Opinion
October 29, 1992
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Claimant's duties for the employer, a moving company, included packing, moving and storage, and helping the truck drivers. The employer's vice-president testified that claimant was dismissed because he refused to accept available assignments to help unload trucks of long-distance moving companies. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of one of claimant's co-workers, who stated that he was present when claimant first refused such an assignment. The vice-president also testified that he told claimant that if he refused the first assignment someone would be "hire[d] in his place". On the record before us, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Kossoff [Levine], 51 A.D.2d 1072; Matter of Flores [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 1006). Although claimant denied receiving or refusing an assignment and argued that the co-worker's testimony was coerced, this raised questions of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Woods [Ross], 54 A.D.2d 515). Claimant's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.
Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.