Claimant's employment contract was scheduled to end on October 31, 1990. The employer's representative testified that in the first week of that month she offered claimant a six-month extension and that he initially accepted the offer. He later changed his mind, however, and told her that he decided not to continue working another six months. Claimant had already made arrangements to leave his apartment and move to Florida. These facts provide substantial evidence to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment when continuing work was available to him and that he did so for personal and noncompelling reasons (see, Matter of Frost [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 998; Matter of Ludwig [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 709). Claimant's contrary version of the events leading up to his departure merely raised questions of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 A.D.2d 790, appeal dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 714).
We also reject claimant's contention that the Board erred in deciding to reopen and reconsider the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The Board has continuing jurisdiction to reopen a case upon its own motion or by application even in the absence of an appeal (Labor Law § 620; see, Matter of Smalt [Ross], 82 A.D.2d 958). It cannot be said that the Board abused its discretion in this case (see, Matter of Foundation for Open Eye [Ross], 86 A.D.2d 931).
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.