New York Assembly Bill A10963

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/14/26
• Refer: 4/14/26

Caption

Authorizes Michael Hall 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, Michael Hall. It authorizes him to submit a late request to change his retirement benefit election from a reduced joint-and-survivor option, which provided benefits to his wife Bonnie L. Hall as beneficiary, to the maximum single-life retirement benefit. The bill states that he retired on January 31, 2004, and that, for reasons not attributable to his own negligence, he failed to make the change within the normal 30-day period after notice from the retirement system. If enacted, the change would be treated as effective retroactively to his retirement date, January 31, 2004, and Hall would receive the increased benefit accordingly. The bill requires him to file a written request with the head of NYSTRS within one year of the act’s effective date. It also specifies that any implementation costs must be borne by the employers of members of the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, rather than by the member himself.

Impact

The bill creates a narrow exception to the general rule that retirement benefit elections are irrevocable after retirement under New York education and retirement law. It would permit a retroactive change in benefit coverage for one named retiree and would require the system to adjust benefits as though the maximum option had been elected in 2004. The fiscal note estimates the present-value cost at about $211,000, with that cost allocated to NYSTRS employers, and notes that such post-retirement changes can affect actuarial assumptions, longevity-risk pooling, and the pricing of benefit options.

Sentiment

The available materials suggest the bill is largely remedial and individualized rather than controversial in a broad policy sense. Its framing indicates sympathy for a retiree who missed a deadline for reasons not ascribable to negligence, and the absence of recorded votes or committee debate suggests no documented opposition in the provided record. The fiscal note, however, reflects institutional caution about the actuarial and precedent-setting implications of allowing post-retirement benefit changes.

Contention

The main point of contention is not the individual facts of Michael Hall’s case, but the policy concern that granting a one-off post-retirement election change may weaken the finality of retirement option elections and create actuarial losses for the system. The fiscal note also flags fairness and consistency concerns, noting that allowing individual exceptions could raise questions about equal treatment across members. Any opposition would likely come from pension administrators or fiscal watchdogs focused on cost, precedent, and the integrity of irrevocable benefit elections.