In re the Claim of Koenigsamen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Koenigsamen

283 A.D.2d 825, 724 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187

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

DecidedMay 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 825 (In re the Claim of Koenigsamen) 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 Koenigsamen, 283 A.D.2d 825, 724 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 17, 2000, which ruled, inter alia, that 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 ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed during the period in question. The record reveals that after his employment with the Veteran’s Administration ended due to lack of work, claimant reactivated his previous contracting business. The record further establishes that claimant maintained an active business checking account and also filed a profit and loss statement for the business with his income tax return, which indicated that he deducted business expenses and depreciation on business equipment. Although claimant’s activities were minimal, he nevertheless stood to gain financially from the operation of his business (see, Matter of Kazin [Commissioner of Labor], 267 AD2d 581; Matter of Kutalek [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 623). Furthermore, inasmuch as claimant admittedly failed to disclose these nonphysical activities to the local unemployment insurance office, we find no reason to disturb the assessment of a forfeiture of benefit days and recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Norris [Hartnett], 173 AD2d 1043).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, 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 17, 2000, which ruled, inter alia, that 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 ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed during the period in question. The record reveals that after his employment with the Veteran’s Administration ended due to lack of work, claimant reactivated his previous contracting business. The record further establishes that claimant maintained an active business checking account and also filed a profit and loss statement for the business with his income tax return, which indicated that he deducted business expenses and depreciation on business equipment. Although claimant’s activities were minimal, he nevertheless stood to gain financially from the operation of his business (see, Matter of Kazin [Commissioner of Labor], 267 AD2d 581; Matter of Kutalek [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 623). Furthermore, inasmuch as claimant admittedly failed to disclose these nonphysical activities to the local unemployment insurance office, we find no reason to disturb the assessment of a forfeiture of benefit days and recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Norris [Hartnett], 173 AD2d 1043).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 825, 724 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-koenigsamen-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack