In re the Claim of Michielson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Michielson

252 A.D.2d 624, 675 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8075

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 624 (In re the Claim of Michielson) 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 Michielson, 252 A.D.2d 624, 675 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 28, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

After losing his employment with a local manufacturer under nondisqualifying conditions, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that he was not totally unemployed. The record indicates that claimant was the sole shareholder and officer of a corporation which operates a tavern. While claimant was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the tavern and contends that he is merely an investor, he was a signatory on the corporate bank account. To that end, the record establishes that he signed numerous business-related checks while collecting unemployment insurance benefits. Furthermore, the record clearly indicates that claimant stood to gain financially from the continued operation of the tavern. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Preiser [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 743; Matter of Taylor [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 754; see also, Matter of Zimbelmann [Hudacs], 206 AD2d 589).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III 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 28, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

After losing his employment with a local manufacturer under nondisqualifying conditions, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that he was not totally unemployed. The record indicates that claimant was the sole shareholder and officer of a corporation which operates a tavern. While claimant was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the tavern and contends that he is merely an investor, he was a signatory on the corporate bank account. To that end, the record establishes that he signed numerous business-related checks while collecting unemployment insurance benefits. Furthermore, the record clearly indicates that claimant stood to gain financially from the continued operation of the tavern. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Preiser [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 743; Matter of Taylor [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 754; see also, Matter of Zimbelmann [Hudacs], 206 AD2d 589).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 624, 675 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-michielson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack