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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

206 A.D.2d 589 (In re the Claim of Zimbelmann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related