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
Doctrine of “Practical Location” (to Determine Boundary Line) Explained
THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND PRECLUDES A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A VEHICLE BASED SOLELY ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THEREFORE THE STATUTE APPLIES HERE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WAS PRE-ENACTMENT, THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS POST-ENACTMENT (THIRD DEPT).
INABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.
ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF.
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL THERE WAS NO APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT).
PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
DOWSING THE VICTIM WITH ACCELERANT AND IGNITING IT DO NOT SATISFY THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE HIS TERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING THE SAME RELIEF ON THE SAME GROUNDS, AS WELL AS DAMAGES (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

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