Opinion
91544
September 12, 2002.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 28, 2001, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.
Dorothy J. Karpien, Argyle, appellant pro se.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
While collecting unemployment insurance benefits, claimant, a massage therapist, engaged in various activities to establish her own business, e.g., purchasing a massage chair and supplies, paying business-related laundry and telephone expenses and designing advertising flyers. During this period, she reported gross business income and business-related expenses on her income tax returns, while continuing to represent to the local unemployment insurance office that she was unemployed. Following a hearing, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found claimant ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed, charging her with a recoverable overpayment of $750 and a reduction in benefit days on the ground that she had made willful false statements to obtain benefits.
On this appeal, claimant raises the sole contention that she was incorrectly assessed with an overpayment of benefits because her representations of unemployment were based upon her mistaken belief that her business start-up activities did not constitute reportable work. This contention is unavailing. Claimant admittedly received the unemployment insurance information handbook which explains the requirement of reporting any work-related activity, however minor or uncompensated; hence, she cannot persuasively argue that she was ignorant of the rules regarding reportable employment (see Matter of Donaghy [Commissioner of Labor], 264 A.D.2d 883; see also Matter of Sulyok [Commissioner of Labor], 293 A.D.2d 803; Matter of Schenker [Commissioner of Labor], 284 A.D.2d 765, 766). As substantial evidence supports the decision of the Board, it will not be disturbed.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.