Court Rejects Pension Recalculation Claim by Former FDNY Chiefs

The New York County Supreme Court has dismissed a petition brought by two former FDNY Chiefs who sought retroactive pay and increased pension benefits based on collective bargaining agreements they claimed should have applied to their service in exempt positions.

The suit was brought by Chiefs John Sudnik and Thomas Richardson, who both retired from the FDNY after serving as Chief of Department. The case centered on their claim that while they held exempt titles, they retained rights to their underlying civil service classifications and were therefore entitled to salary increases negotiated in subsequent CBAs covering non-exempt positions.

Sudnik and Richardson each held the title of Chief of Department—an exempt civil service position—at the time of their retirement. They asserted that they simultaneously retained their underlying permanent competitive civil service titles (Deputy Chief), and under New York City law and policy, retained certain rights from those positions. Specifically, they relied on Comptroller Directive #14 and Section 821 of the New York City Charter, which provide that employees serving in exempt positions retain the salary and rights of their underlying competitive class title for certain benefit calculations.

Based on that premise, the petitioners demanded that the FDNY:

• Retroactively adjust their final salaries to include increases of 3% (March 2020), 3.25% (July 2021), and another 3.25% (July 2022),
• Recalculate their pensions using these revised salaries,
• Pay them additional termination benefits based on the higher amounts, and
• Reimburse their attorneys’ fees and costs.

They valued the salary adjustments at roughly $266,000 each.

The City moved to dismiss, arguing that the CBAs in question—covering the periods 2018–2021 and 2022–2027—explicitly excluded the titles held by Sudnik and Richardson. While the agreements covered Deputy Chiefs, they expressly excluded Deputy Assistant Chiefs, Assistant Chiefs, and the Chief of Department. Since the petitioners held these exempt titles during the period in question, the City argued they had no entitlement to CBA benefits.

Judge Lynn Kotler sided with the City. Applying the well-established Article 78 standard—whether the City’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or without a rational basis—the court concluded that the City acted rationally in determining that the petitioners were not eligible for the requested increases.

The court acknowledged that Directive #14 allows certain exempt employees to retain salary benefits tied to their underlying competitive class titles. However, it emphasized that the underlying titles in question—Deputy Assistant Chief and Assistant Chief—were themselves excluded from the CBAs. Therefore, even if petitioners retained certain rights under those titles, they were not entitled to the salary enhancements negotiated in collective bargaining.

Because the court found the City’s determination to be rational and consistent with the contractual exclusions, it dismissed the petition in full. It also declined to order recalculated pensions, additional termination benefits, or attorneys’ fees.

Here is a copy of the decision.