In re the Claim of Shagam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Shagam

168 A.D.2d 729, 564 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14790

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 6, 1990·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 6, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Claimant contends that because her secondary vocation is only for "her future protection”, she is entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that she is no longer employed in her primary vocation. However, the evidence indicates that, at the time she filed for benefits, claimant was the president of an ongoing business at which there was mail and telephone service. Claimant also advertised the business and maintained a checking account for it. This evidence supports the conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed, and the fact that she made little or no money at the business and only worked a few hours each week is not controlling (see, Matter of Muller [Levine] 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806; Matter of Carasso [Catherwood], 23 AD2d 935, 936).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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 December 6, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Claimant contends that because her secondary vocation is only for "her future protection”, she is entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that she is no longer employed in her primary vocation. However, the evidence indicates that, at the time she filed for benefits, claimant was the president of an ongoing business at which there was mail and telephone service. Claimant also advertised the business and maintained a checking account for it. This evidence supports the conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed, and the fact that she made little or no money at the business and only worked a few hours each week is not controlling (see, Matter of Muller [Levine] 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806; Matter of Carasso [Catherwood], 23 AD2d 935, 936).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Shagam, 168 A.D.2d 729, 564 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

168 A.D.2d 729 (In re the Claim of Shagam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related