Opinion
June 24, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
It is well settled that when 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 in 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 Coleman v. Board of Trustees, 224 A.D.2d 522; Matter of Massari v Board of Trustees, 213 A.D.2d 648, 649; 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). It is only when the circumstances admit but one inference that the court may decide as a matter of law that that inference should be drawn ( see, Matter of Radigan v. O'Connell, 304 N.Y. 396, 397; Matter of Flynn v. Board of Trustees, 201 A.D.2d 730).
Applying these stringent principles to the facts of the case at bar (see, Matter of Flynn v. Board of Trustees, supra), the petitioner has not established, as a matter of law, a causal connection between his line-of-duty accidents and his disability. 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 disabling condition, and thus the Supreme Court erred in deciding, as a matter of law, which inference should be drawn ( see, Matter of Callahan v. Board of Trustees, 226 A.D.2d 628; Matter of Regan v. Board of Trustees, 226 A.D.2d 731; Matter of Romanelli v. Board of Trustees, 210 A.D.2d 232, 233; Matter of Flynn v. Board of Trustees, supra; 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). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.