Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Iris H. KAZIN, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 25, 1998 and August 27, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.
While collecting unemployment insurance benefits, claimant performed certain services on behalf of a computer services and data processing corporation of which she was the sole shareholder and president. Claimant's husband was the corporation's secretary/treasurer and both claimant and her husband were signatories on the corporate account. The business was operated from claimant's home and the corporation paid rent to the family. During the applicable period, claimant performed check-writing services and also filed tax returns taking advantage of deductions reflecting expenses attributable to the business. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately found claimant ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was not totally unemployed and charged her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits.
We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board's assessment of claimant's credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented (see, Matter of Falco [Sweeney], 246 A.D.2d 711, 667 N.Y.S.2d 499, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 815, 683 N.Y.S.2d 759, 706 N.E.2d 747). Although claimant's activities on behalf of the active corporation during the applicable time period were neither extensive nor especially profitable, “this does not preclude a finding that claimant was not totally unemployed and that she stood to gain financially from the continued operation of the business” (Matter of Johnston [Commissioner of Labor], 253 A.D.2d 949, 950, 678 N.Y.S.2d 160; see, Matter of Breitrose [Commissioner of Labor], 253 A.D.2d 930, 678 N.Y.S.2d 152; Matter of Loffredo [Sweeney], 231 A.D.2d 799, 647 N.Y.S.2d 580). Claimant's remaining contentions, including her assertion that it was error for a panel of two Board members to consider her appeal rather than a full Board panel (see, Matter of Maron [Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 919, 920, 672 N.Y.S.2d 507), have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 02, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)