New York Assembly Bill A03408

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/25
• Refer: 1/27/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Provides that any officer terminated who was dismissed for malfeasance or serious misconduct or resigned or retired during an investigation relating to such malfeasance or serious misconduct shall not be entitled to receive any retirement or other benefit or payment of any kind.

Summary

A03408 would amend the New York civil service law to deny retirement and other benefits to certain law enforcement officers who are terminated for malfeasance or serious misconduct, or who resign or retire while under investigation for such conduct. The bill applies to police officers as defined in the criminal procedure law and states that the loss of benefits would cover “any retirement or other benefit or payment of any kind.” The bill also creates an exception for officers who are exonerated of every allegation of malfeasance or serious misconduct. It defines “serious misconduct” to include improper or illegal actions connected to official duties that could lead to a miscarriage of justice or discrimination, including felony convictions, fabrication of evidence, repeated excessive force, bribery, and fraud. The measure would take effect immediately if enacted.

Impact

This bill would add a new section to the civil service law establishing a forfeiture rule for certain law enforcement officers, directly affecting retirement systems and other benefit payments for officers found to have engaged in specified misconduct. It would create a statutory basis for denying pension-related and other compensation benefits in cases of dismissal for malfeasance or serious misconduct, or where an officer leaves service during an active investigation, while preserving benefits for officers who are fully exonerated. The practical effect would be to alter the rights of covered officers and the obligations of public retirement and payroll systems in New York.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a accountability and public integrity proposal aimed at law enforcement misconduct. The caption and language suggest support for stronger consequences for officers who commit serious wrongdoing, especially in cases involving abuse of authority, corruption, or evidence fabrication. No contrary viewpoints are documented in the provided record, but the bill’s subject matter indicates it would likely be viewed through the lens of police accountability and pension forfeiture policy.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether pension and other earned benefits should be forfeited based on misconduct findings or departure during an investigation, and how broad those triggers should be. Supporters would likely emphasize deterrence, public trust, and preventing officers accused of serious wrongdoing from retaining public benefits, while opponents may argue that the bill could punish officers before final adjudication, create due process concerns, or sweep too broadly by covering resignations and retirements during investigations. Another possible issue is the scope of the definitions, particularly what qualifies as “serious misconduct” and how “exonerated” would be determined.