In re the Claim of Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Higgins

201 A.D.2d 810, 607 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1140

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 10, 1994·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 20, 1993, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration.

Insofar as claimant failed to submit any new evidence to support his request that the Board reconsider its prior decision ruling that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, we do not find that the Board abused its discretion in rejecting the application. In any event, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant’s activities on behalf of a corporation of which he was the chief executive officer and sole shareholder constituted employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law. Claimant’s failure to reveal his activities in this regard support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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 January 20, 1993, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration.

Insofar as claimant failed to submit any new evidence to support his request that the Board reconsider its prior decision ruling that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, we do not find that the Board abused its discretion in rejecting the application. In any event, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant’s activities on behalf of a corporation of which he was the chief executive officer and sole shareholder constituted employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law. Claimant’s failure to reveal his activities in this regard support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation.

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

In re the Claim of Higgins, 201 A.D.2d 810, 607 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

201 A.D.2d 810 (In re the Claim of Higgins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related