In re the Claim of Smith
Initially, we note that dissatisfaction with one‘s work assignment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Cherry [Commissioner of Labor], 18 AD3d 937, 938 [2005]; Matter of Leonetti [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 837, 837 [2004]). Since the record reveals that claimant failed to report for work after being reassigned to a new location due to repeated incidents of tardiness, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board‘s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see Matter of Johnson [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 841, 841 [2004]; Matter of DeCarlo [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 1003, 1003 [2004]). Claimant‘s contention that she did not quit but, rather, was fired created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Adorisio [Commissioner of Labor], 18 AD3d 942, 942-943 [2005]; Matter of Giustino [Commissioner of Labor], 11 AD3d 803, 804 [2004]). Furthermore, we find no rea
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.