Opinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
Where, as here, the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department Article 1-B Pension Fund (hereinafter the Board), denies an application for accidental disability benefits as a consequence of a tie vote, the Board's determination can be set aside on judicial review only if it can be concluded as a matter of law that the petitioner's disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident ( see, Matter of Canfora v. Board of Trustees, 60 N.Y.2d 347; Matter of Callahan v Board of Trustees, 226 A.D.2d 628; Matter of Causarano v. Board of Trustees, 178 A.D.2d 474; Matter of Shedd v. Board of Trustees, 177 A.D.2d 632). The petitioner has the burden of establishing that, as a matter of law, a causal relationship exists between a service-related accident and the subject disability ( see, Matter of Nicolosi v. Board of Trustees, 198 A.D.2d 282). It is only when the circumstances admit but one inference that the court may decide as a matter of law what inference should be drawn ( see, Matter of Radigan v. O'Connell, 304 N.Y. 396, 397; Matter of Callahan v. Board of Trustees, supra; Matter of Flynn v. Board of Trustees, 201 A.D.2d 730).
Applying these standards to the case at bar, we conclude that the petitioner has not met his burden of proving a causal connection, as a matter of law, between a line-of-duty accident and his disabling back condition. In light of the conflicting medical evidence in the record, the circumstances admit more than one inference as to the cause of the petitioner's disability, and thus the Supreme Court erred in deciding, as a matter of law, what inference should be drawn ( see, Matter of Romanelli v. Board of Trustees, 210 A.D.2d 232, 233; Matter of Bartsch v. Board of Trustees, 142 A.D.2d 577, 578; Matter of Scotto v. Board of Trustees, 76 A.D.2d 774, 776, affd 54 N.Y.2d 918). Further, we are not persuaded that the determination under review was arbitrary or capricious ( see, Matter of Petchonka v. Board of Trustees, 204 A.D.2d 646, 647). Santucci, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.