
    In the Matter of Kenneth C. Vidal, Appellant, v Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, et al., Respondents.
    [820 NYS2d 300]
   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 September 13, 2004, denying the petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-353, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated February 10, 2005, which denied the petition and, in effect, 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 determination of the Medical Board is conclusive if it is supported by some credible evidence and is not irrational” (Matter of Rodriguez v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 3 AD3d 501 [2004]; see Matter of Hession v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 23 AD3d 468 [2005]; Matter of Kuczinski v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 8 AD3d 283, 284 [2004]). Credible evidence is “evidence that proceeds from a credible source and reasonably tends to support the proposition for which it is offered” (Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139, 147 [1997]). In this case, the determination of the Medical Board that the petitioner’s injuries did not constitute a disability that would preclude the petitioner from performing full duty as a firefighter is supported by credible evidence and is not irrational. Thus, the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, properly upheld the Medical Board’s recommendation (see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760-761 [1996]), and the Supreme Court properly denied the petition. Crane, J.P., Mastro, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.  