New York Assembly Bill A08671

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/27/25
• Refer: 5/27/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Authorizes Thomas Collins to file a request for change of benefit coverage with the New York state teachers' retirement system.

Summary

This bill is a private pension relief measure for a single retired member of the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, Thomas Collins. It authorizes him to file a late request to change his retirement benefit election from the maximum single-life benefit to the 100% joint-and-survivor option naming his wife, Sandra Collins, as beneficiary. The bill applies notwithstanding other law and deems the revised election effective retroactively to July 1, 2010, the date of his retirement, if he submits the required written request within one year of the act’s effective date. The bill also requires Collins to repay the retirement system for the difference between the benefits he has already received under the single-life option and what he would have received under the joint-and-survivor option, with those overpayments calculated back to the retirement date. Any implementation costs tied to the election change are assigned to Collins, while other administrative costs are shifted to the employers of members of the Teachers’ Retirement System. The fiscal note estimates a total cost of about $203,000, with roughly $139,000 repaid by Collins and about $64,000 borne by employers in the system. In terms of state law, the bill creates a narrow exception to the normal retirement-option election rules in the Education Law and Teachers’ Retirement System procedures, which generally require a timely election within 30 days of retirement. It would not broadly amend the retirement system structure, but it would grant individualized statutory relief allowing a post-retirement benefit change that is otherwise unavailable under existing law. The measure therefore affects the administration of the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System and the actuarial assumptions underlying benefit option pricing. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is sympathetic to the retiree’s situation, since the bill states that the failure to change the election was not due to his own negligence. At the same time, the fiscal note is cautious and highlights broader concerns about allowing post-retirement changes, noting that such exceptions can weaken longevity-risk pooling and create actuarial losses. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded public debate in the supplied materials, but the main point of contention is the tension between equitable relief for one retiree and the precedent and cost implications for the pension system and its contributing employers.

Impact

The bill would create a one-time statutory exception to retirement-option election rules for Thomas Collins, allowing a retroactive change from a maximum single-life pension to a 100% joint-and-survivor benefit under the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System. It would require repayment of overpaid benefits and assign implementation costs to Collins, while other costs would be borne by system employers. The measure affects the Education Law/retirement-benefit election framework and the administration and actuarial liabilities of the Teachers’ Retirement System.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally favorable toward granting equitable relief to an individual retiree who missed a deadline allegedly through no fault of his own. However, the fiscal note signals institutional caution, emphasizing that retroactive benefit changes can undermine actuarial soundness and the pricing of retirement options. Because no transcripts or votes are included, the record provided shows sympathy for the applicant but concern about broader pension-system consequences.

Contention

The main contention is whether the Legislature should make a one-off exception to the normal 30-day retirement-option election deadline. Support for the bill is grounded in fairness to Thomas Collins and his spouse, given the claim that the missed election was not due to his negligence. Opposition or caution is implied by the actuarial note, which warns that allowing retirees to change benefit elections after retirement can weaken longevity-risk pooling, create actuarial losses, and shift costs to employers and the pension system.