There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his job because he had been making harassing telephone calls to his supervisor and that his actions constituted misconduct sufficient to warrant the denial of his application for unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Levick [Ross], 53 A.D.2d 950, appeal dismissed 42 N.Y.2d 909, lv denied 42 N.Y.2d 811; Matter of Martin [Catherwood], 33 A.D.2d 815). To the extent that claimant's version of the facts differed from the employer's version, this presented only a question of fact which was within the exclusive province of the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged — Roberts], 113 A.D.2d 997). Additionally, there is also substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 1005, lv denied 40 N.Y.2d 806).
Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.