Senate Bill S1183

2025-2026 Legislative Session

Establishes a real property tax exemption for veterans with a 100 percent service connected disability

download bill text pdf

Sponsored By

Current Bill Status - Passed Senate & Assembly

  • Introduced
    • In Committee Assembly
    • In Committee Senate
    • On Floor Calendar Assembly
    • On Floor Calendar Senate
    • Passed Assembly
    • Passed Senate
  • Delivered to Governor
  • Signed By Governor

Do you support this bill?

Please enter your contact information

Home address is used to determine the senate district in which you reside. Your support or opposition to this bill is then shared immediately with the senator who represents you.

Optional services from the NY State Senate:

Create an account. An account allows you to officially support or oppose key legislation, sign petitions with a single click, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Include a custom message for your Senator? (Optional)

Enter a message to your senator. Many New Yorkers use this to share the reasoning behind their support or opposition to the bill. Others might share a personal anecdote about how the bill would affect them or people they care about.
Actions
Votes

co-Sponsors

2025-S1183 (ACTIVE) - Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
A74
Law Section:
Real Property Tax Law
Laws Affected:
Amd §458-a, RPT L
Versions Introduced in Other Legislative Sessions:
2019-2020: S6342, A6839
2021-2022: S2918, A681
2023-2024: S2028, A2965

2025-S1183 (ACTIVE) - Summary

Establishes a real property tax exemption for the primary residence of veterans with a 100 percent service connected disability.

2025-S1183 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

2025-S1183 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf 

                             
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   1183
 
                        2025-2026 Regular Sessions
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                              January 8, 2025
                                ___________
 
 Introduced by Sens. ADDABBO, ASHBY, GRIFFO, HARCKHAM, HELMING, MARTINEZ,
   MARTINS,  MATTERA, O'MARA, PALUMBO, RAMOS, ROLISON, SCARCELLA-SPANTON,
   SKOUFIS, STEC, WEBB, WEBER, WEIK -- read twice  and  ordered  printed,
   and  when  printed to be committed to the Committee on Veterans, Home-
   land Security and Military Affairs

 AN ACT to amend the real property tax law, in relation to establishing a
   real property tax exemption  for  veterans  who  have  a  one  hundred
   percent service connected disability
 
   THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section 1. Section 458-a of the real property tax law  is  amended  by
 adding a new subdivision 11 to read as follows:
   11. A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN, VILLAGE OR SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY ADOPT A LOCAL
 LAW  OR  RESOLUTION  TO  INCLUDE  THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF ANY SERIOUSLY
 DISABLED VETERAN WHO:
   (A)(I) WAS DISCHARGED OR RELEASED  THEREFROM  UNDER  HONORABLE  CONDI-
 TIONS;
   (II)  HAS  A  QUALIFYING  CONDITION,  AS DEFINED IN SECTION ONE OF THE
 VETERANS' SERVICES LAW, AND HAS RECEIVED  A  DISCHARGE  OTHER  THAN  BAD
 CONDUCT OR DISHONORABLE FROM SUCH SERVICE; OR
   (III)  IS  A DISCHARGED LGBT VETERAN, AS DEFINED IN SECTION ONE OF THE
 VETERANS' SERVICES LAW, AND HAS RECEIVED  A  DISCHARGE  OTHER  THAN  BAD
 CONDUCT OR DISHONORABLE FROM SUCH SERVICE; AND
   (B)  (I)  IS  CONSIDERED  TO  BE PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED AS A
 RESULT OF MILITARY SERVICE;
   (II) IS RATED ONE  HUNDRED  PERCENT  DISABLED  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES
 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
   (III)  HAS  BEEN  RATED  BY  THE  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
 AFFAIRS AS INDIVIDUALLY UNEMPLOYABLE; AND
   (IV) WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR PECUNIARY ASSISTANCE FROM THE  UNITED  STATES
 GOVERNMENT,  OR HAS RECEIVED PECUNIARY ASSISTANCE FROM THE UNITED STATES
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                            LBD00391-01-5

Comments

Open Legislation is a forum for New York State legislation. All comments are subject to review and community moderation is encouraged.

Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity, hate or toxic speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Attempts to intimidate and silence contributors or deliberately deceive the public, including excessive or extraneous posting/posts, or coordinated activity, are prohibited and may result in the temporary or permanent banning of the user. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday. By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.

Billy_Szabo
5 months ago

Let’s finally get this passed this year! I know it’s the assembly that holds everything up.

Willis_Bueno
4 months ago

I fully support Bill S1183. Less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those of us who do often sacrifice everything—our physical health, mental well-being, and future earning potential—for the safety and freedom of this country. For veterans with 100% service-connected disabilities, life can be a daily struggle to survive, let alone thrive.

This bill is not just about financial relief; it’s about acknowledging the immense sacrifices made by the few who gave their all. Property taxes should not be an additional burden on veterans and their families who are already navigating life with significant challenges.

This exemption would allow us to live with dignity, security, and a sense of gratitude from the country we served. Please pass this bill—it’s a small but meaningful way to honor those who have given so much.

arthur_olson
2 months ago

I wholeheartedly agree with the intent and spirit behind Bill S1183, and I fully support providing meaningful property tax relief to our 100% service-connected disabled veterans. As stated, less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those who do often bear lifelong burdens—physically, mentally, and financially—on behalf of our entire nation.

However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.

This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.

If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.

Please consider strengthening this bill so it delivers on its promise and ensures that no disabled veteran is left behind due to local discretion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent and spirit behind Bill S1183, and I fully support providing meaningful property tax relief to our 100% service-connected disabled veterans. As stated, less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those who do often bear lifelong burdens—physically, mentally, and financially—on behalf of our entire nation.

However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.

This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.

If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.

Please consider strengthening this bill so it delivers on its promise and ensures that no disabled veteran is left behind due to local discretion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent and spirit behind Bill S1183, and I fully support providing meaningful property tax relief to our 100% service-connected disabled veterans. As stated, less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those who do often bear lifelong burdens—physically, mentally, and financially—on behalf of our entire nation.

However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.

This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.

If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.

Please consider strengthening this bill so it delivers on its promise and ensures that no disabled veteran is left behind due to local discretion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent and spirit behind Bill S1183, and I fully support providing meaningful property tax relief to our 100% service-connected disabled veterans. As stated, less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those who do often bear lifelong burdens—physically, mentally, and financially—on behalf of our entire nation.However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.

This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.

If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.

Please consider strengthening this bill so it delivers on its promise and ensures that no disabled veteran is left behind due to local discretion.However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.

arthur_olson
2 months ago

In the past, the school district I was part of refused to provide any tax relief to disabled veterans. It wasn’t until one determined individual rallied a large coalition of voters that the district was finally pressured into slightly reducing the tax burden for disabled veterans. Recently, Connecticut passed a similar bill—but importantly, it did not include the discretionary “may” language that would allow local governments to sidestep their fiscal responsibility to 100% permanently disabled veterans. I believe New York should follow this example by ensuring that its laws contain clear and mandatory language, so our veterans are treated fairly and not left behind after sacrificing so much for their country.

Aida_Abril
2 months ago

Just to clarify — for sections (III) and (IV), does that mean the veteran also has to be rated as individually unemployable by the VA and either be eligible for or have received financial assistance from the government? Connecticut recently passed a similar law, but it doesn’t include language like this. Taking that part out actually makes it easier for veterans to qualify for the exemption.

Michael_Joyner
1 month ago

The language in sections (lll) and (lV) need to be written to support all 100% disabled veterans whether they are working or not. Please change the bill to support all 100% disabled veterans.

Michael_Joyner
1 month ago

sections (III) and (IV), does that mean the veteran also has to be rated as individually unemployable by the VA and either be eligible for or have received financial assistance from the government? Connecticut recently passed a similar law, but it doesn’t include language like this. Taking that part out actually makes it easier for veterans to qualify for the exemption. I agree with the poster above, this needs to be stricken and opened up to all 100% rated veterans whether they are working or not.

timcorelli
1 week ago

Our legislators are absolute trash. This bill is useless, and a law is not a law with words like "MAY"

Michael_Brennan_1
2 days ago

18 other states offer a REAL tax exemption for ALL 100% disabled veterans. This ONLY gives it to 100% vets who get housing assistance for home modifications. Typical NYS weak sauce. It’s better than nothing, for sure. But don’t let them fool you, the bill is a lie and is misleading. It’s only for a very select few 100% vets, but not ALL 100% vets.

Create an account. An account allows you to sign petitions with a single click, officially support or oppose key legislation, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.