Matter of Roberts (Commr. of Labor)

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 13, 2013, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he failed to comply with registration requirements. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits on August 17, 2011, with an effective date of August 15, 2011. Based upon his failure to comply with registration requirements, the Department of Labor found that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits for, as is relevant here, the period beginning October 31, 2011 and ending when the reason for his ineligibility no longer exists. Following a hearing, this determination was upheld by an Administration Law Judge and, subsequently, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant now appeals. We affirm. A claimant’s registration and certification for unemployment insurance benefits in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Labor Law and applicable regulations is a prerequisite for eligibility (see Matter of Draxdorf [Commissioner of Labor], 113 AD3d 962, 962 [2014]; Matter of Ventura [Commissioner of Labor], 83 AD3d 1330, 1330 [2011]; Matter of Dixon-Weaver [Commissioner of Labor], 67 AD3d 1243, 1244 [2009]; see also Labor Law § 596; 12 NYCRR 473.1, 473.2, 473.3). While good cause may excuse a claimant’s failure to comply with such requirements (see 12 NYCRR 473.3 [f]), whether a claimant has established good cause is a factual issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Draxdorf [Commissioner of Labor], 113 AD3d at 962; Matter of Becker [Commissioner of Labor], 95 AD3d 1588, 1589 [2012], appeal dismissed 22 NY3d 1096 [2014]). Here, claimant testified at the hearing that, although he was *1536 aware of the registration requirements, following the week of October 23, 2011, he “gave up” attempting to register for unemployment insurance benefits because of his repeated frustrations with the online registration system. Claimant did not attempt to register for benefits again until approximately July 2013. Based upon this evidence, the Board was well within its discretion to conclude that claimant failed to demonstrate good cause for his noncompliance with the registration requirements; accordingly, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision (see Matter of Dixon-Weaver [Commissioner of Labor], 67 AD3d at 1244-1245; Matter of Weinstein [Commissioner of Labor], 60 AD3d 1228, 1228 [2009]; compare Matter of Draxdorf [Commissioner of Labor], 113 AD3d at 963). McCarthy, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.