Calendar Date: April 3, 2018Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.__________Gerald P. Gorman, Hamburg, for appellant.Salvatore C. Adamo, Albany, for Karen L. Kolesar,respondent.__________Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance AppealBoard, filed August 3, 2016, which ruled that claimant waseligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.Claimant worked as a bookkeeper for a used auto partscompany (hereinafter the employer) for over two years. When theemployer’s president received a telephone call from a bankrepresentative informing him that payments on certain equipmentleases were in arrears, he confronted claimant. She admittedthat the payments had not been made and told him that the job wastoo much for her. He, in turn, told her to get out. Claimantnever returned to work and filed a claim for unemploymentinsurance benefits. The Department of Labor found her eligibleto receive benefits, and its determination was later upheld by anAdministrative Law Judge as well as the Unemployment InsuranceAppeal Board. The employer appeals.The employer contends that claimant is not entitled toreceive benefits because she was terminated for misconduct and,alternatively, voluntarily quit her job. Whether a claimant hasengaged in disqualifying misconduct or has voluntarily leftemployment without good cause is a factual issue for the Board toresolve, and its determination in this regard will not bedisturbed if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter ofPeichun Huang [Commissioner of Labor], 155 AD3d 1235, 1235[2017]; Matter of Reyes [Commissioner of Labor], 153 AD3d 1551,1552 [2017]). Here, the employer’s president admitted that heterminated claimant after he confronted her about the telephonecall and she expressed her inability to do her job. Although heclaims that she was discharged because she engaged in misconductby allegedly writing a company check to pay a personal bill, thiswas discovered later and does not appear to have been a basis forclaimant’s termination. Further, the president’s admission thathe immediately discharged claimant and her testimony that her jobwas posted on Craigslist within an hour after she left theemployer’s premises negate the inference that she voluntarilyquit her job. Accordingly, given that substantial evidencesupports the Board’s finding that claimant was entitled toreceive benefits, we find no reason to disturb its decision.Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.,concur.ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
