In re the Claim of Sparber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Sparber

226 A.D.2d 858, 640 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691

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

DecidedApril 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 858 (In re the Claim of Sparber) 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 Sparber, 226 A.D.2d 858, 640 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 28,1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, an officer and 50% shareholder of a corporation which operated an automobile brake repair business, applied for unemployment insurance benefits after selling his business. The Board denied his application, finding that he was disqualified from receiving benefits because he did not have a compelling reason to sell his business. Claimant challenges the Board’s decision, arguing that he was forced to sell his busi[859]*859ness for financial reasons. At the hearing, claimant testified that the business operated at a loss for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 and that his accountant recommended that he sell the business. However, the corporate tax returns reveal that the losses in two of those years were relatively minor and that the corporation continued to pay claimant a salary. Moreover, the person who purchased the business has continued to operate it. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Matter of Catanese [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 933).

White, J. P., Casey, 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 September 28,1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, an officer and 50% shareholder of a corporation which operated an automobile brake repair business, applied for unemployment insurance benefits after selling his business. The Board denied his application, finding that he was disqualified from receiving benefits because he did not have a compelling reason to sell his business. Claimant challenges the Board’s decision, arguing that he was forced to sell his busi[859]*859ness for financial reasons. At the hearing, claimant testified that the business operated at a loss for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 and that his accountant recommended that he sell the business. However, the corporate tax returns reveal that the losses in two of those years were relatively minor and that the corporation continued to pay claimant a salary. Moreover, the person who purchased the business has continued to operate it. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Matter of Catanese [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 933).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 858, 640 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-sparber-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack