New York’s highest court rejected arguments from retired city workers against Mayor Eric Adams’ bid to shift them to a private, cost-cutting Medicare Advantage plan, away from traditional Medicare, in a unanimous decision released Wednesday.
Judge Shirley Troutman, an associate judge of the Court of Appeals, found retirees did not sufficiently prove they would be harmed by the Adams administration’s change. Her opinion also claims the city did not promise retirees their benefits would never change, a core part of the retirees’ argument.
Retirees argued Medicare Advantage plans reduce access and raise costs because they are driven by profit, alleging in their lawsuit that administrative law mandates the city to provide traditional Medicare with a supplemental plan.
Instead, the court held that the city is not required to continue the same benefits it gave to retirees decades ago, greenlighting Adams’ Medicare Advantage plan, which he argues would save the city money.
Marianne Pizzitola, president of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, which led the lawsuit against the city, said in a statement that the group hopes the City Council and next mayor reverse Adams’ plan.
“On behalf of 250,000 retirees, we call on the City Council and the next mayor to prevent us from being forced into a privatized Medicare Advantage plan and to let us continue receiving the health insurance we were promised and desperately need: traditional Medicare plus a supplemental plan,” Pizzitola wrote.
Council spokesperson Rendy Desamours told amNewYork that the Council is “reviewing” the Court of Appeals’ ruling but pushed responsibility for resolving the issue onto the mayor.
“The mayoral administration holds the authority to bring all parties together to reach a resolution that protects adequate healthcare choices for city workers and retirees and ends these protracted legal battles,” Desamours wrote.
Adams began the switch soon after becoming mayor as a cost-saving measure for the city, but was stopped by lower courts that repeatedly sided with retirees. The courts agreed the city recruited workers based on a promise of a traditional Medicare plan through retirement.
The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of retirees in a separate but related lawsuit in December 2024, which advocates celebrated as a victory.
In a statement at the time, Pizzitola said the courts’ decisions were proof of the retirees’ case.
“The City’s plan to defund retiree healthcare has now been analyzed by 13 different judges across all three levels of the state judiciary,” Pizzitola wrote in December. “Every single judge — all 13 of them — have concluded that the City’s plan is unlawful.”
The Court of Appeals ruling Wednesday does not dispute the facts of the city’s promises, but contends they are an insufficient legal basis to stop a switch to Medicare Advantage.
City Hall has positioned Medicare Advantage plans as a way to ensure long-lasting benefits for the city’s current workers, as it claims the switch would save the city around $600 million per year. But retirees responded by conducting a yearslong citywide campaign advocating against the proposal.
Liz Garcia, deputy press secretary for the mayor’s office, said in a statement to amNewYork that the mayor’s office appreciates the court’s decision.
“We are grateful to the Court of Appeals on their decision,” Garcia wrote. “We are reviewing next steps.”
It was not immediately clear how quickly the city could change healthcare plans, but it would rely on the next mayor’s support, which seems increasingly unlikely. All Democratic candidates for mayor have expressed some level opposition to the Medicare Advantage plan, including the frontrunners, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani.
Brooklyn City Council Member Justin Brannan (D-47), who is running for comptroller, said the court’s decision was “screwing over” retirees.
“I support NYC retirees & their fight to maintain their current health insurance,” Brannan wrote on social media. “No matter what the courts say, City Hall should not be forcing retirees into Medicare Advantage. A promise is a promise. You don’t get to change a deal now. That’s not who we are.”
