Authorizes Breanne M. Smith to receive a refund of certain accumulated contributions paid to the New York state and local employees' retirement system.
This bill is a private pension relief measure for Breanne M. Smith, a member of the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System (NYSLERS). It authorizes her to receive a refund of certain accumulated retirement contributions that were paid during a period when a tier reinstatement had been initiated but a cessation date had not yet been established. The bill applies notwithstanding the usual provisions of the retirement and social security law, and it requires that any application for the refund be filed within one year of the act’s effective date.
The measure is narrowly tailored to a single individual and is retroactive in effect, covering contributions paid between January 13, 2016 and July 12, 2019. It also states that the bill is not subject to section 25 of the retirement and social security law, which indicates an intent to override standard procedural or substantive limits that might otherwise apply to this refund request. The bill takes effect immediately if enacted.
If enacted, the bill would amend the practical application of New York retirement law only for this specific member by creating an exception to allow a refund of accumulated employee contributions. It would not broadly change retirement eligibility rules, but it would set a special statutory carve-out from the normal refund restrictions in the retirement and social security law. The fiscal note estimates an immediate past service cost of $17,800 shared across participating NYSLERS employers, with no increase to Putnam County’s annual contributions.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broader legislative sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a routine member-specific pension correction or relief bill rather than a contested policy proposal. The fiscal note is modest, which suggests the measure is likely to be viewed as limited in scope and low in fiscal impact.
No explicit opposition or controversy is reflected in the provided materials. The main point that could draw scrutiny is the bill’s creation of a one-person exception to standard retirement-system rules, including the override of otherwise applicable statutory provisions. Any concern would likely center on precedent for individualized pension relief and the fairness of granting a refund outside the usual administrative framework, but no specific objectors are identified in the record.