The employer's witness testified that claimant was informed at monthly meetings that the employer must be notified of absences at least a half hour prior to the beginning of the shift. Here, claimant failed to call in sick to work until several hours after his shift began. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged under disqualifying circumstances (see Matter of Garcia [Commissioner of Labor], 256 A.D.2d 786; Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 A.D.2d 972). Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Claimant's subsequent application to reopen the decision was denied by order filed September 27, 1999, prompting this appeal. Initially, upon a review of the record we do not find that the Board abused its discretion in its September 27, 1999 order denying claimant's application to reopen the Board's August 27, 1999 decision to adhere to its April 29, 1999 ruling that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 A.D.2d 972; Matter of Schwartz [Creative Tutoring — Roberts], 91 A.D.2d 778; see also, Labor Law § 534). In any event, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that claimant failed to follow the employer's established policy when notifying his supervisors that he would be absent from work due to an alleged illness, notwithstanding previous warnings regarding attendance.

Although claimant stated that he did not report for the meeting because he was convinced he would be fired based upon his prior disciplinary record, his supervisor testified to the contrary. This dispute merely raised questions of credibility for the Board to resolve ( see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 A.D.2d 972). The Board's finding of misconduct for claimants deliberate failure to attend the scheduled meeting is supported by substantial evidence and most be upheld ( see, Matter of Palko [M T V — Hudacs], 189 A.D.2d 1053, 1054). Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. An employee's unauthorized absence from work has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct ( see, Matter of Valycheva [Hudacs], 189 A.D.2d 1051), as has the failure to follow established procedures regarding notification of absences ( see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 A.D.2d 972). This is especially true in cases, such as the instant matter, where the claimant's absence is detrimental to the employer's interest ( see, Matter of Chapman [Hudacs], 190 A.D.2d 941). Claimant's argument that his employer waived the warning lacks substance since there is no proof that his supervisor knew of or condoned his two prior unauthorized absences. White, J.P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

We find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. An employee's unauthorized absence from work has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Ponce [Hudacs], 209 A.D.2d 756, 757) as has the failure to follow established procedures regarding notification of absences (see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 A.D.2d 972). Claimant's assertion that he appropriately notified his employer regarding the absence raised an issue of credibility which was within the province of the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Franco [Hudacs], 207 A.D.2d 577). Casey, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

We affirm. An employee's un-authorized absence from work constitutes disqualifying misconduct ( see, Matter of Ponce [Hudacs], 209 AD2d 756, 757) as does the failure to follow established procedures regarding notification of absences ( see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 AD2d 972). It is uncontested that claimant had received a copy of the employee handbook and was aware of the requirement of notifying the employer when illness forced him to be absent. Claimant's assertion that he did notify the employer regarding the absence in question raises an issue of credibility which was within the province of the Board to resolve ( see, Matter of Franco [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 577).

Under the circumstances presented, claimant has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his failure to comply with the rule requiring employees to report absences to the employer. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding of misconduct ( see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 AD2d 972). Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

The employer appeals, contending, inter alia, that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Although the employer's representatives testified that claimant surrendered his beeper and stated that he was quitting his job, claimant stated that he surrendered his beeper to demonstrate his dissatisfaction with having to be on call 24 hours a day. He further stated that after he had a discussion with one of the members of the board of directors, he attempted to retrieve the beeper but the employer would not return it. Given the considerable discretion vested in the Board to rule on issues of credibility ( see, Matter of Mahanger [Sweeney], 223 AD2d 908; Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 AD2d 972), we find that its decision is supported by substantial evidence. We have considered the employer's other claims and find them to be without merit.