Opinion
July 9, 1998
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Claimant challenges the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's ruling that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause and that he willfully made false statements to obtain benefits. Claimant was employed as a truck driver in this State until he relocated to Texas and filed an interstate claim for benefits. While he was receiving benefits, he submitted coupons by mail certifying that he was totally unemployed despite the fact that he was initially employed as a retail store clerk and later worked as a truck driver for a concrete company. Inasmuch as there is no acceptable excuse for falsely certifying unemployment, the Board's finding that claimant willfully made false statements to obtain benefits is supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Le Pore [Sweeney], 248 A.D.2d 783; Matter of Silverstein [Sweeney], 236 A.D.2d 757). Finally, claimant's resignations from the retail store and the concrete company to pursue a personal business venture provided substantial evidence for the Board's finding that he left his employment without good cause ( see, Matter of Kruger [Sweeney], 222 A.D.2d 920; Matter of Valdez [Old London Foods — Hudacs], 192 A.D.2d 816). We note that claimant's proffered explanations for his resignations presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see, Matter of Rulka [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 876). We have reviewed claimant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.