Opinion
April 12, 2001.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 15, 2000, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Linda J. Blankenship, Verplanck, appellant in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Bessie Bazile of counsel), New York City, for respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Claimant, a per diem substitute cleaner for a school district, left her employment after her hours were reduced from eight hours a day to four hours a day. The record establishes that claimant was initially hired to cover for a full-time employee who was on disability. When the employee returned from disability, claimant's hours varied according to the employer's needs based upon vacations and absences of permanent employees. Although claimant worked full time during the summer due to vacation schedules, when the school year resumed her hours were reduced to four hours a day. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant's dissatisfaction with her reduced hours in accordance with the needs of the school district did not constitute good cause for leaving her employment (see,Matter of Kabuya [Sweeney], 242 A.D.2d 811, 812; Matter of McQueen [Hartnett], 176 A.D.2d 413, 414). Furthermore, inasmuch as claimant cited "lack of work" on her application for unemployment insurance benefits, which was a willful misrepresentation, we find no reason to disturb the Board's imposition of a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Kerrs [Commissioner of Labor], 275 A.D.2d 530, 531; Matter of Le Pore [Sweeney], 248 A.D.2d 783, 784).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.