Opinion
June 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
Petitioner asserts that even though his applications were not filed in a timely manner, the doctrine of estoppel should be applied against respondents. However, even if respondents gave petitioner an additional year to file his application, as petitioner claims, he failed to file his application within that year. In fact, petitioner did not file his application until 3 years later. Accordingly, there is no estoppel under these circumstances. Moreover, petitioner has failed to overcome the general rule that a governmental agency may not be estopped from enforcing a statutorily mandated duty (see, Matter of E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v. Foster, 71 N.Y.2d 359).
As to the Medical Board's determination that petitioner was not disabled, we note that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's findings (see, Matter of Drayson v. Board of Trustees, 37 A.D.2d 378, affd 32 N.Y.2d 852). Similarly, the Board of Trustees' determination that petitioner's back problem was not a result of an "accident" was reasonable under the circumstances (see, Matter of Shannon v. Board of Trustees, 92 A.D.2d 528, 529, affd 59 N.Y.2d 852).
We have considered all other issues raised and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.