Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Frank P. DeVivo, Appellant. Louis L. Levine, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1976-01-15
Citations: 51 A.D.2d 619
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Frank P. DeVivo, Appellant. Louis L. Levine, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 619–619

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Frank P. DeVivo, Appellant. Louis L. Levine, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Opinion:
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 17, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from benefits on the ground that he was not totally unemployed. Claimant, a carpenter, was last employed by a family corporation of which he is the vice-president and treasurer and owns 40% of the stock. Claimant's wife, son and daughter-in-law are the other officers and stockholders. The corporation is in the home construction business, with its office located in claimant's home. The record reveals that business was slow and, although the son, also a carpenter, continued to work for the corporation, claimant was discharged for lack of work. The board determined that claimant was not totally unemployed. On this appeal claimant urges that because he has received no benefits from the corporation and has participated in no corporate activities since he was laid off, he was totally unemployed during the period involved and should not be denied benefits. What constitutes total unemployment is a factual issue for the board. (Matter of Newman [Catherwood], 24 AD2d 1042.) While claimant may have had no responsibilities in the corporation's going business and disassociated himself completely therefrom, he, nevertheless, stood to gain financially from its continuing operation. Under the circumstances, the board could find that claimant lacked total unemployment. (Cf. Matter of Lieberman [Catherwood], 20 AD2d 835.) Its determination is supported by substantial evidence and must, therefore, be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.