IN RE ROY T. RICHTER, ETC. pet-res, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. Respondents-ap

11132. IN RE ROY T. RICHTER, ETC. pet-res, v. RAYMOND KELLY, ETC. Respondents-ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Inga Van Eysden of counsel), for ap — Ungaro & Cifuni, New York (Nicholas G. Cifuni of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered August 9, 2012, annulling the determination of respondent Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, dated September 14, 2011, which denied petitioner Lea C. Dann’s application for accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-k (the Heart Bill), and directing respondents to grant petitioner ADR benefits under the Heart Bill, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of credible medical evidence that petitioner’s disabling heart condition is not related to her service as a police surgeon, the Board of Trustees’ determination to deny her ADR benefits under the Heart Bill lacks a rational basis and is arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Borenstein v. New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760 [1996]; Matter of Canfora v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II, 60 NY2d 347, 352 [1983]).