You are here: / / CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S...
,

CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not totally unemployed and was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant was winding up his corporation’s business during the relevant period of time:

​

“[A] corporate officer who performs activities in connection with the winding up of a corporation will not be considered totally unemployed, even if his or her activities in this regard are minimal” … . Following the sale of the business, claimant took measures in winding up the business during the time period in question, including changing the company name with the Department of State as required by the purchase agreement, distributing the monthly installment payments received from the purchaser of the business, and writing checks from the company account for accountant and counsel fees, taxes, insurance costs, a charitable contribution, office supplies and other business expenses. Under these circumstances, the Board’s determination that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed … . “Contrary to claimant’s assertion, actual financial gain is not a prerequisite to a finding that a claimant is not totally unemployed” … . Matter of Lasker (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 07924, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED.
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION AS REQUIRED BY AN ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER; THE MAJORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT PERFECT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE COULD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THIS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO WEAR AN ALCOHOL MONITORING DEVICE AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION BUT WAS UNABLE TO PAY FOR IT, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY WAS WILLFUL, THEREFORE COUNTY COURT WAS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER PUNISHMENT OTHER THAN INCARCERATION (THIRD DEPT).
The Precise Terms of the Stipulation Were Not Demonstrated to Have Been Violated—Contempt Finding Improper
COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH INFORMATION PROVIDED FOUR DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PURSUANT TO A DEFENSE SUBPOENA INCLUDED BRADY MATERIAL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE DEFENSE HAD A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE INFORMATION TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES; THE DISSENTER DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury Explained (Not Met Here)
POLICE OFFICER’S INJURY WHEN HELPING LIFT A HEAVY DECEASED PERSON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (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

PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION... REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT,...