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 Peter H. HOTALING Jr., Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 18, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.
One month prior to losing his job under nondisqualifying conditions, claimant and two friends started a concrete business. According to claimant, he withdrew from this business prior to applying for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed and charged him with a recoverable overpayment. We affirm.
The record reveals that during the period claimant was receiving benefits, he ordered supplies and picked up windows for a project being done by the concrete business. Furthermore, although his signature did not appear on the document, claimant's name, along with those of his two associates, was included on an independent contractor agreement. He was also notified when one of the associates ceased being affiliated with the business. Moreover, although requested to do so, claimant failed to produce any documentation evidencing his withdrawal from the business. Whether claimant was completely disassociated from the concrete business presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Rance [Hudacs], 196 A.D.2d 930, 602 N.Y.S.2d 236). We conclude that the Board's assessment of claimant's credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented are supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Di Maria v. Ross, 52 N.Y.2d 771, 772, 436 N.Y.S.2d 616, 417 N.E.2d 1004; Matter of Falco [Sweeney], 246 A.D.2d 711, 667 N.Y.S.2d 499) and that claimant was properly assessed with a recoverable overpayment. Claimant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: June 18, 1998
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)