You are here: / / Work for Which Claimant Was Not Paid Did Not Disqualify Her from Unemployment...

Work for Which Claimant Was Not Paid Did Not Disqualify Her from Unemployment Insurance Benefits

The Third Department determined unemployment insurance benefits should not have been denied claimant.  Claimant cared for a coworker’s child but was not paid for doing so. The board’s finding that claimant’s lack of employment was not “total” was not, therefore, supported by substantial evidence:

Resolution of this case turns on whether claimant’s activities in caring for her coworker’s child without compensation while she was laid off constitute a lack of total unemployment rendering her ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Labor Law § 591 (1) limits eligibility for benefits to those claimants who are “totally unemployed” … , which has been defined as “the total lack of any employment on any day” … . In this context, the term employment contemplates that a claimant will potentially receive some type of monetary payment or future benefit in exchange for services rendered… .

Here, it is undisputed that claimant did not receive any compensation for caring for her coworker’s son and there is no evidence in the record that she was likely to obtain a future financial benefit for doing so. Consequently, we must conclude that the Board’s finding that claimant’s activities in this regard amounted to a lack of total unemployment is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Connerton (Thousand Is. Cent. Sch. Dist.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 07892, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

You might also like
Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart He Was Driving Tipped Over, Was Subject to More than the Normal Hazards Associated with Golfing
PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) A CHILD CAN NOT BE PLACED IN ANOTHER STATE ABSENT THAT STATE’S PERMISSION, EVEN IF PLACEMENT IS WITH A RELATIVE WITH PARENTAL CONSENT 3RD DEPT.
ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Civil Service Law Did Not Create a Contractual or Vested Right in Health Benefits—Statutory Provision Allowing the Reduction in Benefits Valid and Enforceable Retroactively
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ECONOMIC DISTRESS VOIDED THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF, A YOUTH HOCKEY PLAYER INJURED BY A TIPPING BENCH IN THE LOCKER ROOM, WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COACH OR HIS FATHER IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALLEGATIONS FATHER DID NOT ABIDE BY THE VISITATION TERMS AND USED DRUGS DURING VISITATION SUPPORTED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES (THIRD DEPT).

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

Instructor at Community College Entitled to Unemployment Benefits, No Reasonable... Attorney Whose Testimony Would Support Client Should Have Been Disqualified...