In re the Claim of Marschke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Marschke

243 A.D.2d 980, 664 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10336

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 980 (In re the Claim of Marschke) 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 Marschke, 243 A.D.2d 980, 664 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 15, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision, inter alia, ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

When claimant’s employment with the State Energy Office ended, he began working at home, preparing and submitting proposals to potential customers regarding ways to implement the use of alternative fuels. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible for the benefits he received after his employment with the Energy Office ceased [981]*981on the ground that he was not totally unemployed. The Board further ruled that claimant had made willful false statements to obtain benefits and, accordingly, charged him with a recoverable overpayment and assessed the loss of eight benefit days. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling. The mere fact that claimant’s business activities were not remunerative during this time period or that claimant’s activities therein were minimal does not preclude this finding (see generally, Matter of Egbuna [Hudacs], 198 AD2d 577; see also, Matter of Vartanian [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 711, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 938).

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 April 15, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision, inter alia, ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

When claimant’s employment with the State Energy Office ended, he began working at home, preparing and submitting proposals to potential customers regarding ways to implement the use of alternative fuels. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible for the benefits he received after his employment with the Energy Office ceased [981]*981on the ground that he was not totally unemployed. The Board further ruled that claimant had made willful false statements to obtain benefits and, accordingly, charged him with a recoverable overpayment and assessed the loss of eight benefit days. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling. The mere fact that claimant’s business activities were not remunerative during this time period or that claimant’s activities therein were minimal does not preclude this finding (see generally, Matter of Egbuna [Hudacs], 198 AD2d 577; see also, Matter of Vartanian [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 711, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 938).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 980, 664 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-marschke-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack