In re the Claim of Muller

50 A.D.2d 1005, 376 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11984
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 1005 (In re the Claim of Muller) 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 Muller, 50 A.D.2d 1005, 376 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 11, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determinations of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective June 6, 1972 because he was not totally unemployed, charging him with an overpayment of benefits ruled to be recoverable and imposing a forfeiture of 88 effective benefit days for a willful false statement. Claimant, an unemployed executive, formed a corporation to engage in business brokerage. Claimant was president and sole stockholder. The corporation rented offices, had telephones, and expended funds for advertising services. No sales were effectuated, whereby the corporation had no earnings and claimant devoted only a small part of his day to its affairs. When applying for benefits, however, claimant indicated that he was considering the purchase of a business but did not disclose that he had organized the corporation. Claimant asserts that he had no intention to conceal material facts and that he formed the corporation merely to avoid personal liability and as an alternative method of seeking a situation from which he would have income. It is well-settled, however, that where a claimant is a principal in an active corporation notwithstanding that such a corporation is not successful, such a claimant is not totally unemployed (Matter of Bailey [Catherwood], 18 AD2d 727). Moreover, the question of willful misrepresentation is factual and the board’s determination thereon should not be [1006]*1006disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Juris [Cather-wood], 33 AD2d 852). The record substantiates the fact that claimant failed to disclose formation of the corporation, and there is thus an adequate basis for finding that claimant made willful false statements for purposes of unemployment insurance (Labor Law, § 594). Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Claim of Featherly
198 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Marinelli
195 A.D.2d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Cassisa-Luster
194 A.D.2d 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Goldstein
192 A.D.2d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Gentili
191 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of McKeever
187 A.D.2d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Lang
187 A.D.2d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of De Martino
186 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Shu-Lan Chu
186 A.D.2d 339 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Cestaro
184 A.D.2d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Hilburger
183 A.D.2d 1016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of McNeil
180 A.D.2d 994 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Caravan
179 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Kaufman
178 A.D.2d 882 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Holt
178 A.D.2d 863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim Graver
176 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Wacher
175 A.D.2d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Haft
174 A.D.2d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Halvorsen
174 A.D.2d 952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Razzano
173 A.D.2d 1041 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.2d 1005, 376 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-muller-nyappdiv-1975.