New York Assembly Bill A10684

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/20/26
• Refer: 3/20/26

Caption

Grants retirement service credit in the New York state and local retirement system to Jeffrey M. Hogan for service as a Utica firefighter

Summary

This bill grants a specific retirement benefit to Jeffrey M. Hogan, who is currently an officer in the Division of State Police and a Tier 2 member of the New York State and Local Retirement System. It authorizes him to receive retirement service credit under section 381-b of the Retirement and Social Security Law for the period from March 24, 2007 through January 3, 2013, when he worked as a firefighter for the Utica Fire Department and was covered under a different retirement provision, section 384-d. The bill treats that firefighter service as if it had been rendered while he was serving with the Division of State Police, and it allows him to claim the benefit by filing a written request with the State Comptroller within one year after the act takes effect. The measure is narrowly tailored to one individual and does not create a general change to retirement eligibility rules for all public employees. It also specifies that all service costs associated with the act will be paid by the State of New York, and it takes effect immediately. The accompanying fiscal note estimates a one-time past service cost of $468,000 to the state, while stating that the bill will not increase annual state contributions. The overall sentiment reflected in the available materials is procedural and neutral, with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided record. The bill appears to be a private or special pension bill intended to correct or recognize prior public service for a named individual rather than a broad policy change. Because there are no transcripts or vote tallies, there is no evidence in the record of public opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and fiscal review. The main point of potential contention is the cost and the precedent of granting individualized retirement credit for service performed under a different retirement system. Even though the fiscal note says annual contributions will not rise, the one-time state cost is significant, and such bills can raise questions about fairness, consistency, and whether similar relief should be available to other employees with comparable service histories. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided materials, however.

Impact

The bill would amend the practical application of the Retirement and Social Security Law for one named member of the New York State and Local Retirement System by allowing prior Utica Fire Department service to count toward state police retirement credit under section 381-b. It does not broadly revise the statute for all members, but it creates a special statutory exception that directs the State Comptroller to credit the service if the member files the required request. The state, rather than the member or local employer, would bear the associated service cost, which the fiscal note estimates as a one-time past service liability of $468,000.

Sentiment

The available record suggests a neutral-to-supportive procedural posture, with the bill introduced and referred to committee but no recorded floor debate, committee transcript, or vote history in the materials provided. The fiscal note acknowledges a measurable cost but also indicates no increase in annual state contributions, which may reduce budgetary concern. Overall, the bill appears to be treated as a targeted retirement correction or benefit adjustment rather than a controversial policy proposal.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are the individualized nature of the benefit and the fiscal impact on the state pension system. Critics could question why a single employee should receive retroactive service credit for time worked under a different retirement tier and system, and whether granting such relief creates inequity or sets a precedent for similar special pension bills. Supporters would likely frame it as a fairness measure recognizing public service continuity. No explicit opposition or support is documented in the provided committee materials.