In re the Claim of Shu-Lan Chu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Shu-Lan Chu

186 A.D.2d 339, 588 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10789

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 339 (In re the Claim of Shu-Lan Chu) 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 Shu-Lan Chu, 186 A.D.2d 339, 588 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 28, 1991, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined [340]*340that, during the period that claimant was collecting unemployment insurance benefits, she was the sole officer and stockholder of a corporation organized by her husband to import merchandise and sell it at wholesale in the United States. The business operated out of claimant’s house and used her home telephone number. Claimant testified that she put up the money to start the corporation, signed all the checks and maintained all of the corporation’s bookkeeping records. The fact that claimant was not paid for her services is not controlling (see, Matter of St Germain [Ross] 78 AD2d 565). In addition, although claimant testified that the corporation ceased operating in December 1988, documentary evidence in the record indicates that the corporation did not dissolve until December 1989. Under the circumstances, the decision that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts] 124 AD2d 884; Matter of St Germain [Ross] supra). Finally, when claimant filed for benefits, she never disclosed her connection with the business and she specifically indicated on her claim form that she was not involved in any business involving a relative. These findings support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation (see, Matter of O’Leary [Roberts] 93 AD2d 915; Matter of Muller [Levine] 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, 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 August 28, 1991, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined [340]*340that, during the period that claimant was collecting unemployment insurance benefits, she was the sole officer and stockholder of a corporation organized by her husband to import merchandise and sell it at wholesale in the United States. The business operated out of claimant’s house and used her home telephone number. Claimant testified that she put up the money to start the corporation, signed all the checks and maintained all of the corporation’s bookkeeping records. The fact that claimant was not paid for her services is not controlling (see, Matter of St Germain [Ross] 78 AD2d 565). In addition, although claimant testified that the corporation ceased operating in December 1988, documentary evidence in the record indicates that the corporation did not dissolve until December 1989. Under the circumstances, the decision that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts] 124 AD2d 884; Matter of St Germain [Ross] supra). Finally, when claimant filed for benefits, she never disclosed her connection with the business and she specifically indicated on her claim form that she was not involved in any business involving a relative. These findings support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation (see, Matter of O’Leary [Roberts] 93 AD2d 915; Matter of Muller [Levine] 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 339, 588 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-shu-lan-chu-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack