In re the Claim of Rolfe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rolfe

9 A.D.3d 731, 779 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9761

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

DecidedJuly 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 731 (In re the Claim of Rolfe) 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 Rolfe, 9 A.D.3d 731, 779 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 5, 2003, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed. The record establishes that claimant owned and operated a government inspected chinchilla farm with two part-time employees. When not employed in the construction business as a heavy equipment operator, claimant worked six to eight hours a day on the farm caring for the chincillas and constructing cages for them. Claimant also was the signatory on the business checking account. The business advertised the sale of chinchillas to various businesses, research facilities and individuals and also maintained an Internet Web site. Although [732]*732claimant maintains that the business was not profitable, he nevertheless offset the farm expenses against his personal income taxes. In view of the foregoing, and given that claimant stood to gain financially through the tax deduction, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Helm [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 943 [2003]; Matter of Shaffer [Roberts], 96 AD2d 621 [1983]).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Feters, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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 May 5, 2003, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed. The record establishes that claimant owned and operated a government inspected chinchilla farm with two part-time employees. When not employed in the construction business as a heavy equipment operator, claimant worked six to eight hours a day on the farm caring for the chincillas and constructing cages for them. Claimant also was the signatory on the business checking account. The business advertised the sale of chinchillas to various businesses, research facilities and individuals and also maintained an Internet Web site. Although [732]*732claimant maintains that the business was not profitable, he nevertheless offset the farm expenses against his personal income taxes. In view of the foregoing, and given that claimant stood to gain financially through the tax deduction, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Helm [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 943 [2003]; Matter of Shaffer [Roberts], 96 AD2d 621 [1983]).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Feters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 731, 779 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rolfe-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack