Opinion
2003-00702.
Decided March 1, 2004.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System, dated May 30, 2002, which denied the petitioner's application for ordinary disability retirement benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated December 19, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
John Z. Marangos, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Alan G. Krams of counsel; Robert M. Johnston on the brief), for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, THOMAS A. ADAMS and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The issue of whether a member is disabled is determined by the Medical Board of the New York City Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter the Medical Board) ( see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 13-167[b]). The Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System is bound by a Medical Board finding that an applicant is not disabled for duty ( see Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 N.Y.2d 756, 760). The Medical Board's determination is conclusive if it is supported by some credible evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious ( see Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 147; Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., supra at 761; Matter of Barnett v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 264 A.D.2d 840).
Here, the Medical Board performed its own physical examination of the petitioner, and concluded that he was not disabled. Although the medical conclusions of the petitioner's treating physicians differed from those of the Medical Board, the resolution of such conflicts is within the sole province of the Medical Board ( see Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., supra; Matter of Tobin v. Steisel, 64 N.Y.2d 254, 258-259; Matter of Barnett v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept. Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra at 841; Matter of Santoro v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept. Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 217 A.D.2d 660). Based upon the credible evidence before the Medical Board, its determination was neither irrational nor arbitrary or capricious ( see Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., supra at 760; Matter of Barnett v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept. Art., 1-B Pension Fund, supra).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.