New York Assembly Bill A08123

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/1/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Authorizes Brian Studley, a police officer employed by the New York state university police department at SUNY Fredonia, to transition his pension from the New York state and local employees' retirement system to the New York state and local police and fire retirement system.

Summary

This bill is a special, individual retirement bill for Brian Studley, a police officer employed by the New York State University Police Department at SUNY Fredonia. It would deem him to have become a member of the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System effective December 19, 2015, even though he remained in the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System when a transition opportunity was offered under prior law. The bill applies only if he files an application within one year of the act’s effective date and certifies that he was not barred from participation because of his own negligence. The measure also provides that any employee contributions Studley made to the Employees' Retirement System will not be returned to him if he transfers, and those contributions will be used to offset past service costs. All remaining past service costs created by the transfer would be paid by the State of New York. The bill takes effect immediately and would amend the practical retirement status of one named officer rather than change retirement eligibility rules broadly for all employees.

Impact

The bill would create a narrow exception to existing retirement system rules by retroactively placing one named SUNY police officer into the Police and Fire Retirement System under section 383-d of the Retirement and Social Security Law. It would not generally alter retirement law for all state university police officers, but it would require the retirement systems to process a special transfer and adjust service credit, contributions, and employer liabilities. The fiscal note estimates an ongoing annual state cost increase and a one-time past service cost, both borne by the State.

Sentiment

The available materials suggest a neutral to favorable posture toward the bill, with the measure presented as a corrective action for an individual officer who allegedly missed the transition opportunity through no fault of his own. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition or debate, and the bill’s framing emphasizes fairness and administrative remedy rather than policy change. The fiscal note acknowledges a cost to the state, but no public discussion in the provided record shows that cost being a source of controversy.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the fiscal impact, since the bill imposes both an ongoing annual employer contribution increase and a one-time past service cost on the State of New York. Another possible issue is the precedent of granting a special, named-person retirement remedy, which can raise fairness concerns about whether similarly situated employees should receive comparable treatment. The bill attempts to address that by limiting relief to a specific officer and requiring certification that the missed transfer was not due to his own negligence.