Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the determination under review was not arbitrary or capricious. Rather the determination, which denied the application for a special disability pension resulting from an alleged line-of-duty injury, was supported by credible evidence (see, Matter of Drayson v Board of Trustees, 37 A.D.2d 378, affd 32 N.Y.2d 852). The determination was based upon a comprehensive and thoughtful review of this matter conducted by the Medical Board, which is comprised of three physicians (see, N.Y. City Charter § 13-323). The medical evidence failed to establish that the petitioner's injuries were sustained in the line of duty, or that an existing condition was exacerbated by the alleged injury (see, Matter of Meyer v. McGuire, 64 N.Y.2d 1152). The respondents adopted the opinion of those physicians who found that the petitioner's disability was the result of a preexisting condition. "There being a conflict in the medical evidence, it was solely within the province of the Medical Board and the Trustees to resolve such conflict" (Matter of Manza v. Malcolm, 44 A.D.2d 794, 795; see also, Matter of Thomasson v. Valentine, 263 App. Div. 334, 336). Since the determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, we find no reason to disturb it. Thompson, J.P., Spatt, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.