From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Claim of Koenes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 22, 2006
30 A.D.3d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

99348.

June 22, 2006.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 5, 2005, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Tabner, Ryan Keniry, L.L.P., Albany (John W. Tabner of counsel), for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.


After losing his job as the general manager of a hotel, claimant filed an application for unemployment insurance benefits effective August 25, 2003. Prior to this, claimant started a landscaping business with his son and acted as an officer of the closely held corporation that they formed to operate the business. Although the business no longer was active when claimant applied for benefits, the corporation had not yet been dissolved. Claimant initially received benefits totaling $10,530, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that he was ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed and charged him with a recoverable overpayment. Claimant now appeals.

It is well established that a claimant who is a principal of an ongoing corporation will not be considered totally unemployed, even if his or her activities are minimal, so long as he or she stands to gain financially from the continued existence of the corporation ( see Matter of Witham [Commissioner of Labor], 25 AD3d 837, 837 [2006]; Matter of McHugh [Commissioner of Labor], 305 AD2d 923, 924). Here, it is undisputed that claimant took income tax deductions for expenses associated with the business, which he continued to pay even though the business no longer was generating any income. As receipt of a tax benefit is sufficient to render a claimant not totally unemployed ( see Matter of Dolcater [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 583, 584), we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Claim of Koenes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 22, 2006
30 A.D.3d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

In the Matter of Claim of Koenes

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of DAVID K. KOENES, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 22, 2006

Citations

30 A.D.3d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5081
817 N.Y.S.2d 713

Citing Cases

Martin v. Comm'r of Lab.

Profitability of the business is not determinative (see Matter of Cardella [Commissioner of Labor], 179…

In re Mtr. of Bonnie

She also benefitted financially from corporate income reported on her personal income tax return. Given these…