Opinion
2002-04575
Argued April 14, 2003.
May 5, 2003.
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 February 15, 2001, which denied the petitioner's application for disability retirement, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated February 27, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Agruso Trovato, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (George C. Trovato, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F. X. Hart, Jane L. Gordon, and Susan Sanders of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER and WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Medical Board of the New York City Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter the Medical Board) determines whether a member is disabled (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 13-167[b]). The Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter the Board of Trustees) is bound by the Medical Board's determination that an applicant is or is not disabled (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 irrational (see Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 145; Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., supra at 761; Matter of Inguanta v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 302 A.D.2d 527 [2d Dept, Feb. 18, 2003]; 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 two physical examinations of the petitioner. In addition, the record demonstrates that the Medical Board considered all of the additional medical evidence submitted by the petitioner, including normal findings of magnetic resonance imaging studies of the cervical and lumbar spine, and an essentially normal ultrasonic examination of the abdomen. Although the medical conclusions of the petitioner's treating physicians differed from those of the Medical Board, the resolution of such conflicts is the sole province of the Medical Board (see Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., supra at 761; 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; Matter of Santoro v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. 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 not irrational (see Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra at 149-150; 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 at 841). Accordingly, the Board of Trustees properly denied the petitioner's application for disability retirement.
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.