In re the Claim of Solieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Solieri

228 A.D.2d 754, 643 N.Y.2d 730, 643 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6398

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

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 754 (In re the Claim of Solieri) 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 Solieri, 228 A.D.2d 754, 643 N.Y.2d 730, 643 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant, a plumber, worked intermittently in July and August 1990, during which time he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The Board found him ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $780 and reduced his right to future benefits on the basis that he wilfully made false statements. Evidence was adduced at the hearing that claimant worked a total of nine days during the time he was receiving benefits and received compensation for his services. In view of this, as well as claimant’s admission that he certified that he did not perform any work when he signed his benefit checks, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, 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

Claimant, a plumber, worked intermittently in July and August 1990, during which time he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The Board found him ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $780 and reduced his right to future benefits on the basis that he wilfully made false statements. Evidence was adduced at the hearing that claimant worked a total of nine days during the time he was receiving benefits and received compensation for his services. In view of this, as well as claimant’s admission that he certified that he did not perform any work when he signed his benefit checks, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 754, 643 N.Y.2d 730, 643 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-solieri-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack