IN RE: Lawrence E. BARNETT

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Lawrence E. BARNETT, appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, ARTICLE 1-B PENSION FUND, et al., respondents.

Decided: September 27, 1999

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, JJ. Barasch & McGarry, P.C., New York, N.Y. (James P. McGarry of counsel), for appellant. Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, dated March 6, 1997, denying the petitioner's application for a service-connected accidental disability retirement pension, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated April 27, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

 The issue of whether a firefighter is disabled is determined by the Medical Board of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund (hereinafter the Medical Board).   The Medical Board's determination is conclusive if supported by “any credible evidence” and is not irrational (see, e.g., Matter of Meyer v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 N.Y.2d 139, 145, 659 N.Y.S.2d 215, 681 N.E.2d 382;   Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 N.Y.2d 756, 760, 650 N.Y.S.2d 614, 673 N.E.2d 899;  Matter of Schwarzrock v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 238 A.D.2d 596, 597, 656 N.Y.S.2d 386).   Here, the Medical Board performed its own physical examination of the petitioner, and concluded that he was not disabled.   In addition, the record contains several negative magnetic resonance imaging reports, electromyographs, and neurological studies.   Based on the credible evidence before the Medical Board, its determination was not irrational (see, e.g., Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra, at 149-150, 659 N.Y.S.2d 215, 681 N.E.2d 382;   Matter of Monahan v. Bratton, 233 A.D.2d 274, 650 N.Y.S.2d 545;  Matter of Cassidy v. Ward, 169 A.D.2d 482, 564 N.Y.S.2d 165;  Matter of D'Angelo v. Ward, 159 A.D.2d 425, 553 N.Y.S.2d 325;  Matter of Tripi v. Ward, 158 A.D.2d 336, 551 N.Y.S.2d 24;  Matter of Krolowitz v. Regan, 97 A.D.2d 902, 470 N.Y.S.2d 695;  Matter of Murgia v. Regan, 90 A.D.2d 897, 456 N.Y.S.2d 508).   Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed (see, e.g., Matter of Santoro v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 217 A.D.2d 660, 660-661, 629 N.Y.S.2d 484).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard