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 Jonathan R. WEINBERG, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 18, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.
Claimant is an attorney who incorporated Gercon Corporation in 1990 for the purpose of engaging in international trade. Acting as the sole shareholder, officer and director of the business which he operated from his home, claimant sold the business to his wife, a travel agent, on March 3, 1996. Claimant filed an original claim for unemployment insurance benefits on April 29, 1996 subsequent to termination of his last employment and was found eligible to receive benefits. However, claimant remained the sole signatory on the corporate account, signed all business checks and managed the corporate checkbook. Two days after claimant gave an affidavit concerning his activities to a Department of Labor investigator on November 18, 1996, claimant's wife became the signatory on the corporate checking account. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found claimant ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits during the applicable period because he was not totally unemployed and determined that he willfully made false statements to obtain benefits.
We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board's assessment of claimant's credibility and the inferences drawn from the record evidence, as well as the Board's finding of willful misrepresentation. Claimant conceded in his testimony that he performed administrative and accounting duties for his wife during the applicable period and the Board was within its province in not crediting claimant's statement that he did not know that these activities constituted “work” (see, Matter of Bello [Commissioner of Labor], 252 A.D.2d 693, 675 N.Y.S.2d 410; Matter of Falco [Sweeney], 246 A.D.2d 711, 667 N.Y.S.2d 499). Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision. Claimant's remaining arguments have been examined and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the decision is 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 10, 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)