IN RE: Tucker GRAY (2005)

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered September 19, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents' determination denying him accidental disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 In reaching its determination, the Board of Trustees was entitled to rely on contemporaneous accounts of petitioner's line of duty injury (see Matter of Morgan v. Kerik, 305 A.D.2d 288, 760 N.Y.S.2d 34 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 507, 776 N.Y.S.2d 222, 808 N.E.2d 358 [2004];  Matter of Reichfeld v. Safir, 259 A.D.2d 298, 686 N.Y.S.2d 415 [1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 809, 694 N.Y.S.2d 631, 716 N.E.2d 696 [1999] ), indicating simply that petitioner twisted and felt a snap in his knee as he exited his patrol car to direct traffic.   Inasmuch as an officer's stepping out of his car to direct traffic does not, without more, constitute the sort of “sudden, fortuitous mischance” that may be deemed “accidental” within the meaning of City of New York Administrative Code § 13-252 (see Matter of Lichtenstein v. Bd. of Trustees, 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 [1982];  accord Matter of Starnella v. Bratton, 92 N.Y.2d 836, 839, 677 N.Y.S.2d 62, 699 N.E.2d 421 [1998] ), there exists no basis to disturb the challenged denial of accidental disability benefits.