New York Assembly Bill A11195

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/1/26
• Refer: 5/1/26

Caption

Authorizes Mike Hartnett to apply for military service credit in the New York city fire pension fund

Summary

This bill is a private pension relief measure for a single retired New York City firefighter, Mike Hartnett. It authorizes him to apply for additional military service credit in the New York City Fire Pension Fund, notwithstanding the usual limits in the Retirement and Social Security Law, for his U.S. Army service from July 7, 1964 through July 7, 1967. The bill allows the credit to be applied retroactively to his retirement date, so any resulting increase in his pension would be paid back to that date, less benefits already received. To obtain the credit, Mr. Hartnett would be required to pay the pension fund an amount equal to three percent of his final year’s compensation multiplied by the years of military service credited under the bill. The fiscal note indicates he has already purchased about two years and five months of military credit and would be allowed to purchase an additional seven months, up to a total of three years. The estimated result is a modest increase in his annual pension and a one-time payment to the fund, with the fiscal impact borne by New York City.

Impact

The bill creates a narrow exception to subdivision 5 of section 1000 of the Retirement and Social Security Law for one named individual, allowing retroactive military service credit in the New York City Fire Pension Fund. It does not broadly amend pension eligibility for all members; instead, it authorizes a one-off adjustment to a retired firefighter’s benefit calculation and requires a corresponding employee contribution. The fiscal note estimates a small increase in employer contributions and a limited actuarial impact on the FIRE fund, with the cost allocated to New York City.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript, floor debate, or recorded votes, so there is no documented public controversy or support statement in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure and fiscal note, the measure appears to be a routine individualized pension adjustment rather than a policy change likely to draw broad partisan attention. The fiscal note frames the impact as limited and quantifiable, which suggests the bill is being treated as a narrow administrative or equitable correction.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the bill’s special treatment of a single named retiree, which departs from generally applicable pension rules and could be viewed as a private benefit bill. Any concern would likely center on fairness, precedent, and whether granting retroactive service credit to one individual is appropriate under existing pension law. On the other hand, the bill’s supporters would likely emphasize that the member already served in the military, has already purchased most of the allowable credit, and would be paying the required contribution for the additional service.