Governor Kathy Hochul has sparked widespread debate across New York City after vetoing the Alison Russo EMT Supervisor Staffing Act, a bill designed to ensure no EMS worker responds alone to emergencies. This decision, influenced by concerns from the Adams administration and the FDNY regarding fiscal strain and potential service reductions, is seen by unions as a direct threat to the safety of first responders and a “betrayal” of those who serve the city.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a significant piece of legislation, the Alison Russo EMT Supervisor Staffing Act, which aimed to mandate that no EMS worker in New York City would travel alone to an emergency scene. The bill, named in honor of a fallen EMS officer, was strongly advocated by unions representing FDNY EMS workers. However, it faced considerable opposition from Mayor Eric Adams’ administration and the FDNY, who urged the governor to reject it.
The veto, issued on October 16, 2025, has sent ripples through the city’s emergency services, reigniting long-standing debates about the safety of first responders versus operational costs and efficiency.
The Tragic Inspiration: Who Was Lieutenant Alison Russo-Elling?
The Alison Russo EMT Supervisor Staffing Act bears the name of Lieutenant Alison Russo-Elling, a revered 24-year veteran of the FDNY EMS. Her life was tragically cut short in September 2022 when she was stabbed to death by a stranger in Astoria, Queens, about a block and a half from her station house. A first responder to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Russo-Elling was reportedly without a partner the day she was ambushed while investigating a call for help.
Her murder highlighted a critical vulnerability within the system: the allowance for EMS supervisors to be dispatched solo. Union leaders, including Lieutenant Paramedic Anthony Almojera, Vice President of the EMS officer’s union, believe that the presence of a coworker could have potentially saved her life. This tragic event became the primary driving force behind the proposed legislation.
The Bill’s Purpose: Enhancing Safety and Closing a Loophole
Passed by both the state Senate and Assembly, the Alison Russo EMT Supervisor Staffing Act sought to close a significant loophole in existing regulations. While standard ambulance teams are typically staffed by two EMTs or paramedics, supervisors responding in separate vehicles often operate alone. The bill aimed to extend the basic safety measure of having a partner to EMS lieutenants and captains, a standard already in place for police and fire supervisors. State Senator Robert Jackson, the bill’s sponsor, emphasized that the legislation was “never just about policy — it was about people,” asserting the fundamental truth that “those who rush toward danger should never do so alone.”
Governor Hochul’s Rationale: Fiscal and Workforce Concerns
In her veto memo, Governor Hochul acknowledged the critical importance of EMS personnel safety. However, she stated that the bill’s requirements would impose “stringent staffing standards” that would create both a fiscal and workforce issue for New York City. According to Hochul’s assessment, the city would be forced to:
- Reassign existing EMTs to supervisory vehicles, leading to fewer ambulances in service.
- Hire an additional 290 emergency medical technicians at an estimated annual cost of $25 million, for which no appropriation was provided in the bill.
Her primary concern was the potential for reduced ambulance availability and longer response times across the city, directly impacting public access to emergency medical services.
The Adams Administration and FDNY’s Opposition
The Adams administration actively lobbied against the bill, echoing Governor Hochul’s concerns. A City Hall official indicated that the FDNY lacked sufficient EMS workers to comply with the measure without drastically impacting the number of ambulances available citywide. “Ensuring the safety of New Yorkers is always our top priority, and that means making sure our first responders can reach those in need as quickly and efficiently as possible,” stated Kayla Mama Lek, a spokesperson for the administration. She added gratitude to Governor Hochul for “heeding our warning” about the bill’s potential to cause “fewer ambulances on the streets and longer response times.” As reported by the New York Post, the FDNY also clarified that ambulances already operate with two EMTs/paramedics, and supervisors typically do not spend significant time alone at emergency scenes.
Union Outcry: A “Failure of Leadership” and “Betrayal”
The veto was met with immediate and strong condemnation from EMS unions. Lieutenant Paramedic Anthony Almojera, who knew Russo-Elling, characterized Hochul’s decision as “shortsighted and reckless.” He disputed the governor’s $25 million cost estimate, calling it “simply inaccurate and based on inflated numbers.” Almojera stressed that “EMS safety and dignity are negotiable — and they shouldn’t be,” highlighting the often dangerous and unpredictable environments officers operate in. He concluded that the veto was a “failure of leadership and a betrayal of the people who keep this city alive — literally.”
Oren Barzilay, President of FDNY EMS Local 2507, was equally incensed. He lamented that the “murder of Lt. Russo was not evident enough to show the dangers of our job,” and criticized the perceived lack of investment in EMS by City Hall. Barzilay stated, “Governor Hochul’s veto message says that money is more important than the safety of the men and women of the busiest EMS agency in the world.” He pointed to an alarming trend in violence against EMS personnel, with 187 physical assaults in 2023 and 258 in 2024, according to the FDNY itself. This underscores the real and growing dangers faced by these essential workers.
The Broader Implications for New York City’s Emergency Services
The veto of the Alison Russo Act extends beyond a single legislative defeat; it reflects a deep-seated tension within New York City’s emergency services. The core conflict lies between ensuring optimal safety for first responders and maintaining an efficient, cost-effective public service system. Critics of the veto argue that prioritizing fiscal concerns over the proven risks faced by EMS workers could have long-term negative consequences, including:
- Reduced Morale: EMS workers may feel undervalued and unprotected, potentially exacerbating existing staffing challenges.
- Increased Danger: The continuation of solo deployments for supervisors could lead to more incidents of assault or injury, reminiscent of Lt. Russo-Elling’s tragic fate.
- Erosion of Trust: Union leaders and advocates may perceive a lack of genuine commitment from city and state leadership to their well-being.
Conversely, proponents of the veto argue that diverting resources to comply with the bill’s mandates could lead to longer emergency response times for all New Yorkers, a trade-off that is equally unacceptable. The debate underscores the complex challenges of balancing resource allocation with the critical need for both public and worker safety in a bustling metropolis like New York City.
State Senator Robert Jackson has vowed to continue standing “shoulder to shoulder with our EMS workers and their unions until the measure becomes law,” indicating that this is far from the final chapter in the fight for increased EMS staffing. As New York City continues to grapple with the complexities of its emergency services, the legacy of Alison Russo-Elling remains a potent reminder of the stakes involved.
