In re the Claim of Sheinfeld, 245 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
In re the Claim of Sheinfeld, 245 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McCrory v. Village of Mamaroneck (nysupct, 2011-10-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCrory v. Village of Mamaroneck
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2011 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Dismissal of an action for failure to join a necessary party “is not warranted where, as here, the interests of the named party and the nonjoined party are so intertwined that there is virtually no prejudice to the nonjoined party.” (Sawicki v County of Suffolk, 4 AD3d 465, 466 [2d Dept 2004]; cf. Matter of Storrs v Holcomb, 245 AD2d 943, 946 [3d Dept 1997].) Therefore, the MBYC entities are not necessary parties and their motions to dismiss the instant proceeding for petitioner’s failure to join them as respondents is denied.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hutton Developers v. 346-364 Washington Avenue Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Neither has a direct or possessory interest in the property (cf. Storrs v Holcomb, 245 AD2d 943, 945-946 [1997]), neither would be inequitably affected by the judgment herein and complete relief can be accorded to the other parties in their absence (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Nagavi v Newcomb, 305 AD2d 904, 905-906 [2003]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2003 · confidence medium
Thus, the petitioners’ contentions on the merits on appeal were not addressed, and were not properly reached at Special Term (see, Matter of Storrs v Holcomb, 245 AD2d 943, 946 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" Calderone v. Wiemeier
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, “[t]he primary reason for compulsory joinder of parties is to avoid multiplicity of actions and to protect nonparties whose rights should not be jeopardized if they have a material interest in the subject matter” (Joanne S. v Carey, 115 AD2d 4, 7 [1986]; see Matter of Storrs v Holcomb, 245 AD2d 943, 945-946 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
A person might not be an indispensable party if the absent person is united in interest with a party such that they “stand or fall together” (Matter of Mount Pleasant Cottage School Union Free School Dist. v Sobol, 163 AD2d 715, 716 , affd 78 NY2d 935 ; see, Matter of Storrs v Holcomb, 245 AD2d 943, 945 ).
cited Cited "see" Doner v. Comptroller of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
Dept., 240 AD2d 923, 925 ; see, Matter of Storrs v Holcomb, 245 AD2d 943, 945 ), joinder may be excused (see, e.g., Matter of Zubal v Ambach, 103 AD2d 927, 929 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Jay Sheinfeld, John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 24, 1997.
245 A.D.2d 943
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 26, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found claimant ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he was not totally unemployed and charged him with a recoverable overpayment. The record establishes that, among other things, claimant performed the bookkeeping for his wife’s business and wrote the majority of the checks for the business while receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant’s name also appeared on the signature card for the business. Claimant admits that he did not report these business activities to the local unemployment insurance office. Although claimant was not paid for his services, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was not totally unemployed (see, Matter of Bartfeld [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 642, 643; Matter of Di Giacomo [Hudacs], 183 AD2d 1095). Because claimant did not report these business activities, despite having received the unemployment insurance manual and viewing the instructional video which explained that such activities must be reported notwithstanding the lack of remuneration, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant made a willful false statement in order to obtain benefits (see generally, Matter of Gross [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 742; Matter of Norris [Hartnett], 173 AD2d 1043, 1044).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.