In re the Claim of Ours

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ours

268 A.D.2d 669, 700 N.Y.S.2d 584, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 139

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 669 (In re the Claim of Ours) 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 Ours, 268 A.D.2d 669, 700 N.Y.S.2d 584, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 2, 1998, which ruled, inter alla, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

While receiving unemployment insurance benefits, claimant was involved in the operation of his wife’s restaurant. Evidence in the record discloses that claimant wrote 8 to 10 checks per week for the business and assisted in ordering supplies, inventory and accepting deliveries. Inasmuch as claimant and his wife commingled the business funds with their personal funds, claimant stood to gain financially from these activities. In these circumstances, there is substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Sheinfeld [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 943; Matter of Earle-Wilson [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 718).

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge that claimant made willful misrepresentations to obtain benefits was not appealed to the Board and thus is unpreserved for our consideration (see, Matter of Maldonado [Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 885).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 November 2, 1998, which ruled, inter alla, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

While receiving unemployment insurance benefits, claimant was involved in the operation of his wife’s restaurant. Evidence in the record discloses that claimant wrote 8 to 10 checks per week for the business and assisted in ordering supplies, inventory and accepting deliveries. Inasmuch as claimant and his wife commingled the business funds with their personal funds, claimant stood to gain financially from these activities. In these circumstances, there is substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Sheinfeld [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 943; Matter of Earle-Wilson [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 718).

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge that claimant made willful misrepresentations to obtain benefits was not appealed to the Board and thus is unpreserved for our consideration (see, Matter of Maldonado [Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 885).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 669, 700 N.Y.S.2d 584, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ours-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack