Opinion ID: 2592641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: loll case

Text: In March, 1978 claimant, Debra Loll, was laid off from her job as a clerk cashier at Stop & Go in Elmira. She was rehired in September of that year. In the interim she collected unemployment benefits. At an unemployment interview on July 7, 1978 she had stated that she occasionally helped out at her father's drugstore, but received no compensation for these services. Toward the end of the month the agency sent her a letter warning her that any services performed for her father at his store would constitute employment even if she did not receive any compensation. On August 8, the manager of the unemployment office who was a regular customer at the drugstore saw the claimant behind the counter. In October the agency made an initial determination that petitioner was ineligible to receive benefits for two days out of each week during the period of claimed unemployment, representing the days she helped her family at the drugstore. Her weekly certifications of unemployment were characterized as false and wilful misrepresentations. As a result claimant was penalized 96 effective days and was directed to repay $564 representing the benefits she received on the days she was employed at her father's drugstore. Claimant demanded a hearing which was held in February of 1979. At the hearing she testified that she went to her father's store nearly every day during the period she claimed unemployment, so that she could borrow his car or have a family member babysit for her three-year-old son while she looked for a job. On occasion she would take care of a customer or deliver a prescription if her father or brother were busy or wanted to take a break. She usually only helped out for a few minutes one or two days a week during the evening or on a Saturday and on rare occasions worked for a few hours. These activities ceased after being warned of the consequences in July. However, she continued her daytime visits and during one of them might have assisted her family at the store for a few minutes because she had done so automatically throughout her life. She received no compensation for the help she provided at the store. At the conclusion of the hearing the administrative law judge held that claimant's activities at her father's store constituted employment. He also stated that the record is clear that the claimant was not candid with the local office and did not advise them of her activities. Thus he sustained the initial determinations. The appeal board affirmed adopting both the findings of fact and opinion of the administrative law judge. The case was heard by the Appellate Division in November, 1980, a year before its decision in the Valvo case. In a brief memorandum the court held that the record supported the board's finding that claimant had made false statements but not its finding of wilfulness. The court modified by reversing so much of the agency's determination as assessed a penalty of 96 effective days. At the time of its decision in Valvo the Appellate Division granted reargument in this case. In another brief memorandum, relying upon Valvo , the court further modified by reversing so much of the agency's determination as directed claimant to repay benefits received.