In re the Claim of Zimbelmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Zimbelmann

206 A.D.2d 589, 614 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7188

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 589 (In re the Claim of Zimbelmann) 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 Zimbelmann, 206 A.D.2d 589, 614 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 12, 1993, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

The Board found that claimant was the president and 80% shareholder of an ongoing and viable family corporation. It also noted that claimant executed the applicable franchise agreement and co-signed the lease, and that he stood to gain financially from the continued operation of the business. Claimant admitted that he expected to be consulted about major purchases made for the business. Given these findings and the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s interest in the business was more than an investor and that he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 March 12, 1993, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

The Board found that claimant was the president and 80% shareholder of an ongoing and viable family corporation. It also noted that claimant executed the applicable franchise agreement and co-signed the lease, and that he stood to gain financially from the continued operation of the business. Claimant admitted that he expected to be consulted about major purchases made for the business. Given these findings and the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s interest in the business was more than an investor and that he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 589, 614 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-zimbelmann-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack