You are here: / / CLAIMANT’S CONNECTION TO A CORPORATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT...

CLAIMANT’S CONNECTION TO A CORPORATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT FINDING HE WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED.

The Third Department determined claimant, who was listed as a principal of a corporation (Reel One), did not have a sufficient connection to the corporation to warrant the board’s decision claimant was not totally unemployed:

It is well settled that “[a] claimant who is a principal of an ongoing corporation will not be considered totally unemployed if he or she stands to benefit financially from its continued operation, no matter how minimal the activities performed on its behalf” … .

Here, there is no evidence that claimant performed any activities, however trivial, on behalf of Reel One in 2010 during the time period at issue. In addition, there is no evidence that claimant’s name appeared on any bank accounts or corporate documents. Claimant testified that his wife created Reel One as a nonprofit corporation in the 1990s before they were married and that she was the sole shareholder. Although claimant and his wife, who both had extensive journalism experience, were listed as principals of Reel One on its website, claimant testified that his wife provided this information for marketing purposes only and that the website functioned as a type of advertisement. There is no evidence that the website was actively used to transact business. Matter of Petrick (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 07363, 3rd Dept. 11-10-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT’S CONNECTION TO A CORPORATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT FINDING HE WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED)

You might also like
“Agreement to Agree” Insufficient to Sever a Joint Tenancy
APPELLANT WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WHICH DENIED HER MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE PENDING FURTHER DISCOVERY; THEREFORE THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
CRISIS COUNSELOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE.
Village’s Opting to Remove Petitioner’s Land from the Land Available for Purchase by New York City to Maintain the City’s Drinking-Water Watershed Was Not a Regulatory Taking
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT TO CPL 420.10 FOR FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THAT STATUTE; RESENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
ORDER LIMITING TRIAL EVIDENCE WAS APPEALABLE.
ITHACA’S FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS ALLOWING THE CLOSURE OF STREETS AND SIDEWALKS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS VALID, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Five-Day Time-Limit On Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Erroneous Information Provided by Prosecutor to Defendant Which Caused Defendant to Refrain from Testifying Before the Grand Jury

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE... DISSATISFACTION WITH JOB ASSIGNMENTS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR RESIGNING.