Opinion
July 13, 2000.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 27, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Horace Parker Jr., Rochester, appellant in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), New York City, for respondent.
Before: Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Claimant was discharged from his employment as a delivery driver when he failed to show up for work as scheduled for three consecutive days and did not personally telephone or contact the employer to explain his absence in accordance with the employer's practice. Claimant was previously warned for attendance problems in the past. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's ruling that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. It is well established that a claimant's unauthorized absence from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Bien-Aime [Commissioner of Labor], 255 A.D.2d 848, lv dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 776). Although claimant maintained that he quit his job due to a back problem and was not discharged, this raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Boyle [Sweeney], 247 A.D.2d 809).
Claimant's remaining arguments have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.