Authorizes Mike Hartnett to apply for military service credit in the New York city fire pension fund for active duty service in the U.S. Army from July 7, 1964 until July 7, 1967.
This bill is a private pension measure that authorizes Mike Hartnett, a retired member of the New York City Fire Department, to apply for additional military service credit in the New York City Fire Pension Fund. The bill applies notwithstanding a limitation in the Retirement and Social Security Law and allows Hartnett to count his active-duty U.S. Army service from July 7, 1964 through July 7, 1967 toward his pension, subject to the normal payment required for purchasing such credit.
If granted, the credit would be applied retroactively to Hartnett’s date of retirement, and any resulting increase in his retirement allowance would also be paid retroactively, less benefits already paid. The bill takes effect immediately and is narrowly tailored to one named individual rather than changing the pension rules for all members generally.
The bill creates a one-time exception to existing state pension law, specifically overriding subdivision 5 of section 1000 of the Retirement and Social Security Law for the limited purpose of allowing Mike Hartnett to purchase additional military service credit. It affects the New York City Fire Pension Fund and would increase employer contributions borne by New York City, with the fiscal note estimating a modest actuarial cost and a small increase in Hartnett’s annual pension benefit. The measure does not broadly amend pension eligibility rules, but it does set a precedent for individualized legislative relief in public retirement benefits.
The available materials suggest generally favorable or at least routine treatment of the bill, with no recorded committee debate or votes showing opposition. The fiscal note frames the measure as a limited, quantifiable pension adjustment for a single retiree, and the bill’s narrow scope indicates it is intended as a targeted correction or accommodation rather than a controversial policy change. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no evidence of significant public disagreement in the available record.
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s individualized nature: it grants a special statutory exception to one named retiree, which can raise fairness or precedent concerns compared with applying the same rule uniformly to all similarly situated members. A second possible issue is the retroactive increase in pension benefits and the associated cost to New York City, though the fiscal note characterizes the financial impact as relatively small. No specific objections from legislators, the pension system, or other stakeholders are included in the provided materials.