TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Claim of Ernest D.

In the Matter of the Claim of Ernest D. St. Germain, Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner

In re the Claim of Ernest D., 78 A.D.2d 565 (1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 11, 1980
Citations
78 A.D.2d 565431 N.Y.S.2d 7321980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12927

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 12, 1979, which affirmed a decision ruling claimant ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed and charging him with overpayment ruled to be recoverable upon the grounds that claimant willfully made false statements to obtain benefits. Claimant, an unemployed engineer, was a corporate officer and equal stockholder in his wife’s business. His only function was to sign most of the checks for payment of corporate obligations. His wife operated the business and made all business decisions. Neither received any salary. In his application for unemployment insurance benefits, he certified he was totally unemployed. We have consistently held that activities, such as those performed by claimant, were sufficient to deny him benefits (see Matter of De Vivo [Levine] 51 AD2d 619 ). However, we have also determined that under the circumstances presented, there is insufficient evidence to support a determination of willful false misrepresentation to obtain benefits (Matter of Czarniak [Ross], 60 AD2d 745 ; Matter of Todino [Ross], 59 AD2d 638 ). Decision modified, by striking so much thereof as finds a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits ruled to be recoverable and imposes a forfeiture of effective days, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1981: 21986: 11987: 11990: 21991: 61992: 21993: 31996: 119812026peak 1991 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Claim of Barber121 A.D.2d 767 (1986)
  2. In re the Claim of Gross195 A.D.2d 742 (1993)
  3. In re the Claim of Firsching192 A.D.2d 1011 (1993)
  4. In re the Claim of Range196 A.D.2d 930 (1993)
  5. In re the Claim of De Martino186 A.D.2d 854 (1992)
  6. In re the Claim of McCune83 A.D.2d 659 (1981)

Most recent

  1. In re the Claim of Gauland223 A.D.2d 805 (1996)
  2. In re the Claim of Range196 A.D.2d 930 (1993)
  3. In re the Claim of Gross195 A.D.2d 742 (1993)
  4. In re the Claim of Firsching192 A.D.2d 1011 (1993)
  5. In re the Claim of De Martino186 A.D.2d 854 (1992)
  6. In re the Claim of Shu-Lan Chu186 A.D.2d 339 (1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Claim of Hasday, 51 A.D.2d 619 (1976) 13
In re the Claim of Czarniak, 60 A.D.2d 745 (1977) 10
In re the Claim of Todino, 59 A.D.2d 638 (1977) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list