In re the Claim of Kutalek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Kutalek

252 A.D.2d 623, 675 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8059

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 623 (In re the Claim of Kutalek) 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 Kutalek, 252 A.D.2d 623, 675 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 20, 1997, which, inter alia, 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 Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant was not totally unemployed during the period that he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant and his brother were partners in a business that purchased used vehicles for repair and resale. In 1993, they decided to close the business as a result of decreasing sales and began to liquidate their inventory so that they could ultimately surrender their dealership license. While claimant was receiving benefits from July 18, 1993 to December 31, 1993, the company maintained a bank account and received utility and telephone services. Also during that time period, claimant executed documents transferring title to several vehicles from the business to his brother individually, shared in business expenses and claimed those expenses as deductions on his 1993 personal income tax returns. In our view, this proof sufficiently supports the conclusion that claimant stood to gain financially from his [624]*624activities in connection with the business (see, Matter of Tyk [Sweeney], 220 AD2d 907; Matter of Ranee [Hudacs], 196 AD2d 930). We have reviewed claimant’s arguments to the contrary and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, 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

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 20, 1997, which, inter alia, 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 Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant was not totally unemployed during the period that he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant and his brother were partners in a business that purchased used vehicles for repair and resale. In 1993, they decided to close the business as a result of decreasing sales and began to liquidate their inventory so that they could ultimately surrender their dealership license. While claimant was receiving benefits from July 18, 1993 to December 31, 1993, the company maintained a bank account and received utility and telephone services. Also during that time period, claimant executed documents transferring title to several vehicles from the business to his brother individually, shared in business expenses and claimed those expenses as deductions on his 1993 personal income tax returns. In our view, this proof sufficiently supports the conclusion that claimant stood to gain financially from his [624]*624activities in connection with the business (see, Matter of Tyk [Sweeney], 220 AD2d 907; Matter of Ranee [Hudacs], 196 AD2d 930). We have reviewed claimant’s arguments to the contrary and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 623, 675 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kutalek-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack