Opinion
February 26, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Board of Trustees denied the petitioner's application for an accident disability pension following a vote of six in favor and six against. Under such circumstances, the decision of the Board of Trustees must stand "[u]nless it can be determined as a matter of law on the record that the disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident" (Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, 60 N.Y.2d 347, 352; see also, Matter of McCambridge v McGuire, 62 N.Y.2d 563; Matter of Quill v Ward, 138 A.D.2d 305). Though the petitioner claims that his accident precipitated the development of the latent disabling condition (see generally, Matter of Tobin v Steisel, 64 N.Y.2d 254, 257; Matter of Whitton v Spinnato, 143 A.D.2d 274; Matter of Petrella v Board of Trustees, 141 A.D.2d 361; Matter of Wygand v Regan, 135 A.D.2d 1060), the record is equivocal in that regard. Therefore, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the petitioner sustained his burden of establishing a causal relation between the accident and his disabling condition. Accordingly, the Board of Trustees' determination was properly confirmed (see, Matter of Whitton v Spinnato, supra; Matter of Martucci v Fire Dept., 123 A.D.2d 630; Matter of Tarr v Board of Trustees, 98 A.D.2d 687). Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.