THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021 1:21 P.M.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
IN THE ABSENCE OF CLERGY, LET US PAUSE FOR A MOMENT OF
SILENCE.
(WHEREUPON, A MOMENT OF SILENCE WAS OBSERVED.)
VISITORS ARE INVITED TO JOIN THE MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE.
(WHEREUPON, ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY LED VISITORS AND
MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.)
A QUORUM BEING PRESENT, THE CLERK WILL READ THE
JOURNAL OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 19.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE
1
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
THAT WE DISPENSE WITH THE FURTHER READING OF THE JOURNAL OF MAY THE
19TH AND ASK THAT THE SAME STAND APPROVED.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO
ORDERED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, SIR. I'D
CERTAINLY LIKE TO WELCOME COLLEAGUES AGAIN TO CHAMBERS, BOTH THOSE
WHO ARE HERE WITH US AND THOSE THAT ARE REMOTE. HAPPY THURSDAYS.
TODAY IS A DAY OF DEBATE, AND THERE ARE MANY TO DEBATE. BUT I'D LIKE TO
START WITH A QUOTE, MR. SPEAKER. THIS ONE IS COMING FROM MARIAN
WRIGHT EDELAM. SHE IS AN AMERICAN ACTIVIST FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS. SHE
HAS BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR THE DISADVANTAGED AMERICANS FOR HER ENTIRE
PROFESSIONAL CAREER AND SHE INFLUENCED MANY LEADERS SUCH AS DR.
MARTIN LUTHER KING AS WELL AS FORMER SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON. HER
QUOTE FOR US TODAY IS, SERVICE IS THE RENT WE PAY FOR BEING. IT IS THE
VERY PURPOSE OF LIFE AND SOMETHING YOU SHOULD DO IN YOUR SPARE TIME.
SURELY THERE IS A LOT OF SERVICE TO BE DONE, MR. SPEAKER, SO WE WON'T
RUN OUT OF THINGS TO DO.
MEMBERS SHOULD CERTAINLY BE REMINDED THAT THIS IS OUR
SECOND SESSION DAY OF THE 20TH WEEK OF THE 244TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION
AND THAT ON YOUR DESKS YOU HAVE A CAL -- A MAIN CALENDAR AS WELL AS A
DEBATE LIST. SO OUR WORK TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO START, MR. SPEAKER, WITH
TAKING UP RESOLUTIONS ON PAGE 3, WHICH WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF
COLLEAGUES THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON RESOLUTIONS. FOLLOWING THAT, WE'LL BE
GOING TO WORK OFF OF OUR DEBATE LIST AND WE SHOULD START WITH CALENDAR
2
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
NO. 72 WHICH IS ON PAGE 7, AND THEN GO TO CALENDAR NO. 90, WHICH IS
ON PAGE 8, AND THEN CALENDAR NO. 94 WHICH IS ON PAGE 9.
THAT'S A GENERAL OUTLINE OF WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO
TODAY, MR. SPEAKER. IF YOU HAVE ANY INTRODUCTIONS AND/OR
HOUSEKEEPING, NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE DO HAVE SOME
HOUSEKEEPING TO TAKE CARE OF, MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
ON A MOTION BY MR. EPSTEIN, PAGE 23, CALENDAR NO. 2
-- 302, BILL NO. A3320, AMENDMENTS ARE RECEIVED AND ADOPTED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, ON A MOTION BY MR. PICHARDO TO
RECONSIDER THE SUBSTITUTION OF SENATE BILL NO. 1172 FOR ASSEMBLY BILL
4954, AND SAID SENATE BILL IS RECOMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
AND SAID ASSEMBLY BILL IS RESTORED TO ITS PLACE ON THE ORDER OF THIRD
READING.
WE GO TO RESOLUTIONS, PAGE 3, ASSEMBLY NO. 313, THE
CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 313, MS.
SOLAGES.
LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR
ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM MAY 17, 2021, AS NECROTIZING
ENTEROCOLITIS AWARENESS DAY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS
ADOPTED.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 314, MRS.
3
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
GUNTHER.
LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR
ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM MAY 2021, AS MENTAL HEALTH MONTH IN
THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS
ADOPTED.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 315, MR.
JONES.
LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR
ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM MAY 2021, AS CYSTIC FIBROSIS
AWARENESS MONTH IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS
ADOPTED.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 316, MR.
THIELE.
LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR
ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM JUNE 12, 2021, AS DRAGONFLY DAY IN
THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS
ADOPTED.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 317, MR.
DESTEFANO.
4
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR
ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM OCTOBER 2021, AS PET RESCUE
AWARENESS MONTH IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. DESTEFANO ON THE
RESOLUTION.
MR. DESTEFANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS IMPORTANT RESOLUTION. WE APPRECIATE THAT
ALL LIVING CREATURES HAVE A VALUE AND WE RECOGNIZE THE SERVICE,
COMPANIONSHIP, LOYALTY, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, AND HAPPINESS THAT
ANIMALS BRING INTO OUR LIVES. MILLIONS OF ANIMALS ARE BROUGHT THROUGH
SHELTERS EACH YEAR. SOME ARE UNITED WITH THEIR OWNERS, AND SOME FIND
CARING AND LOVING HOMES. SADLY, SOME MUST BE EUTHANIZED BECAUSE
THE SHELTERS ARE TOO FULL AND NOT ENOUGH ADOPTIVE HOMES. IT IS VITAL THAT
WE ENCOURAGE EMPATHY AND COMPASSION FOR OUR COMPANION ANIMALS,
THAT WE PROVIDE A VOICE FOR THOSE THAT CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
FORTUNATELY IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, ANIMAL ADVOCATES, SUPPORTERS, PET
OWNERS, AND CITIZENS COME TOGETHER IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO
PROTECT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONTRIBUTION OF ALL ANIMALS TO OUR SOCIETY.
THEREFORE, I AM HAPPY TO SEE THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY PAUSE IN ITS
DELIBERATIONS TO RECOGNIZE OCTOBER AS PET -- PET RESCUE AWARENESS
MONTH IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, A PROCLAMATION THAT WILL GO ON A LONG
WAY TO HELPING THE CREATURES THAT BRING SO MUCH JOY TO EVERYONE'S
LIVES. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS
5
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ADOPTED.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 318, MR.
BRONSON.
LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR M.
CUOMO TO PROCLAIM OCTOBER 2021, AS BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
IN THE STATE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS
ADOPTED.
PAGE 7, CALENDAR NO. 72, THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A01899, CALENDAR NO.
72, DINOWITZ, GOTTFRIED, VANEL, BARRON. AN ACT TO AMEND THE
EXECUTIVE LAW, IN RELATION TO PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN APPROPRIATE CASES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MR.
DINOWITZ, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS
ADVANCED. MR. -- EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED, MR. DINOWITZ.
MR. DINOWITZ: SURE. THIS BILL WOULD AMEND THE
EXECUTIVE LAW TO PROVIDE FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPERT
WITNESS FEES IN ALL APPROPRIATE CASES OF DISCRIMINATION.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD THE SPONSOR
YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. DINOWITZ, WILL
YOU YIELD, SIR?
6
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MR. DINOWITZ: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ. UNDER
CURRENT LAW LEGAL FEES ARE AVAILABLE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IN CASES OF
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION, IS THAT CORRECT? AND CREDIT --
MR. DINOWITZ: YES.
MR. GOODELL: AND CREDIT DISCRIMINATION.
MR. DINOWITZ: YES, IN CERTAIN CASES FOR THAT AS
WELL.
MR. GOODELL: AND LEGAL FEES ARE ALSO CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE IF AN ACTION OR DEFENSE IS CONSIDERED FRIVOLOUS, CORRECT?
MR. DINOWITZ: YES.
MR. GOODELL: AND THIS WOULD EXTEND LEGAL FEES
AND EXPERT FEES TO ALL OTHER DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS, CORRECT?
MR. DINOWITZ: YES.
MR. GOODELL: NOW AS YOU KNOW, LAWYERS WHO
TAKE CASES ON CONTINGENCY FEE BASIS, FOR EXAMPLE, PERSONAL INJURY
CASES, THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAVE DETAILED RULES AND REGULATIONS ON
HOW MUCH THE ATTORNEY CAN CHARGE. IT'S LIMITED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE
JUDGMENT, AND THAT PERCENTAGE DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE CASE IS SETTLED
OR IT GOES ALL THE WAY UP ON APPEAL. ARE THERE ANY LIMITATIONS ON
ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THIS LEGISLATION?
MR. DINOWITZ: THE LEGISLATION DOESN'T PROVIDE
ANY CHANGES IN THOSE FEES.
MR. GOODELL: SO IS -- IS IT POSSIBLE, THEN, THAT THE
7
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ATTORNEY'S FEES IN ONE OF THESE CASES COULD FAR EXCEED THE ACTUAL CLAIM?
MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD
HAPPEN, BUT --
MR. GOODELL: WELL, I CAN TELL YOU HOW IT
HAPPENS. IT'S WHEN YOU'RE CHARGING $750 AN HOUR AND THE CLAIM IS
SMALL, AND THEN THE ATTORNEY'S FEES QUICKLY PASS THE AMOUNT OF THE
DAMAGES IN THE CLAIM; ISN'T THAT --
MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I --
MR. GOODELL: THAT'S NOT PROHIBITED UNDER THIS
LEGISLATION, CORRECT?
MR. DINOWITZ: NO, BUT I MEAN I -- I WOULD THINK
THAT SOMEBODY WHO IS MAKING A CLAIM FOR A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT IS
NOT HIRING AN ATTORNEY THAT CHARGES $750 AN HOUR.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, YOU'RE FAMILIAR, OF COURSE,
WITH CLASS ACTION SUITS WHERE ATTORNEYS AGGRESSIVELY RECRUIT CLIENTS, ALL
OF WHOM GET A VERY SMALL AWARD, WHILE THE ATTORNEYS WHO ARE
RECRUITING THE CLIENTS GET A MASSIVE AWARD, RIGHT?
MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THIS BILL ISN'T REALLY ABOUT
CLASS ACTIONS, BUT IF THE ATTORNEY IS REPRESENTING THE WHOLE CLASS, WHILE
IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON MIGHT, YOU KNOW, GET A
SMALLER AMOUNT, THAT DOESN'T HURT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF, AS FAR AS I
COULD SEE.
MR. GOODELL: NOW WE'VE ALSO CHANGED THE
STANDARD FOR DISCRIMINATION, RIGHT? WE -- WE MADE A SUB -- A VERY
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE JUST RECENTLY IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO, AM I CORRECT?
8
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MR. DINOWITZ: WHAT CHANGE ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT?
MR. GOODELL: THE STANDARD IN WHICH YOU NEED TO
MEET TO ESTABLISH A DISCRIMINATION CASE. IT USED TO BE SEVERE AND
PERVASIVE, AND THAT STANDARD WAS REMOVED, CORRECT?
MR. DINOWITZ: I'LL -- I'LL SAY YES.
MR. GOODELL: AND AM I CORRECT THAT THESE LEGAL
FEES WOULD BE AVAILABLE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATION WAS
WILLFUL OR EGREGIOUS OR MALICIOUS? I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE A LARGE
CORPORATION YOU COULD HAVE A DISCRIMINATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A BRANCH
OFFICE OR A RETAIL OUTLET WITHOUT CORPORATE MANAGEMENT EVEN KNOWING
ABOUT IT, CORRECT? THERE'S NO OBLIGATION THAT THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF WAS
ENGAGED IN ANY MALICE, CORRECT?
MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THERE YOU GO AGAIN WORRIED
ABOUT THE BIG CORPORATION, BUT DISCRIMINATION IS DISCRIMINATION AND AS
FAR AS I'M CONCERNED IT'S -- IT'S THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY IS THE VICTIM OF
DISCRIMINATION THAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST.
MR. GOODELL: BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT OF
SHOWING A MALICE, WILLFULNESS OR KNOWLEDGE, CORRECT?
MR. DINOWITZ: THIS BILL, MR. GOODELL, SIMPLY
TAKES OUT A PHRASE OR A SENTENCE THAT'S IN THE EXISTING LAW, AND IT TAKES
OUT THAT PHRASE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR SUCH SUITS IN INSTANCES OF
DISCRIMINATION OTHER THAN HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AND HOUSING-RELATED
CREDIT DISCRIMINATION. AND OF COURSE IT ALSO ADDS -- IT ADDS PROVISIONS
FOR EXPERT WITNESS FEES AS WELL. THOSE ARE THE CHANGES THAT THE BILL
9
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MAKES. SO THE OTHER STUFF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHILE VERY INTERESTING
IS -- I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE BILL, BUT I'M NOT
THE PARLIAMENTARIAN, SO I CAN'T DECIDE THAT.
MR. GOODELL: NOW THIS BILL DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT
THE PARTY ACTUALLY PREVAIL ON THEIR CLAIM, THEY CAN BE ELIGIBLE FOR
UNLIMITED ATTORNEY'S FEES IF THEY SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAIL, IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DINOWITZ: THIS BILL MAKES NO CHANGES WITH
RESPECT TO THAT.
MR. GOODELL: AND SO THE EXISTING LAW, WHICH IS
VERY LIMITED IN ITS APPLICABILITY, HAS A SUBSTANTIAL PREVAILING PROVISION.
CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT MEANS? FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY A
PLAINTIFF SUES FOR $100,000. DO THEY HAVE TO GET A JUDGMENT OF OVER
$50- TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILING UNDER THE LANGUAGE AS AMENDED?
MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THAT'S A TERM OF ART WHICH I
WOULD THINK WOULD BE UP TO A JUDGE TO ADDRESS.
MR. GOODELL: LIKEWISE, LET'S SAY THAT A PLAINTIFF
SUES AND GETS A JUDGMENT OF $40,000, ORIGINALLY SUED FOR $100- SO
THEY'RE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILING, I WOULD SAY. I MEAN, THEY LOST A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR CLAIM. IN THAT CASE, DOES THE DEFENDANT
HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES REIMBURSED?
MR. DINOWITZ: NOW, MR. GOODELL, YOU KNOW THAT
THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL IS NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE
CLAIM THAT THE -- A PLAINTIFF GETS. A CLAIM IS A CLAIM. WHAT A PLAINTIFF
MAY BE AWARDED IS UP TO A JUDGE OR A JURY, I GUESS -- IT'S CERTAINLY NOT --
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING. I MEAN,
10
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
A PLAINTIFF COULD SUE FOR $1 BILLION AND IF THE PLAINTIFF IS THEN AWARDED
$100,000, WELL, THAT'S ONLY ONE-TENTH THOUSANDTH OF -- OF THE CLAIM;
DOES THAT MEAN IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL? SO THE SUBSTANTIAL I DON'T BELIEVE
REALLY REFERS TO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MONEY THAT THEY WOULD BE
AWARDED COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY CLAIMED.
MR. GOODELL: DOES THIS BILL AUTHORIZE ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES TO BE AWARDED TO A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT?
MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T SEE THAT IN HERE, NO.
MR. GOODELL: SO IT'S JUST ONE-SIDED, IT'S -- YOU GET
ATTORNEY'S FEES ONLY IF YOU ARE SUING A SMALL EMPLOYER OR -- OR ANY
OTHER EMPLOYER, SMALL, LARGE EMPLOYER, BUT IF THE EMPLOYER WINS THEY
DON'T GET ANY REIMBURSEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T SEE THAT IN HERE. THAT'S MY
ANSWER.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ, I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'RE VERY, VERY WELCOME.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.
GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THERE'S A -- THERE'S A REASON WHY IN
NEW YORK STATE WE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY AWARD ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND
THAT'S BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP THE COST OF LITIGATION REASONABLE AND WE
WANT TO ENCOURAGE PARTIES TO LOOK AT SETTLEMENT. AND WE HAVE SEEN
ENUMERABLE EXAMPLES; NOT ONE OR TWO, BUT HUNDREDS OF EXAMPLES
11
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
WHERE ATTORNEY'S FEES, WHEN THEY ARE AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED AS PART OF
THE AWARD, CAN FAR EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM. AND IF YOU
QUESTION THIS, YOU CAN JUST GET ON GOOGLE, CLASS ACTION SUITS, AND YOU'LL
SEE, YEAH, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALS GOT $5, $10 REFUND ON THEIR TELEPHONE
BILL OR WHATEVER, AND THE ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE MILLIONS.
AND SO THE CURRENT LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT ATTORNEY'S
FEES CAN ONLY BE AWARDED NORMALLY IF THE DEFENDANT ACTED MALICIOUSLY,
INTENTIONALLY, IN A WAY THAT WAS UNJUSTIFIED, AND THEN IT'S ALMOST IN THE
CONTEXT OF A PUNITIVE DAMAGE SITUATION. IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER SIMILAR
CONTEXT IN THE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS, THE APPELLATE COURTS THROUGHOUT
NEW YORK STATE ARE VERY CLEAR AND VERY FIRM ABOUT LIMITING ATTORNEY'S
FEES FOR THAT VERY REASON. SO YOU KNOW, YOU ONLY GET 25 PERCENT IF YOU
FILE A CLAIM AND IT'S SETTLED, AND I THINK IT'S A THIRD IF IT GOES UP ON
APPEAL AND YOU WIN OR IT GOES THROUGH A JURY TRIAL AND YOU WIN, THEY'RE
VERY, VERY CAREFUL ON THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE LAWSUIT TO BE
ABOUT LAWYERS. EVEN THE WORKERS COMP BOARD, IF YOU'RE A SUCCESSFUL
ATTORNEY IN A WORKERS COMP OR AN UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM -- I KNOW IN
AN UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM THE ATTORNEY HAS TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT AND IT
HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD AS TO
REASONABLENESS, EVEN THOUGH THE UNEMPLOYED COMPENSATION BOARD'S
NOT PAYING THE LEGAL FEE. AND THEY LOOK AT THE DIFFICULTY OF THE CASE, OF
COURSE, BUT ALSO THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD.
SO WE'VE HEARD FROM THE BUSINESS COUNCIL, WE'VE
HEARD FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS NEW YORK STATE THAT I THINK
CORRECTLY SAY WE SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE WAY WE'VE DEALT WITH ATTORNEY'S
12
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
FEES AND ALLOW UNLIMITED LEGAL FEES AND UNLIMITED EXPERT FEES IN A CASE
THAT ARE NOT IN ANY WAY TIED TO THE JUDGMENT, OR THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY. AND WHILE SOME PEOPLE SAY, WELL, THIS IS JUST TO MAKE
SURE THAT SMALL PLAINTIFFS CAN SUE BIG BUSINESSES. NO, THIS BILL ISN'T
LIMITED TO THE SIZE OF THE EMPLOYER. AND SO YOU CAN HAVE SMALL
EMPLOYERS WHO ARE COMPLETELY PUT OUT OF BUSINESS, NOT BASED ON THE
SIZE OF THE JUDGMENT ON ANY ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION, BUT ON THE SIZE OF
THE LEGAL FEES AND EXPERT FEES.
SO WHILE I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS, AND
WHILE I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO ALL MY COLLEAGUES IN THE NEW YORK STATE
BAR ASSOCIATION AND EVEN MY LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION FOR OPPOSING
LEGISLATION THAT GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO COLLEGE
AND BUILD A SUBSTANTIAL FUND FOR THEIR SPOUSE AND THEIR RETIREMENT, OUR
MISSION SHOULD STILL BE TO FOCUS ON FAIRNESS FOR BOTH PARTIES, AND A BILL
THAT ONLY ALLOWS UNLIMITED LEGAL FEES TO BE COLLECTED BY ONE SIDE, A
PLAINTIFF, AND DOESN'T PROVIDE THE SAME PROTECTION FOR A DEFENDANT IS
CLEARLY NOT A BALANCED, REASONABLE BILL. AND WITHOUT ANY GUIDE RAILS AT
ALL ON THE AMOUNT, IT WILL RAISE THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK
STATE AND NOT PROVIDE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I
WILL BE OPPOSING IT AND RECOMMEND THE SAME FOR MY COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 90TH
DAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
13
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
THE VOTE ON SENATE PRINT S-49. THIS IS A PARTY VOTE. ANY MEMBER WHO
WISHES TO BE RECORDED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONFERENCE POSITION IS
REMINDED TO CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBERS
PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. THE REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE GENERALLY OPPOSES THIS LEGISLATION, BUT THOSE WHO SUPPORT IT
SHOULD CONTACT THE MINORITY LEADER'S OFFICE SO WE CAN PROPERLY RECORD
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WILL GENERALLY BE IN FAVOR OF THIS
LEGISLATION, THEREFORE WE'LL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE; HOWEVER, THERE
MAY BE SOME COLLEAGUES WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE AN EXCEPTION AND THEY
CERTAINLY ARE ABLE TO CONTACT THE MAJORITY LEADER'S OFFICE AND THEIR
VOTE WILL BE PROPERLY RECORDED.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
FIRST VOTE OF THE DAY, MEMBERS.
MS. SIMON TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.
MS. SIMON: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS LEGISLATION.
ACCESS TO ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR PLAINTIFFS WHO HAVE BROUGHT
14
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
ONE, IS THAT THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN -- WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
VIOLATED AND THEY NEED ACCESS TO THE COURTS. AND WITHOUT COMPETENT
COUNSEL, THEY WOULD -- THEIR CONCERNS WOULD GONE UNRECOGNIZED AND
UNREMEDIATED. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR DAY IN COURT. THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO THAT COMPENSATION, WHETHER IT IS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OR WHETHER
IT IS DAMAGES. BUT WITHOUT ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR PREVAILING PARTIES, MANY
ATTORNEYS WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING SUCH A CASE.
AND SO IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ADVANCE THE PUBLIC
POLICY GOALS OF OUR HUMAN RIGHTS LAW THAT ATTORNEY'S FEES ARE
AVAILABLE TO PREVAILING PARTIES, AS WELL AS EXPERT WITNESS FEES WHICH
ALLOW A -- A PLAINTIFF TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR CASE. SO I'M VOTING IN
SUPPORT OF THIS AND I, AGAIN, WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. SIMON IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF WE COULD
NOW GO TO PAGE 8 AND TAKE UP CALENDAR NO. 90 BY MR. STECK.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00263, CALENDAR NO.
90, STECK, ZINERMAN, BARRON, SEAWRIGHT. AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL
15
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
RIGHTS LAW, IN RELATION TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES AND REMEDIES IN
SUITS BROUGHT FOR THE VINDICATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS OR HUMAN RIGHTS.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. STECK, AN
EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.
MR. STECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER,
COLLEAGUES. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 IS ONE OF THE GREATEST
ACHIEVEMENTS OF AMERICAN LAW. IT AUTHORIZES LAWSUITS FOR DAMAGES
AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT WITHOUT
SUCH A REMEDY, THERE WOULD BE LITTLE DETERRENCE FOR VIOLATING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, AND THEIR LIVES COULD BE SERIOUSLY
HARMED BY THE VIOLATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
SADLY, THAT IS EXACTLY THE STATE OF THE LAW IN NEW
YORK. OUR STATE, UNLIKE OTHER STATES, IS WELL OVER 100 YEARS BEHIND IN
RECOGNIZING THAT CONSTITUTIONAL WRONGS REQUIRE AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY.
THE MOST OUR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CAN BRING IS AN ORDER TELLING THE
WRONGDOER NOT TO DO IT AGAIN. IT IS NOT A SOLUTION TO PROTECTING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OUR CITIZENS, AND WAS NOT DESIGNED AS SUCH.
