From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Lortz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 24, 2000

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 23, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

R. Adrian Solomon, Rochester, for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Steven Segall of counsel), New York City, for respondent.

Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, CARPINELLO, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In August 1997, while employed as a director of sales and marketing for a mediation and arbitration company, claimant established her own mediation and arbitration business and filed a business certificate to reflect this circumstance. Claimant ordered business cards and stationery, contracted for a business telephone line and arranged for yellow pages advertising and a post office box for business mail. In December 1997, claimant's former employment ended under nondisqualifying circumstances and she filed an original claim for unemployment insurance benefits. Thereafter, claimant maintained her association with several mediation organizations and projects and attended meetings and provided volunteer services on their behalf. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately found that claimant maintained her professional associations in order to further her business prospects. Thus, the Board 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,lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 815). Although claimant's activities on behalf of her business during the applicable time period were apparently not profitable, she did receive a tax benefit due to a claimed business loss. In any event, a lack of profit "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).

Claimant's remaining contentions, including her challenge to the finding that she made willful false statements, have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Lortz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Lortz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of DARLEEN LORTZ, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Feb 24, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 308

Citing Cases

Matter of the Claim of Bedrosian

Furthermore, claimant's tax returns for the periods in question indicate business income and business…

Matter of Hocker

We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board's assessment of claimant's credibility and the inferences…