Opinion
May 9, 1991
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
The evidence supports the conclusion that, during the period that claimant was collecting unemployment insurance benefits, she was not totally unemployed as she was a partner in a viable family business for which she rendered services, including writing checks and preparing documents (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 A.D.2d 884). Although there were no employees, claimant's involvement was minimal and the business was not doing well during her involvement, these facts are not controlling as claimant nonetheless stood to gain financially (see, Matter of DeVivo [Levine], 51 A.D.2d 619; Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 1005, lv denied 40 N.Y.2d 806). Finally, we note that despite claimant's awareness of her relationship to the business as a partner, she failed to reveal her connection or activities with the business. These findings support the further conclusion of willful misrepresentation (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], supra).
Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.