New York Senate Bill S09553

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/24/26
• Refer: 3/24/26

Caption

Grants retirement service credit in the New York state and local retirement system to Jeffrey M. Hogan for service as a Utica firefighter from 3/24/2007 -- 1/3/2013.

Summary

This bill is a private retirement benefit measure for Jeffrey M. Hogan, currently an officer with 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 he worked as a firefighter for the Utica Fire Department from March 24, 2007 through January 3, 2013, treating that service as if it had been rendered while covered by the state police retirement provision. To receive the credit, he must file a written request with the State Comptroller within one year after the act takes effect. The bill also specifies that all service costs resulting from the change are to be borne by the State of New York, and it takes effect immediately. The accompanying fiscal note estimates a one-time past service cost of about $468,000 to the state, while stating that the bill would not increase the state’s annual contributions. In practical terms, the measure would alter the retirement records and benefit calculation for one named individual rather than broadly changing eligibility rules for all members of the retirement system. The general sentiment reflected in the bill materials is neutral to supportive, as the proposal is framed as a targeted correction or special accommodation for a specific public servant’s prior service. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or broader policy controversy in the available record. The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the fiscal impact of granting retroactive service credit for prior employment in a different retirement category. The bill shifts the cost to the state and creates a significant one-time actuarial expense, which could raise concerns about precedent for similar individualized retirement credit bills. However, no explicit objections or competing viewpoints are included in the provided transcripts or voting data.

Impact

The bill would amend the application of the Retirement and Social Security Law for one named individual by allowing Jeffrey M. Hogan to receive service credit under section 381-b for years he served as a Utica firefighter under a different retirement provision, section 384-d. This would affect the calculation of his retirement benefits in the New York State and Local Retirement System and require the State Comptroller to recognize that prior service as qualifying state police service for retirement purposes. The fiscal note indicates a one-time past service cost to the state, but no increase in annual state contributions.

Sentiment

The available materials suggest a generally favorable or at least noncontroversial posture toward the bill, since it is a narrowly tailored retirement credit measure for a specific public employee and there is no recorded opposition, committee debate, or vote history in the provided record. The bill appears to be presented as a remedial benefit adjustment rather than a broader policy change, and the fiscal note acknowledges the cost without characterizing the proposal as problematic. Because no transcripts or votes are available, the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s structure and fiscal analysis.

Contention

The principal issue that could generate concern is cost: the bill creates a one-time past service liability estimated at $468,000, with the state responsible for all associated costs. Another possible point of concern is precedent, because the measure grants individualized retirement credit to a named person for service performed under a different retirement system classification. No specific objections, amendments, or opposing arguments are included in the provided materials, so any contention is only implicit rather than documented.