In re the Claim of Quarantillo

226 A.D.2d 877, 641 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3682
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 11, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 877 (In re the Claim of Quarantillo) 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 Quarantillo, 226 A.D.2d 877, 641 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 31,1994, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

While collecting unemployment insurance benefits, claimant set up a business for processing health care claims and failed to report this activity to the local unemployment insurance office. After a hearing, the Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed beginning May 26, 1992.

Initially, we reject claimant’s argument that she was not self-employed during the period in question and that, therefore, the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Evidence was presented at the hearing that claimant, among other things, purchased office equipment, stationery and business cards for the company, filed a certificate of doing business and solicited customers. These activities constitute employment even though claimant did not receive any remuneration (see, Matter of Lewis [Roberts], 95 AD2d 917; Matter of Czarniak [Ross], 60 AD2d 745). Moreover, inasmuch as claimant did not report these activities to the local office, substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding of willful misrepresentation. Finally, we have considered claimant’s due process argument and find it to be lacking in merit.

[878]*878Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey 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

Related

In re the Claim of Shenman
297 A.D.2d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Martz
273 A.D.2d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Calsi
254 A.D.2d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Kim
253 A.D.2d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Roland
239 A.D.2d 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Albignano
232 A.D.2d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 A.D.2d 877, 641 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-quarantillo-nyappdiv-1996.