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 William D. BURR, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 26, 1998, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.
Claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he was ineligible to receive such benefits because he lacked total unemployment. It is undisputed that claimant was secretary and 45% shareholder in an electrical contracting business which he had formed with his wife who was the president and 55% shareholder. Although claimant had ceased operating the business, due in part to the couples' pending divorce, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board nevertheless found that claimant, who did not surrender his interest in the business, stood to gain financially from the corporation's continued existence.
We reject claimant's contention that the Commissioner of Labor failed to substantiate claimant's lack of total unemployment by failing to issue subpoenas against claimant or his wife for the production of the corporate records. Although the record fails to establish whether the subpoenas were ever issued, it establishes that claimant was not the party requesting the issuance thereof (see, e.g., Matter of Eckler [Commissioner of Labor], 254 A.D.2d 672, 679 N.Y.S.2d 202; Matter of O'Connor [Howell-Hartnett], 165 A.D.2d 946, 948, 561 N.Y.S.2d 318). Under the circumstances presented here, we find no substantive or procedural error warranting the reversal of the Board's decision inasmuch as there is sufficient evidence to sustain the Board's decision (see generally, Matter of Mintzer [Sheft-Commissioner of Labor], 256 A.D.2d 965, 681 N.Y.S.2d 899; Matter of O'Connor [Howell-Hartnett], supra ).
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: October 21, 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)