Opinion
December 3, 1998
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
In our view, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's ruling that claimant's late return from lunch constituted disqualifying misconduct in this instance. Claimant's supervisor testified that claimant, a bookkeeper, had been repeatedly warned that she must take her lunch break between the hours of 12:00 P.M. and 2:00 P.M. Refusal to obey an employer's reasonable rules and continued lateness after sufficient warnings can constitute misconduct barring receipt of unemployment insurance benefits ( see, Matter of Barry [Hudacs], 199 A.D.2d 807; Matter of Brown [Hartnett], 176 A.D.2d 425). Although claimant maintains that the lunch hour policy was inconsistently enforced and she was actually fired in retaliation because of a dispute with her supervisor, the contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see, Matter of Foster [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 628).
CARDONA, P. J., MERCURE, CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and PETERS, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.