Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination affirming the denial of his application was rationally based ( see Matter of Martino v County of Albany, 47 AD3d 1052; Matter of Pantina-Bott v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 29 AD3d 592; Matter of O'Hara v Bigger, 228 AD2d 507). The record reflects that the petitioner was a member of the committee that was involved in negotiating the terms of the CBA, that the proper application forms were maintained by the Chief of Police of the Village of Pelham Manor and available upon request, and that other police officers, in the past, had followed the procedure and been granted disability status.
Moreover, the hearing officer did not err in accepting the opinion of a police department physician rather than the conflicting view of the petitioner's treating orthopedic surgeon with regard to the cause of the petitioner's condition ( see Matter of Pirrone v. Town of Wallkill, 6 AD3d 447, 448; Matter of Segura v. City of Long Beach, 230 AD2d 799, 800; Matter of Flynn v. Zaleski, 212 AD2d 706, 708). Accordingly, the determination is supported by substantial evidence ( see e.g. Matter of O'Hara v. Bigger, 228 AD2d 507, 508; Matter of Meehan v. County of Tompkins, 219 AD2d 774, 775).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that petitioner, as a matter of law, sustained no duty-related injury or illness and therefore is not entitled to benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c ( see, Matter of Balcerak v. County of Nassau, 94 N.Y.2d 253, 258-259; Matter of Lynch v. South Niack/Grand View Police Dept., 277 A.D.2d ___ [decided Nov. 22, 2000]; Matter of Cohoes Police Officers Union, Local 756, Council 82, AFSCME AFL-CIO [City of Cohoes], 263 A.D.2d 652; Matter of O'Hara v. Bigger, 228 A.D.2d 507; Youngs v. Village of Penn Yan, 180 Misc.2d 190, 191-192). We therefore further modify the judgment by denying the second petition.
The Hearing Officer determined that the light duty which the petitioner was directed to perform is in accordance with General Municipal Law § 207-c, and that the petitioner is capable of performing such duty. While the petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer failed to give adequate credit or weight to certain evidence, such evaluations are within the purview of the trier of fact ( see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 183; Matter of O'Hara v. Bigger, 228 A.D.2d 507). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, there is substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's determination. The petitioner failed to produce contradictory medical evidence at the hearing to establish that his physical condition would become exacerbated.