Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Upon a review of the record in this case, including the confidential medical reports and evaluations of the petitioner, we conclude that the respondents' determination was rendered upon a rational basis (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231). The petitioner's attempt to refute the opinions of the respondents' medical consultants that he was not qualified for the position with the contrary opinion of an independent psychiatrist is unavailing. As the court explained in McCabe v Hoberman ( 33 A.D.2d 547, 548): "It is not for the court to choose between the diverse professional opinions. That is the function of the proper department heads and as long as they act reasonably and responsibly, the courts will not interfere" (see, Matter of Palozzolo v Nadel, 83 A.D.2d 539, affd 55 N.Y.2d 984). Mollen, P.J., Brown, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.