Opinion
April 15, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that when there is a tie vote of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, in determining whether accident disability retirement is appropriate, the Board of Trustees must retire the applicant on an ordinary disability pension ( see, Matter of City of New York v. Schoeck, 294 N.Y. 559), and the Board's decision can be set aside on judicial review only if it can be determined as a matter of law on the record that the disability was a natural and proximate result of a service-related accident ( see, Matter of Canfora v. Board of Trustees, 60 N.Y.2d 347; Matter of Flynn v Board of Trustees, 201 A.D.2d 730; Matter of Causarano v. Board of Trustees, 178 A.D.2d 474). The petitioner has the burden of establishing that, as a matter of law, a causal relationship exists between the service-related accident and the claimed disability ( see, Matter of Nicolosi v. Board of Trustees, 198 A.D.2d 282).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination under review was not arbitrary or capricious; rather, the determination was based upon a comprehensive review of this matter by the Medical Board and the Board of Trustees ( see, Matter of Bartsch v. Board of Trustees, 142 A.D.2d 577). There was substantial evidence that the petitioner's disabling back condition was of nontraumatic origin ( see, Matter of Russo v Board of Trustees, 143 A.D.2d 674, 676; Matter of Fitzpatrick v Board of Trustees, 203 A.D.2d 460, 461). On this record, and in light of the conflicting medical evidence, the circumstances admit more than one inference as to the cause of the petitioner's disability ( see, Matter of Radigan v. O'Connell, 304 N.Y. 396, 397; Matter of Flynn v. Board of Trustees, supra). Since the petitioner did not meet his burden of proving, as a matter of law, a causal connection between his service-related accident and his disabling condition, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition ( see, Matter of Draves v. Board of Trustees, 203 A.D.2d 568, 569). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.