The employee stated that she made up the receipts to help claimant because he was a friend. Moreover, the employer's representative testified that the materials allegedly purchased could not be located. Claimant's denial of the accusations presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Hendrickson [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 909, 910). Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we decline to disturb it ( see e.g. Matter of Block [Low Surgical Med. Supply — Sweeney], 232 AD2d 713; Matter of Attie [Skott Edwards Consultants — Roberts], 134 AD2d 751). Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Although claimant explained that she needed the car to admit her mother to a hospital, she nevertheless knew that by using the company credit card she was jeopardizing her employment by violating the standards expected by the employer in a manner which was potentially detrimental to the employer's interest. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision (see Matter of Rose [Commissioner of Labor], 282 A.D.2d 857; Matter of Attie [Roberts], 134 A.D.2d 751). Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
Although claimant denies that he stole anything, this merely raised a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Shea [Ross], 53 A.D.2d 945, lv denied 41 N.Y.2d 801; Matter of Gadson [Catherwood], 28 A.D.2d 1049). In addition, there is no evidence in the record to support claimant's contentions as to why he was discharged. Under the circumstances, the Board's determination that claimant's actions amounted to misconduct, thus disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Attie [Skott Edwards Consultants — Roberts], 134 A.D.2d 751; Matter of Villegas [Levine], 49 A.D.2d 783). Weiss, P.J., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur.
Under the circumstances of this case, claimant's refusal to prepare an income tax return for a valued client, as requested by a partner of the law firm, rose to the level of misconduct. The record clearly establishes that the partner's request here was not only a reasonable one, but it was related to claimant's job duties and it did not require claimant to do anything unexpected of him or demeaning in nature (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 A.D.2d 759). As such, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Attie [Skott Edwards Consultants — Roberts], 134 A.D.2d 751, 751-752). Decision affirmed, without costs.
In addition, claimant never indicated to her employer that she would ever take the required course. Under the circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits due to her misconduct was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Attie [Skott Edwards Consultants — Roberts], 134 A.D.2d 751, 752). Decision affirmed, without costs.