In re the Claim of Gentili

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gentili

191 A.D.2d 929, 595 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2468

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 929 (In re the Claim of Gentili) 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 Gentili, 191 A.D.2d 929, 595 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 22, 1992, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was the sole owner of an ongoing business and that he was therefore not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Witham [Roberts], 134 AD2d 752; Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 [930]*930AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806). Claimant admitted that he was a "self-employed planning consultant” and that he operated from an office within his apartment. He was listed in the yellow pages under "Landscape Architects” and maintained a separate business telephone. He also kept a separate bank account and admitted that the business owned furniture and office equipment. In addition, his tax return for the relevant time period claimed business expenses. The mere fact that the business may not have been remunerative is not controlling (see, Matter of Carasso [Catherwood], 23 AD2d 935). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected for lack of merit.

Weiss, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Mahoney 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 June 22, 1992, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was the sole owner of an ongoing business and that he was therefore not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Witham [Roberts], 134 AD2d 752; Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 [930]*930AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806). Claimant admitted that he was a "self-employed planning consultant” and that he operated from an office within his apartment. He was listed in the yellow pages under "Landscape Architects” and maintained a separate business telephone. He also kept a separate bank account and admitted that the business owned furniture and office equipment. In addition, his tax return for the relevant time period claimed business expenses. The mere fact that the business may not have been remunerative is not controlling (see, Matter of Carasso [Catherwood], 23 AD2d 935). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected for lack of merit.

Weiss, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 929, 595 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gentili-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack