He got $2,550 back - but insisted the real number was $20,000
A New York government worker wanted $20,000 in pension contributions back after switching retirement systems. A court said no.
The worker started as an assistant district attorney in New York County in September 2007 and joined the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) as a tier 4 member in June 2009. In January 2020, he moved to state employment with the State Division of Human Rights and enrolled in the state retirement system as a tier 6 member.
The tier distinction matters. Tier 4 members stop making mandatory pension contributions after 10 years of membership or credited service. Tier 6 members pay in for their entire careers.
In March 2022, the worker applied to transfer his NYCERS membership into the state system. The transfer was approved in June 2022. Under New York’s Retirement and Social Security Law, a successful transfer backdates the employee’s membership to cover their full service period. So his membership date rolled back to June 2009, and his tier status upgraded from 6 to 4.
With more than 10 years now on the books, the state system calculated his “cessation date” - the point where contributions are no longer required - as March 1, 2022. It refunded about $2,550 in contributions made after that date.
The worker wanted more. He argued his cessation date should have been January 2020, when he first joined the state system. That would have meant roughly $20,000 back, plus interest.
$2,550 or $20,000 - it came down to one date.
A Hearing Officer sided with the retirement system. Before the transfer went through, the worker was a tier 6 member with no right to stop contributing under tier 4 rules. The Comptroller adopted that finding.
The worker challenged the decision through an Article 78 proceeding - a type of court action used to review government agency decisions in New York. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition. He appealed.
The Appellate Division, Third Department, handed down its ruling on November 12, 2026. It acknowledged the relevant statutes do not explicitly address what happens when a transfer between systems triggers a tier change. The legislative history was no help either.
But the court found the Comptroller’s interpretation was not “irrational, unreasonable or contrary to the statutory language.” The worker only became eligible for tier 4 benefits once the transfer was complete. Before that, he was tier 6 - and tier 6 members have no cessation right in the state system.
The court also noted the state system had applied this same approach for nearly 30 years. And it flagged a practical concern: the worker’s reading could “plausibly open the floodgates to refund requests that seek to claw back years or decades of contributions, plus interest.”
The judgment was affirmed, without costs.
For public-sector HR teams handling retirement transfers, the takeaway is concrete: a tier upgrade through a system transfer does not automatically backdate every benefit that comes with the new tier. Workers may assume otherwise, and benefits teams need to be ready to explain the gap.
