Opinion
February 27, 1992
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Upon his late arrival to work on April 27, 1990, claimant, who had a history of attendance problems, asked his supervisor if he could leave work an hour early. Claimant not only admitted that he was told that he could not leave early, but he also testified that he was warned that if he did so, he would be discharged. Despite this warning and without permission, claimant left early. Under the circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision that claimant's actions constituted misconduct disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 A.D.2d 934; Matter of Antell [Mason Hanger-Silas Mason Co. — Levine], 53 A.D.2d 712, appeal dismissed 40 N.Y.2d 844; Matter of Schneiderman [Levine], 49 A.D.2d 779, lv denied 38 N.Y.2d 706). We also find substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed from April 23, 1990 to April 27, 1990 and he was, therefore, ineligible to receive benefits during that period (see generally, Matter of Richman [Ross], 67 A.D.2d 746, lv denied 46 N.Y.2d 711). Although claimant certified to the local office that his last day of work was April 20, 1990, the testimony at the hearing and the employer's records indicate that claimant's last day of work was April 27, 1990.
Weiss, P.J., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.