereafter managed the company for his father, who was retired and had no experience in the realty or mortgaging business, until claimant was laid off in November 1990. He was rehired in June 1991 and again laid off in November 1991 until July 1992, when claimant’s father gave him back his shares in the company and he resumed his duties as the company’s president. Although claimant divested himself of his interest in the company between 1990 and 1992, he remained a signatory to the business’s checking account and, in fact, signed a number of business-related checks while collecting unemployment insurance benefits. Significantly, his father was never authorized to sign checks. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was an active participant in the family-run business and not totally unemployed, and charged him with a recoverable overpayment based on its finding that claimant had made wilful false statements to obtain benefits. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s assessment of claimant’s credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented (see, Matter of Di Maria v Ross, 52 NY2d 771, 772) as well as its finding of willful misrepresentation (see, Labor Law § 597 [3]). Claimant’s remaining arguments have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, 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

Related

In re McCool
60 A.D.3d 1117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Armbruster
36 A.D.3d 1037 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Petosa
24 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Lewis
290 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Washington
279 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Warner
278 A.D.2d 653 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Luongo
276 A.D.2d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Hocker
275 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Kerrs
275 A.D.2d 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Lortz
269 A.D.2d 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Kabel
267 A.D.2d 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Kazin
267 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Sherman
267 A.D.2d 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Cannon
265 A.D.2d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Whitaker
262 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Halper
262 A.D.2d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Stasko
262 A.D.2d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Hanukov
260 A.D.2d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Weinberg
256 A.D.2d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Perkins
256 A.D.2d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D.2d 711, 667 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-falco-nyappdiv-1998.