In re the Claim of Savage

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Savage

253 A.D.2d 924, 677 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9389

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 924 (In re the Claim of Savage) 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 Savage, 253 A.D.2d 924, 677 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 6, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed. In 1992, claimant, a jewelry store sales clerk and a licensed real estate broker, filed a certificate of doing business for a real estate venture. After she separated from her employment at the jewelry store and filed for unemployment insurance benefits in 1997, claimant entered into an agreement with a real estate agency whereby the real estate venture would refer customers to the agency and receive 20% of the commission derived from any resulting sale. While she was receiving benefits, claimant had two homes listed with the agency, maintained a checking account for the real estate venture and distributed her business cards at social gatherings. These activities were in furtherance of a plan that was intended to produce income and, therefore, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Fanara [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 768; Matter of Bryant [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 797).

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, 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 6, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed. In 1992, claimant, a jewelry store sales clerk and a licensed real estate broker, filed a certificate of doing business for a real estate venture. After she separated from her employment at the jewelry store and filed for unemployment insurance benefits in 1997, claimant entered into an agreement with a real estate agency whereby the real estate venture would refer customers to the agency and receive 20% of the commission derived from any resulting sale. While she was receiving benefits, claimant had two homes listed with the agency, maintained a checking account for the real estate venture and distributed her business cards at social gatherings. These activities were in furtherance of a plan that was intended to produce income and, therefore, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Fanara [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 768; Matter of Bryant [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 797).

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 924, 677 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-savage-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack