In re the Claim of Lentini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lentini

228 A.D.2d 853, 643 N.Y.2d 778, 643 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6645

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

DecidedJune 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 853 (In re the Claim of Lentini) 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 Lentini, 228 A.D.2d 853, 643 N.Y.2d 778, 643 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits after losing his job as a mechanical engineer. While collecting benefits, he performed various activities on behalf of his own engineering and consulting business. The Board subsequently found him ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $17,380 and reduced his right to receive future benefits because he made wilfully false statements. Claimant argues that the Board violated his right to due process and equal protection in concluding that he was not totally unemployed since his situation was the same as any unemployed worker seeking employment. We find this argument to be without merit.

It is well established that one who engages in activities on behalf of a corporation is not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Lang [Hudacs], 187 AD2d 836; Matter of Lewis [Roberts], 95 AD2d 917). Here, claimant admitted that he engaged in a variety of activities in furtherance of his business after he was laid off, including soliciting clients, establishing an office, opening a corporate checking account, purchasing a computer and facsimile machine, and obtaining corporate stationary. In addition, claimant filed corporate tax returns in 1992 indicating that the corporation generated gross receipts of $410,455. In view of this as well as claimant’s failure to report his activities to the local unemployment insurance office, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gottwald [Sweeney], 216 AD2d 623; Matter of Berg [Hudacs], 200 AD2d 847).

[854]*854Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, 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

Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits after losing his job as a mechanical engineer. While collecting benefits, he performed various activities on behalf of his own engineering and consulting business. The Board subsequently found him ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $17,380 and reduced his right to receive future benefits because he made wilfully false statements. Claimant argues that the Board violated his right to due process and equal protection in concluding that he was not totally unemployed since his situation was the same as any unemployed worker seeking employment. We find this argument to be without merit.

It is well established that one who engages in activities on behalf of a corporation is not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Lang [Hudacs], 187 AD2d 836; Matter of Lewis [Roberts], 95 AD2d 917). Here, claimant admitted that he engaged in a variety of activities in furtherance of his business after he was laid off, including soliciting clients, establishing an office, opening a corporate checking account, purchasing a computer and facsimile machine, and obtaining corporate stationary. In addition, claimant filed corporate tax returns in 1992 indicating that the corporation generated gross receipts of $410,455. In view of this as well as claimant’s failure to report his activities to the local unemployment insurance office, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gottwald [Sweeney], 216 AD2d 623; Matter of Berg [Hudacs], 200 AD2d 847).

[854]*854Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 853, 643 N.Y.2d 778, 643 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lentini-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack