Relates to the retirement status of Denis Butler in the New York state and local employees' retirement system
This bill is a special, individual retirement measure for Denis Butler, a current employee of the Unified Court System who previously retired from the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System (NYSLERS) on December 30, 2021. The bill would nullify that retirement, restore him to active membership status in NYSLERS, and grant him service credit for all creditable public employment performed on or after that date until he retires again.
The measure also requires that any past costs of implementing the bill be paid by the Office of Court Administration, and it takes effect immediately. According to the fiscal note, the bill would create an immediate past service cost of about $295,000, with additional required employer contributions estimated at $250,000 for newly established pensionable earnings. Butler would also be required to repay any benefits he received improperly after his retirement date, with interest.
The bill would amend the practical application of retirement law for one named individual by overriding otherwise applicable provisions governing retirement and re-entry into NYSLERS. It does not broadly change retirement eligibility rules for all public employees, but it does create a one-off statutory exception that reinstates Butler’s membership and credits post-retirement service as pensionable service. The financial impact would fall on the Office of Court Administration, which must cover the bill’s past service cost and related contributions, while NYSLRS would adjust Butler’s membership and benefit records accordingly.
The available record shows no committee transcript, floor debate, or recorded vote, so there is no documented public opposition or support in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s introduction by the Committee on Rules at the request of a member of the Assembly, the measure appears to be a routine member-specific retirement bill rather than a contested policy proposal. The fiscal note presents the cost and administrative consequences in a neutral, technical manner.
Because the bill is narrowly tailored to a single individual, the main point of potential contention is not policy direction but the precedent and cost of granting a special retirement exception. The fiscal impact, including the $295,000 past service cost and additional employer contributions, could be a concern for the Office of Court Administration or legislators attentive to pension costs. Another possible issue is the requirement that Butler repay benefits received after his retirement date, which reflects the bill’s effort to reconcile the reinstatement with prior payments.