Opinion
June 27, 1991
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that, during the period that claimant was collecting unemployment insurance benefits, she was not totally unemployed as she was the sole owner of an active corporation involved in various ventures, including newspaper distribution, snowplowing, pet care and a home health aide service. Claimant maintained a telephone for the business in her home, advertised to solicit business for the corporation and maintained a corporate bank account. In addition, claimant admitted that on her tax returns she claimed as business expenses the answering machine for her telephone, the advertising and expenses regarding the home aide service. Therefore, the decision that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 1005, lv denied 40 N.Y.2d 806; Matter of Carasso [Catherwood], 23 A.D.2d 935; see also, Matter of Witham [Roberts], 134 A.D.2d 752). Finally, substantial evidence also supports the Board's conclusion that the overpayment in benefits was recoverable and that claimant made willful false statements (see, Matter of O'Leary [Roberts], 93 A.D.2d 915, 916). It was claimant's responsibility to disclose all pertinent facts which might be determinative of her right to benefits (see, supra, at 916).
Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.