Relates to World Trade Center benefits

• Democratic9

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jessica Scarcella-Spanton says this is needed

It is almost a quarter of a century since thousands of uniformed offi- cers of the NYPD joined with fellow first responders in the wake of the worst attack on American soil. As time continues to pass since September 11, 2001, those participants continue to develop impairments and disa- bilities as a direct result of their exposures to airborne toxins. Twenty years ago, Chapter 93 of the Laws of 2005 was enacted to "presumptive accidental disability retirement related to exposure in connection with the World Trade Center tragedy of September 11, 2001, for certain public employees." The legislature overwhelmingly adopted the measure, with only two of 194 members of the combined Assembly and Senate voting no. The bill highlighted the need in its justification: Early statistics indicate that these workers were exposed to numerous hazards which may have, and may, impact on their health in the years to come. If any public employee was exposed to these hazards and can no longer perform their jobs, even after retirement, this legislation will permit them to apply for an accidental disability retirement subject to the respective Retirement System review process by proving, by competent evidence, that the illness or injury was caused in connection with expo- sure to any elements at the World Trade Center site. It is beyond ques- tion that the State must recognize the services that these individuals provided not only to the victims and their families, but to all citizens of the City and State of New York and the United States of America. As a result, it is only fitting that they be protected when a disability ensues because of their selfless acts of bravery working at the World Trade Center site and other sites. As a requirement of the World Trade Center Disability Law, which was amended in 2008 to include presumptive death benefits, eligible members of the public retirement systems in New York State must file a sworn written statement on a form provided by their retirement system, known as a Notice of Participation, stating the dates and locations wherein they participated in rescue, recovery, or clean-up operations. To be afforded the presumption to apply for death or disability benefits, the member must have completed 40 hours of participation at the World Trade Center Site, as defined in the Retirement and Social Security Law, or in the first iteration of the law, sustained a documented physical injury in the first 48 hours (this was later amended to mere presence at the Site in the first 48 hours). Initially, all Notices of Participation were required to be filed with retirement systems by June 14, 2007, however, this legislative requirement was amended several times. The last filing extension was enacted in 2023, unanimously passed in the Assembly and Senate, with a current deadline of September 11, 2026. To apply for a World Trade Center benefit, the member or their benefici- ary must first file a Notice of Participation. Simultaneously with a medical review, the NYPD verifies the member's participation with assistance from the Police Pension Fund. At such times, the applicant must provide their own employment records to prove their affidavit for participation is true and accurate. The passage of time is making it increasingly difficult for retirees and their families to locate records to which they may never even have had possession. To assist applicants and their families, the New York City Police Pension Fund works with the NYPD to search images of over one million pages of employment records from September 11, 2001, through September 12, 2002, but the scan quality of such images does not allow for efficient searches. The effort to verify a member's participation can accept to 18 months if their participation can even be verified. Moreover, physical records, including backup copies of scanned records, continue to be lost or destroyed in natural disasters including Super- storm Sandy and a warehouse fire. We can no longer requir

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.