52 N.Y.2d 858 (1981)
A decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if conflicting evidence exists, and the Board is not bound to accept a claimant’s explanation or belatedly submitted documentation.
Summary
Alphonse Ragazzino appealed the denial of his unemployment benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Ragazzino was not credible in his explanation for his absence and lateness in responding to his employer. Although Ragazzino presented a doctor’s note at the hearing, the Board found it unpersuasive, given the employer’s testimony that Ragazzino was unreachable by phone for several hours on the day in question and the fact that he was able to pick up his tools later that day. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order upholding the Board’s decision, emphasizing that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and the Board was not bound to accept the claimant’s explanations.
Facts
Ragazzino claimed he was too ill to work on a specific day. His employer could not reach him by phone until noon that day. Ragazzino later came to the employer’s premises to pick up his tools. Ragazzino presented a doctor’s note, dated on the day of his absence, stating he was unfit to work. However, he did not present the note until the hearing before the Unemployment Compensation Board. The employer testified that he tried numerous times to reach Ragazzino by telephone that morning without success.
Procedural History
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied Ragazzino’s claim for unemployment benefits. Ragazzino appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the Board’s decision. Ragazzino then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision to deny unemployment benefits to Ragazzino was supported by substantial evidence.
Holding
Yes, because the Board’s decision was based upon substantial evidence, including the employer’s testimony and the claimant’s delayed submission of a doctor’s note, allowing the Board to reasonably question the claimant’s credibility and the legitimacy of the absence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals deferred to the factual findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, emphasizing that the Board is the fact-finder and its decisions should be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the Board considered the employer’s testimony that he could not reach the claimant by phone and the fact that the claimant was able to pick up his tools later that day. Although the claimant presented a doctor’s note, the Board was not obligated to accept it, especially since it was presented late and the claimant’s explanation for his unavailability was deemed unpersuasive. The court explicitly stated, “The board was not bound by claimant’s explanation (that he was sleeping in a room across the hall from where the phone was located) or by the doctor’s certificate.” The Court emphasized that it is the Board’s role to assess credibility and weigh conflicting evidence. The Attorney-General conceded that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the Court disagreed, stating, “Notwithstanding the Attorney-General’s contrary concession, we, therefore, affirm.”