In re the Claim of Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Smith

212 A.D.2d 922, 622 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1604

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 922 (In re the Claim of Smith) 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 Smith, 212 A.D.2d 922, 622 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 17, 1993, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration.

We find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision to reject claimant’s application to reopen the Board’s prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed. In any event, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s activities on behalf of a corporation of which he was a 50% stockholder constituted employment under Labor Law § 522. There is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s further finding that claimant made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits.

[923]*923Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. 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 May 17, 1993, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration.

We find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision to reject claimant’s application to reopen the Board’s prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed. In any event, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s activities on behalf of a corporation of which he was a 50% stockholder constituted employment under Labor Law § 522. There is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s further finding that claimant made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits.

[923]*923Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 922, 622 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-smith-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack