New York Assembly Bill A05885

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/24/25
• Refer: 2/24/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Authorizes Jonathan Grossman to apply for a recalculation of his retirement benefits.

Summary

This bill is a private pension relief measure for a single individual, Jonathan Grossman, a retired Tier I member of the New York City Teachers’ Retirement System. It authorizes him to apply to the state comptroller for a recalculation of his retirement allowance so that a lump-sum payment for accumulated vacation time is included in the calculation of his final average salary, provided he files within one year of the bill’s effective date. The recalculation would also include interest from the date of retirement, and any resulting benefit adjustment would be applied retroactively and prospectively. The bill specifies that all past service costs associated with implementing the recalculation must be paid by the City of New York, and it takes effect immediately. The fiscal note indicates that the measure would increase employer contributions for the Teachers’ Retirement System, with the cost allocated entirely to New York City, and estimates Grossman’s annual allowance would rise from about $104,269 to $115,288 under the assumed calculation. The bill’s impact on state law is narrow but direct: it creates a one-time statutory exception to existing retirement benefit calculation rules for one named retiree. It effectively overrides contrary provisions of law for this individual’s application and directs the state comptroller to process the recalculation if the application is timely filed. The measure does not broadly amend pension law for all retirees, but it does establish precedent for individualized legislative pension adjustments. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, the general sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text and fiscal note, the measure appears to be a targeted remedial bill intended to correct an alleged retirement calculation omission rather than a controversial policy overhaul. The fiscal note’s assignment of costs to New York City suggests the state’s financial exposure is limited, though the bill still creates an additional pension obligation. The main point of contention, insofar as one can be inferred from the text, is the special treatment of a single retiree and the cost of increasing pension benefits retroactively. Potential concerns include fairness to other retirees who do not receive similar relief, the precedent for individualized pension legislation, and the fiscal impact on New York City. Support would likely come from those viewing the bill as correcting an administrative or calculation error affecting a long-retired public employee.

Impact

The bill creates a one-time statutory exception to New York retirement law for Jonathan Grossman, allowing his New York City Teachers’ Retirement System pension to be recalculated to include a lump-sum vacation payout in his final average salary. It directs the state comptroller to accept an application within one year of enactment and requires retroactive and prospective payment adjustments with interest. The fiscal burden is assigned to the City of New York, meaning the measure affects city pension costs rather than state general finances, while leaving the broader retirement statutes unchanged for other members.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition from legislative proceedings. The bill’s framing suggests a sympathetic, remedial purpose: it is designed to address a specific retirement calculation issue for an individual long-retired teacher. At the same time, the fiscal note shows a real cost increase for New York City, which may be the primary practical concern associated with the measure.

Contention

The likely points of contention are the bill’s individualized nature and its fiscal effect. Critics could object that it grants a special pension recalculation to one named retiree, potentially creating inequity or encouraging similar requests from others. Others may question whether unused vacation payments should be included in pension calculations retroactively and whether the city should bear the full cost. Supporters would likely argue that the bill corrects an error or omission not attributable to the retiree and provides equitable relief.