ARTICLE 78 WAS WRITTEN LONG BEFORE CONSTITUTIONAL TORT LITIGATION WAS
DEVELOPED, IT HAS NO DAMAGES NOR ATTORNEY'S FEE REMEDY. THIS
LEGISLATION FOR THE FIRST TIME ENACTS THE STATE LAW EQUIVALENT OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1871, WHICH INCIDENTALLY WAS PASSED BY WHAT THEY USED
TO CALL THE PARTY OF LINCOLN.
SIMPLY RELYING ON THE FEDERAL STATUTE NOW CODIFIED AT
42 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1983 IS INADEQUATE. FIRST, NEW YORK
16
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
DEFINES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DIFFERENTLY. FOR EXAMPLE, NEW YORK
INTERPRETS FREE SPEECH MORE BROADLY AND, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE AN
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT FOR WOMEN WHEREAS THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT. SECOND, THERE HAS BEEN A MOVEMENT IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO REINTERPRET FEDERAL LAW TO PROVIDE LESS PROTECTION FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS PLAINTIFFS AND TO ENHANCE PROTECTION FOR THE POWERFUL. WE
REJECT THAT MOVEMENT. STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS WILL, IN THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE, BE THE VANGUARD OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE ATTORNEY'S FEES REMEDY, I WOULD
NOTE THAT THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION WAY BACK IN
1871. ATTORNEY'S FEES ARE BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, PARTICULARLY IN OUR LESS POPULOUS AREAS OF THE STATE, PEOPLE
ESPECIALLY NEED TO RELY ON THEIR LOCAL ATTORNEY TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF SEEKING OUT PRO BONO SERVICES
FROM LARGE CORPORATE LAW FIRMS, NOR GETTING A CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION TO
HANDLE THEIR CASE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANNOT TAKE ON EVERY ONE OF
THESE MATTERS, JUST LIKE THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CANNOT PROSECUTE
EVERY VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW AND, IN FACT, FOR THAT REASON, MANY
VIOLATIONS OF THE LABOR LAW GO UNREMEDIED UNLESS PRIVATE COUNSEL GET
INVOLVED.
SO AS CONGRESS RECOGNIZED, THE ATTORNEY'S FEE REMEDY
IS ESSENTIAL AND THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY UPHELD THE INTENT
OF CONGRESS. THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO DOING OTHERWISE ON THE
STATE LEVEL. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF ATTORNEYS GETTING
WEALTHY OFF CIVIL RIGHTS CASES. THIS HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY A VERY
17
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
DIFFICULT AREA OF LAW AND WITHOUT THIS STATUTE, AS CONGRESS HAS LONG
RECOGNIZED, NO ATTORNEY WOULD TAKE THESE CASES.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MONTESANO.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. --
MR. STECK: SURE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: -- STECK, WILL YOU
YIELD? THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MR. STECK: YES.
MR. MONTESANO: HI. THANK YOU, MR. STECK. I
JUST WANTED TO ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IF -- IF A
PERSON GOES BEFORE A, YOU KNOW, A PLANNING BOARD, A ZONING BOARD OR
WHATEVER, AND IT TAKES OUT AN ARTICLE -- AND THEY FELT THEY WERE, YOU
KNOW, THE DECISION IS NOT THEIR FAVOR, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS,
THEY GO TO SUPREME COURT WITH AN ARTICLE 78; IS THAT THE ATTORNEY'S FEES
AND EXPERT WITNESS' FEES WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT?
MR. STECK: NO. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY
SHOULD BE DONE. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS BILL DOES. WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS
DO EXACTLY WHAT 42 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1983 DOES WAS IT
AUTHORIZES ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THE CASE OF THE
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. NOW IF THE ZONING BOARD DID
SOMETHING LIKE REFUSE TO HEAR SOMEBODY WHEN THEY WERE ENTITLED TO BE
HEARD, WHICH VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS, IT COULD COME UNDER THIS. BUT THE
ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS NO, THIS IS NOT A -- A STATUTE WHICH DEALS WITH
18
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
THE WRITS OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION OR CERTIORARI, WHICH ARE CODIFIED IN
ARTICLE 78.
MR. MONTESANO: SO THEN I'LL -- I'LL ASK, SO IF WE
HAVE PUBLIC OFFICIALS, TEACHERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, ANYBODY OF THAT
NATURE THAT -- THAT THEIR CONDUCT HAS VIOLATED SOMEBODY'S CIVIL RIGHTS,
THEY CAN -- AND THEY'RE SUED UNDER 1983, IF THEY PREVAIL, THEN THEY
COULD GET ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPERT FEES, AM I CORRECT?
MR. STECK: ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.
MR. MONTESANO: SO THEN --
MR. STECK: UNDER SECTION 1983, IT IS ONLY THE
PREVAILING PLAINTIFF THAT CAN RECOVER ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND AS YOUR
COLLEAGUE SO APPROPRIATELY NOTED, IT IS ONLY IN THE CASE OF FRIVOLOUS
LITIGATION THAT ATTORNEY'S FEES ARE RECOVERED BY THE DEFENDANT. THE
1983 DOES NOT, AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER AUTHORIZED THE
RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES BY PREVAILING DEFENDANT IN EVERY SITUATION
BECAUSE THAT WOULD DETER THE BRINGING OF CONSTITUTIONAL TORT LITIGATION.
MR. MONTESANO: THEN IF YOU CAN, JUST SO I CAN
UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER, COULD YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT
TYPE OF PROCEEDING THIS WOULD APPLY TO?
MR. STECK: YES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MENTIONED
POLICE OFFICERS.
MR. MONTESANO: MM-HMM.
MR. STECK: SO IF A POLICE OFFICER USES EXCESSIVE
FORCE, THAT WOULD BE REMEDIED UNDER THIS STATUTE JUST AS IT COULD BE
REMEDIED UNDER 1983. MANY STATES ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN 1983-TYPE
19
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
STATUTES AND WE ARE DOING THE SAME IN THIS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT HAS TO RISE TO A VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION. IT CAN'T SIMPLY BE NEGLIGENCE OR SOME OTHER SORT OF THING.
IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATION, EITHER AN INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS OR WHAT THEY
CALL DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO A PERSON'S CIVIL RIGHTS.
