Opinion
February 6, 1992
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
The conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed during the claim period in question is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Witham [Roberts], 134 A.D.2d 752). Claimant admitted that she was the sole owner of a building containing the apartment in which she and her husband lived and seven offices, four of which were rented at a rate of $970 per month. In a signed statement, claimant also stated that she managed the property and cleaned the offices every night. While claimant disputed some of these facts later at the hearing, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was free to rely on claimant's signed statement rather than the conflicting testimony taken at the hearing (see, Matter of Jensen [Levine], 49 A.D.2d 794). The fact that claimant made little or no money is not controlling (see, Matter of Carasso [Catherwood], 23 A.D.2d 935, 936). Claimant's further contention that she was still diligently seeking work is also irrelevant (see, Matter of Schreiber [Lubin], 5 A.D.2d 745).
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.