Opinion
May 21, 1992
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Although claimant testified that she believed she was scheduled to return to work on August 27, 1990, she admitted that prior to her vacation she signed a document stating that her leave ended on August 20, 1990 and that if she did not return on that date she would be replaced. In addition, the employer's representatives testified that claimant had a poor attendance record and that she had been warned that her job was in jeopardy. They also testified that she did not return to work on August 20, 1990 and that she never called in to say she would be absent. As a result she was terminated. Under these circumstances, the conclusion of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in this case is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lawson [Eastman Kodak Co. — Hartnett], 151 A.D.2d 868; Matter of Michelfelder [Ross], 80 A.D.2d 969). Claimant's contrary version of the events merely raised questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 A.D.2d 790, appeal dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 714).
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.