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY. SO THE POLICE OFFICER
VIOLATES SOMEONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICER
WERE SUED, THE PLAINTIFF IS SUCCESSFUL. SO IN ADDITION TO THE AWARD THAT
THEY WOULD RECEIVE, THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL FEES AND EXPERT
WITNESS FEES, CORRECT?
MR. STECK: YES. AND THAT IS A FACT BECAUSE
SOMETIMES IT'S NOT ALWAYS A SITUATION, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE A POLICE
OFFICER USES EXCESSIVE FORCE AND BEATS SOMEBODY UP AND THERE'S SOME
SERIOUS PHYSICAL DAMAGES THAT, YOU KNOW, AMOUNT TO A VERY LARGE
NUMBER. I CAN THINK OF ONE INSTANCE WHERE THE POLICE CONFISCATED A
PERSON'S VEHICLE WITHOUT GIVING THEM A RIGHT TO A HEARING, WHICH HAS
LONG BEEN REQUIRED UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, AND THE DAMAGES
WERE LOW, BUT YES, THE ATTORNEY'S FEES ARE RECOVERED.
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. GOODELL -- NO, I'M SORRY, MR. BROWN.
MR. BROWN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
SPONSOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION?
20
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. STECK, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MR. STECK: ABSOLUTELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. STECK YIELDS, SIR.
MR. BROWN: MR. STECK, I -- I APPRECIATE YOUR
BRINGING THIS BILL TO THE FLOOR AND I JUST, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND IT COMPLETELY BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW IN NEW YORK STATE IS THAT A LITIGANT WHO WANTS
TO BRING AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AS OPPOSED TO FEDERAL COURT, UNDER
U.S. -- 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND 1988 CAN DO SO AT ANY POINT IN TIME TODAY,
IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. STECK: THAT IS PARTIALLY CORRECT.
MR. BROWN: COULD YOU --
MR. STECK: YOU CAN BRING THE LAWSUIT UNDER
FEDERAL LAW IN A NEW YORK STATE COURT, BUT FEDERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES ARE
APPLIED AND THE DEFENDANT, AT ITS CHOOSING, CAN REMOVE THE MATTER TO
FEDERAL COURT, DEPRIVING THE STATE COURT OF ALL JURISDICTION. THIS
CREATES A RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PRINCIPLES,
WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND APART FROM FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PRINCIPLES.
MR. BROWN: I'M -- I'M NOT SO SURE I AGREE, HAVING
HANDLED THESE CASES, BUT LET ME JUST ASK YOU, BECAUSE I -- I REALLY WANT
TO UNDERSTAND, SIMILAR TO MY COLLEAGUE THAT JUST SPOKE BEFORE, THE
DISTINCTION THAT'S BEING MADE BY THIS -- BY THIS BILL. HOW DOES THIS
DIFFER THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS NOW IN TERMS OF WHAT THE LAW
21
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
IS?
MR. STECK: THERE IS NOTHING ON THE BOOKS NOW
UNDER STATE LAW THAT COVERS THIS WHATSOEVER.
MR. BROWN: BUT -- THEN LET ME REPHRASE IT. HOW
DOES IT DIFFER, THEN, FROM 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND 1988?
MR. STECK: SO THOSE STATUTES PROVIDE CAUSES OF
ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. THIS PROVIDES A CAUSE
OF ACTION NOT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, BUT FOR VIOLATION
OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. WE ARE TAKING A PRINCIPLE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY
DEVELOPED IN 1871 BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND WE ARE APPLYING
THE PRINCIPLE TO ENFORCEMENT OF NEW YORK STATE'S OWN CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.
MR. BROWN: OKAY. AND -- AND LISTEN, I
COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND I AGREE WITH THE -- THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IN
TERMS OF ENSURING THAT OUR RESIDENTS IN NEW YORK STATE HAVE FULL
PROTECTION OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS; HOWEVER, SECTION 42 U.S.C. 1983 DOES
NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
IF YOU READ THE TEXT OF IT, IT SIMPLY SAYS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY
VIOLATION. SO I'M STANDING HERE NOT UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE TO ME, THIS
IS UNNECESSARY WHEN THE CURRENT FEDERAL LAW I GUESS -- SO COULD YOU
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHERE I'M WRONG?
MR. STECK: WELL, YOU'RE DEFINITELY WRONG BECAUSE
YOU CAN'T GO INTO A FEDERAL COURT AND ENFORCE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS UNDER 1983.
MR. BROWN: OKAY.
22
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ON THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. BROWN: MR. SPEAKER, I -- I'M NOT SO SURE I
AGREE WITH THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL HAVING LITIGATED THESE CASES, AND I
THINK THE TEXT OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE IS PERFECTLY CLEAR. SO I -- I HAVE
MY MISGIVINGS ABOUT THIS STATUTE, I JUST WANT TO BRING IT TO MY
COLLEAGUES' ATTENTION. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD THE SPONSOR
YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. STECK, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MR. STECK: CERTAINLY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. STECK YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. STECK. AND I HAVE
A COPY OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION IN FRONT OF ME; OF COURSE I KEEP A COPY
IN MY DESK, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT. AND WHEN I LOOK DOWN THE LIST OF
CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT ALMOST ALL OF THEM, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, ARE COVERED
EITHER BY STATE CIVIL CAUSES OF ACTION, OR ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE
FEDERAL. SO FOR EXAMPLE, NEW YORK STATE HAS FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF
COURSE. WE ALSO HAVE LIBEL AND SLANDER, SO THERE ARE LIMITS ON THAT.
WE JUST FINISHED TALKING ABOUT A BILL THAT GAVE UNLIMITED ATTORNEY'S FEES
IN DISCRIMINATION CASES. OF COURSE THAT COVERS A LOT OF CIVIL RIGHTS
23
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
GROUNDS. IF YOU'RE ROUGHED UP BY A POLICE OFFICER, OF COURSE WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION, OR ASSAULTED, WE HAVE THE CIVIL ASSAULT CASES. WE HAVE
FALSE ARREST CASES. WE HAVE FALSE IMPRISONMENT. WE HAVE TRESPASS,
PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION. WE HAVE A TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION, PRIVATE
CAUSE OF ACTION. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT CIVIL RIGHT UNDER STATE LAW
DOES NOT HAVE A REMEDY UNDER EITHER EXISTING STATE LAW OR UNDER
FEDERAL 1983?
