Opinion
November 5, 1992
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was unavailable for employment. As the Board noted, he was attending a full-time vocational training program Mondays through Fridays from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and taking graduate courses in computer science on weekends (see, Matter of Richman [Ross], 67 A.D.2d 746, lv denied 46 N.Y.2d 711; Matter of Wallace [Levine], 51 A.D.2d 608). In addition, while he claimed he was seeking work, he testified that he was handicapped due to a back injury and that he required a position with a flexible work schedule (where he could alternate among sitting, standing and walking) and that no employer would hire him if he disclosed his medical condition. He also stated that he was therefore looking to become self-employed. Based on these facts there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that claimant was also not available for employment because he had decided that he could not undertake conventional employment (see, Matter of McDonald [Catherwood], 33 A.D.2d 594). There was also no abuse of discretion in the denial of claimant's request for approval of vocational training pursuant to Labor Law § 599 (see, Matter of Weiss [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 977). The decision in this regard was essentially one of fact and there is a rational basis for the Board's conclusion that the employment opportunities for which claimant was fitted by training and experience were not substantially impaired (see, supra).
Yesawich Jr., J.P., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.