In re the Claim of Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Thomas

251 A.D.2d 846, 674 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7405

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

DecidedJune 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 846 (In re the Claim of Thomas) 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 Thomas, 251 A.D.2d 846, 674 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 11, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence in the record supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which found claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the grounds that he was not totally unemployed and that he failed to comply with reporting requirements of the local unemployment office. On his application for benefits, claimant indicated that he was involved in soliciting future business for his ongoing direct marketing company. Notwithstanding his testimony that the company was inactive and not profitable, claimant stood to gain financially from the continued operation of the direct marketing business (see, Matter of Nichols [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 663, lv denied 90 NY2d 806). Furthermore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant failed to comply with the reporting requirements of the local unemployment insurance office inasmuch as claimant admitted that he made no attempt to obtain the requested tax returns pertaining to the company which he recently sold.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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 February 11, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Substantial evidence in the record supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which found claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the grounds that he was not totally unemployed and that he failed to comply with reporting requirements of the local unemployment office. On his application for benefits, claimant indicated that he was involved in soliciting future business for his ongoing direct marketing company. Notwithstanding his testimony that the company was inactive and not profitable, claimant stood to gain financially from the continued operation of the direct marketing business (see, Matter of Nichols [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 663, lv denied 90 NY2d 806). Furthermore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant failed to comply with the reporting requirements of the local unemployment insurance office inasmuch as claimant admitted that he made no attempt to obtain the requested tax returns pertaining to the company which he recently sold.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 846, 674 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-thomas-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack