Opinion
October 24, 1991
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's late arrival for work without having notified his employer in advance of his tardiness constituted misconduct (see, Matter of Grosso [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 964). Claimant conceded that at the time he was hired he received a copy of the employer's rules, which set forth the procedure for notifying the employer of an intended absence or lateness and warned that irregular attendance could lead to discharge. After being absent without leave on several occasions, claimant signed a written warning notifying him that he would be terminated if he failed to notify the employer that he would be late or absent in accordance with the employer's rules. To the extent that claimant's testimony differed with respect to the circumstances surrounding the tardiness which resulted in his dismissal, this merely raised a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Woods [Ross], 54 A.D.2d 515). We also note that unreported and excessive absenteeism has previously been held to constitute misconduct warranting the denial of unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Douglas [Hartnett], 143 A.D.2d 458; Matter of Michelfelder [Ross], 80 A.D.2d 969).
Casey, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.