Initially, we do not find that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board abused its discretion in rejecting claimant's application to reopen the Board's prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (cf., Matter of Schwartz [Creative Tutoring — Roberts], 91 A.D.2d 778). In any event, there is substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that claimant was discharged due to misconduct because he failed to follow the proper procedures when notifying his employer that he would be absent (see, Matter of Michelfelder [Ross], 80 A.D.2d 969). Claimant's contentions to the contrary merely raise questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Woods [Ross], 54 A.D.2d 515). There is also substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits and that the payments he received were recoverable, as well as the imposition of a forfeiture of future effective benefit days (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 1005, lv denied 40 N.Y.2d 806).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.