MR. STECK: SO AS I INDICATED IN MY OPENING
REMARKS, THE -- NEW YORK STATE INTERPRETS ITS LAW OF FREE SPEECH MORE
BROADLY THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES, FOR EXAMPLE. WE ALSO HAVE
A PROVISION GUARANTEEING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN, WHICH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT HAVE. AND WHILE THE RIGHTS IN QUESTION MAY BE
SIMILAR, THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THEM THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE COURTS
DIFFER UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND UNDER STATE LAW. AND, QUITE FRANKLY,
THERE HAS BEEN A MOVEMENT, AS I INDICATED IN MY OPENING REMARKS, TO
TRY AND COME UP WITH ALL KINDS OF WAYS TO RESTRICT RECOVERY UNDER
1983, WITH WHICH OUR STATE COURTS ARE ENTITLED TO DISAGREE WHEN THEY
ARE INTERPRETING MATTERS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
SO WHILE LEARNED -- MY LEARNED COLLEAGUE MAY AGREE
WITH THAT FEDERAL APPROACH, AS I INDICATED IN MY OPENING REMARKS, I DO
NOT THINK THE MAJORITY OF THIS HOUSE DOES AND WE WANT TO HAVE OUR
STATE COURTS FREE TO HAVE THE NECESSARY TOOLS IN THE STATE ARENA TO
ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
MR. GOODELL: WELL, OF COURSE AS -- AS I OUTLINED,
I OUTLINED A NUMBER OF AREAS WHERE WE HAVE CERTAINLY A CIVIL CAUSE OF
24
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ACTION UNDER EXISTING NEW YORK STATE LAW WITHOUT THE NEED FOR THIS,
INCLUDING, OF COURSE, DISCRIMINATION BASED ON -- ON AGE, RACE, COLOR,
RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, AND WE JUST PASSED ANOTHER BILL THAT
EXPANDS NOT ONLY THE CIVIL LIABILITY, BUT ATTORNEY'S FEES, AS WELL, IN ALL OF
THOSE AREAS. AND IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTORY RIGHTS, OF COURSE WE HAVE
COMMON LAW RIGHTS. SO MY QUESTION AGAIN IS, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN
EXAMPLE OF A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW THAT DOESN'T
EXIST UNDER CURRENT NEW YORK STATE LAW?
MR. STECK: WELL, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS NOT PART OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW. THERE ARE MANY AREAS
WHERE THIS IS THE CASE. DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WHICH IS A VERY FLEXIBLE
DETERMINATION. FOR EXAMPLE, FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT RECOGNIZE YET A
PRINCIPLE THAT YOU CAN'T TRY A PERSON OR PUNISH A PERSON OVER AND OVER
AGAIN ADMINISTRATIVELY. WE FEEL THE NEW YORK STATE COURTS SHOULD BE
FREE TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN PARTICULAR --
MR. GOODELL: WELL, NEW YORK STATE -- I -- I
APOLOGIZE, BUT NEW YORK STATE COULD DO THAT WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT,
CORRECT?
MR. STECK: ABSOLUTELY NOT AS A MATTER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. I THINK, AGAIN, THE POINT IS BEING MISSED THAT YOU
CAN GET AN ORDER THROUGH YOUR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TELLING THEM TO
STOP VIOLATING SOMEONE'S RIGHTS, BUT THERE'S NO INCENTIVE NOT FOR THEM
TO JUST KEEP ON DOING IT AGAIN, AND THAT IS WHY WE NEED THIS LEGISLATION.
IT IS THE -- THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THIS ARE THE SAME AS THAT
UNDERLYING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871, WHICH CONGRESS FELT WAS
25
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
NECESSARY TO DETER VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS. ARTICLE 78 IS A FINE STATUTE
WITH A GREAT HISTORICAL ORIGIN, BUT IT DOES NOT DETER VIOLATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; IT WASN'T WRITTEN FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT WAS BASED
ON THE BRITISH COMMON LAW WRITS. AND I ALSO, SINCE YOU MENTIONED
COMMON LAW, LET ME ALSO ADD THAT UNDER COMMON LAW, THERE WERE
NO -- NO CAUSES OF ACTION, AS OUR COURTS HAVE HELD MANY TIMES FOR THE
INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. STECK.
ON THE BILL, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.
GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU. NO ONE HAS EVER
ACCUSED NEW YORK STATE OF NOT HAVING ENOUGH LITIGATION OR ENOUGH
LAWSUITS AGAINST EACH OTHER. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF THAT UNTIL
TODAY. AND TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, I'VE LEARNED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING
ALL OF THE MULTITUDE OF LAWSUITS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE
OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT A MILLION
CASES BACKLOGGED FROM COVID, WE NEED TO ADD MORE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR MORE LAWSUITS WITH MANDATORY ATTORNEY'S FEES BEING AWARDED.
MANDATORY ATTORNEY'S FEES WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION AS TO THE SIZE OF THE
CLAIM OR THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT, OR ANYTHING THAT'S RELATED TO
CONTROLLING THE COST OF LITIGATION OR ENSURING REASONABLENESS.
NOW, WE ARE TOLD THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY LAWS THAT
PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND WHILE WE DON'T HAVE A LAW THAT
SAYS YOU CAN SUE FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, ALMOST EVERY
26
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
CONSTITUTION VIOLATION THAT YOU CAN NAME HAS A CIVIL REMEDY IN NEW
YORK STATE ALREADY. FALSELY IMPRISONED, YEAH, THERE'S A CIVIL REMEDY,
YOU CAN SUE. ASSAULTED BY A POLICE OFFICER, YEAH, THERE'S A CIVIL
REMEDY, YOU CAN SUE. SOMEONE TOOK YOUR PROPERTY, THE GOVERNMENT
TOOK YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, YEAH, YOU CAN SUE, OF COURSE.
