Opinion
June 25, 1992
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Given the activities claimant engaged in for her husband's business, which included a substantial amount of checkwriting, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that she was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 A.D.2d 884). Consequently, the unemployment insurance benefits she received were properly held recoverable (see, Labor Law § 597; Matter of Barber [Roberts], 121 A.D.2d 767). Finally, there is substantial evidence to support the Board's factual finding that the nature of claimant's activities was so concerted as to generate an awareness that her certifications of unemployment were false (see, Matter of O'Leary [Roberts], 93 A.D.2d 915; Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 1005, lv denied 40 N.Y.2d 806). Claimant's contentions with regard to the issue of willfulness involve questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Woods [Ross], 54 A.D.2d 515).
Weiss, P.J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.