You are here: / / Claimant Did Not Demonstrate a Compelling Reason to Close His Business—Unemployment...

Claimant Did Not Demonstrate a Compelling Reason to Close His Business—Unemployment Insurance Benefits Denied

The Third Department determined a business owner who voluntarily closed his business was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because a compelling reason for the closure was not demonstrated:

“When a claimant closes an operating business, the issue of whether he or she is qualified to receive benefits turns upon whether there was a compelling reason to close the business” … . Here, claimant testified that, beginning in 2009, his business began to decline and that, between 2009 and 2012, there was a 50% drop-off of catering contracts. The corporation’s tax returns reflect, however, gross receipts of $297,167 in 2009, with a net income of $2,522, gross receipts of $281,397 in 2010, with a net income of $4,997, and gross receipts of $279,755 in 2011, with a net income of $764. Claimant’s individual tax returns reveal that he was paid a moderate salary in each of these three years. At the time he closed the business at the end of August 2012, claimant estimated corporate gross receipts of $220,970 for the year to date, with a net income of $26,620, after payment of claimant’s salary, in a sum that was lower than the prior years, but was not an extreme departure from his prior earnings. Although the decline in business had required claimant to reduce personnel, there was no proof that the business was otherwise unable to meet its financial obligations. Claimant owned the building where he ran the business, and there was no mortgage; the premises were rented to the business for favorable tax treatment. Although claimant testified that, at the time he closed the business he had no bookings for October 2012 to December 2012, he also testified that his business was seasonal and that this was generally a slow time. In our view, the record thus establishes that this was a viable business, and the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of O’Connell (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04176, 3rd Dept 5-14-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED SUBSTANCE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR MARIJUANA, THE SUPERVISOR’S STATEMENT THAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA WAS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE CONTRABAND-POSSESSION CHARGE 3RD DEPT.
Commissioner, Due to His Prior Involvement with Discipline of the Petitioner, Should Have Disqualified Himself from Review of the Hearing Officer’s Disciplinary Recommendation and from the Rendering a Final Judgment
NO INDICATION IN THE INDICTMENT OR THE ALLOCUTION THAT THE THREE ‘POSSESSION OF A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD’ OFFENSES TOOK PLACE AT DIFFERENT TIMES OR LOCATIONS, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT AUTHORIZED (THIRD DEPT).
AS NO PETITION WAS BEFORE THE COURT, FAMILY COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER A FORENSIC EVALUATION (THIRD DEPT).
Statutory and Due-Process Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over a Nondomiciliary Defendant Described
REMITTAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE SORA RISK-LEVEL-ASSESSEMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD BY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THAT AN AVAILABLE GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS NOT RAISED (THIRD DEPT).
Parole Conditions Did Not Require Parolee to Report Brief, Incidental Contact with Children to His Parole Officer—Parole Violation Determination Annulled

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Inability to Remember Fall and Absence of Witnesses Did Not Preclude Summary... Alterations to Easement Okay—They Did Not Interfere With the Easement-Holder’s...