In re the Claim of Micelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Micelli

207 A.D.2d 929, 616 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8833

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 929 (In re the Claim of Micelli) 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 Micelli, 207 A.D.2d 929, 616 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 8, 1993, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

In view of evidence that, during the eligible period, claimant performed services for a family-owned business corporation of which he was a one-third shareholder, there is substantial evidence for the Board’s conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed. Because these activities took place at the same time that claimant was collecting benefits and representing that he was not working, there is also proof to support the determination that claimant made willful misrepresentations to obtain benefits.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Weiss, 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 February 8, 1993, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

In view of evidence that, during the eligible period, claimant performed services for a family-owned business corporation of which he was a one-third shareholder, there is substantial evidence for the Board’s conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed. Because these activities took place at the same time that claimant was collecting benefits and representing that he was not working, there is also proof to support the determination that claimant made willful misrepresentations to obtain benefits.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Weiss, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 929, 616 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-micelli-nyappdiv-1994.