Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re the Claim of Murak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 20, 1997

244 A.D.2d 751; 664 N.Y.S.2d 661; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11736

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Nigro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Paquette (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re the Claim of Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
In re the Claim of Washington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Schenker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Stasko (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of Halper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of Donaghy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of Cannon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of McEwen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Moreira (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Johnston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 14, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

In 1991, claimant lost his job under nondisqualifying conditions and filed for unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant subsequently filed a certificate for doing business as a consultant; he had business cards and stationery printed, joined professional organizations and attended gatherings, all of which he claimed was to make him appear employed during his job search and available to be hired as a consultant or an employee. Claimant obtained a few odd jobs during 1991 and reported a small income and significant expenses and losses on a Schedule C form (Business Income or Loss) on his 1991 Federal tax return. We find that the foregoing provides substantial evidence to support the ruling that claimant was not totally unemployed during the time he was receiving benefits (see, Matter of Mizener [Sweeney], 240 AD2d 801; Mat*752ter of Monro [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 885). Claimant’s denial that he was attempting to establish a consulting business along with his claim that his activities were related to his search for employment presented a credibility issue for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Ferraro [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 781). Lastly, claimant’s admission that he did not report his business activities to the local unemployment office amply supports the finding that he made willful false statements to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Grimard [Sweeney], 228 AD2d 852, lv dismissed 89 NY2d 861).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.