IT'S CALLED CONDEMNATION. YOU CAN SUE. YOU'RE THE VICTIM OF
DISCRIMINATION IN NEW YORK, OF COURSE YOU CAN SUE. BUT WHAT YOU'RE
NOT ENTITLED TO IN NEW YORK IS AUTOMATIC ATTORNEY FEES WHENEVER YOU
SUE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OR WHENEVER YOU SUE THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
AND THIS BILL IS VERY INTERESTING WHEN IT COMES TO
LEGAL FEES. IT SAYS IF YOU SUE THE STATE OF NEW YORK OR ANY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, THE COURT MUST AWARD ATTORNEY'S FEES TO THE PREVAILING
PARTY UNLESS, UNLESS THE PREVAILING PARTY IS THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
UNLESS YOUR LAWSUIT HAS -- IS DISMISSED AGAINST THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
IN THAT CASE, THE TAXPAYERS DON'T GET REIMBURSED. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
FEW TIMES WHERE A LAW ACTUALLY SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR LEGAL FEES
REIMBURSED EVEN IF YOU ARE THE WINNER WHEN IT COMES TO THE TAXPAYERS,
AND IT REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF EXPERT LEGAL FEES. NOW, IF YOU'RE A
DEFENDANT, YOU'RE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SCHOOL, MAYBE THE LOCAL
FIRE DEPARTMENT OR THE STATE ITSELF AND YOU'RE SUED, THE ONLY WAY YOU
CAN GET LEGAL FEES REIMBURSED IS IF THE LAWSUIT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT.
THAT'S AN EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH STANDARD THAT ALREADY APPLIES, BY THE
WAY, AND ALL OTHER CONDITIONS.
SO LET'S SAY THAT WE PASS THIS AND IT BECOMES LAW AND
AS YOU MAY RECALL, I MENTIONED EARLIER WE ALREADY HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS
27
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
REMEDIES ON ALMOST EVERY IMAGINABLE CIVIL RIGHT IN NEW YORK STATE,
AND THAT POINT IS DRIVEN HOME BY THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL ITSELF BECAUSE
THIS BILL SAYS THAT IF YOU WIN YOUR DAMAGES ARE, QUOTE, "TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FURNISH A REMEDY." OH. SO
YOUR DAMAGES UNDER THIS BILL ARE THE SAME AS THEY'D BE WITHOUT THIS
BILL. AND IT SAYS AND IF THERE ISN'T ONE, THEN YOU'LL EXTEND COMMON
LAW. WELL, COMMON LAW IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND
IT'S BEEN A PART OF NEW YORK'S LEGAL SYSTEM FOR 250 YEARS.
SO WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON? WELL, WHAT'S REALLY GOING
ON, AND I HATE TO SAY THIS ABOUT MY GOOD COLLEAGUES IN THE LEGAL
PROFESSION, THIS IS THE PLAINTIFF LAWYERS' REIMBURSEMENT DAY. IT IS YOUR
DAY. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN LINE UP, BECAUSE WE'RE LINING UP ONE BILL AFTER
ANOTHER THAT GUARANTEES THAT YOU'LL GET UNLIMITED REIMBURSEMENT FOR
YOUR LEGAL FEES AND YOUR EXPERT FEES, REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF THE
CLAIM, REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OTHER REMEDY, BUT WE WANT
YOU, OUR PRIVATE SECTOR LAWYERS WHO ARE SUING OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR INCOME GETS YOU INTO THE HIGHEST TAX
BRACKET SO WE CAN TAX YOU THE HIGHEST AMOUNT IN THE NATION.
AND WHILE I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THE GREAT WORK
DONE BY MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE CONSIDERING CENSORING ME IN MY LOCAL
BAR ASSOCIATION, I APPRECIATE EVEN MORE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT
THE CURRENT SYSTEM HAS TO PROTECT OUR TAXPAYERS FROM GUARANTEED
INCOME FOR PLAINTIFF LAWYERS WHO WANT TO MAKE A BUCK AT THE EXPENSE
OF OUR TAXPAYERS REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS WHAT THIS
28
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
BILL DOES. AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE OPPOSING IT AND THEN
RECOMMEND THE SAME TO MY COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 90TH
DAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE ON ASSEMBLY PRINT 263. THIS IS A PARTY VOTE. ANY MEMBER
WHO WISHES TO BE RECORDED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONFERENCE POSITION
IS REMINDED TO CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBERS
PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. THE REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE WILL BE GENERALLY OPPOSED TO THIS LEGISLATION, BUT THOSE IN
OUR CONFERENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR IT ARE ENCOURAGED TO CALL THE
MINORITY LEADER'S OFFICE SO WE CAN PROPERLY RECORD THEIR VOTE. THANK
YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD
LIKE TO REMIND OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES THAT WE'RE GENERALLY GOING TO
BE IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE; HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE SOME FOLKS THAT WOULD
LIKE TO BE AN EXCEPTION AND THEY SHOULD CONTACT THE MAJORITY LEADER'S
OFFICE AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THEIR VOTES ARE PROPERLY RECORDED.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. THANK
YOU, BOTH.
29
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. STECK TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. STECK: VERY BRIEFLY, MR. SPEAKER. THIS LAW,
AS I INDICATED, SIMPLY APPLIES THE SAME PRINCIPLES TO THE STATE
CONSTITUTION AS WERE APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN 1871. I
THINK WE NEED TO MOVE OUR LAW FORWARD IN THIS AREA AND MODERNIZE IT
AND NOT STICK WITH 19TH CENTURY FORMULATIONS OF THE LAW. SECOND, I
WOULD POINT OUT THAT ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE TO BE REASONABLE, THAT IS A
WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE. AND UNDER FEDERAL LAW THERE ARE ALL --
THERE'S A HUGE BODY OF CASE LAW SAYING WHAT'S REASONABLE AND WHAT'S
NOT. IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE AND UNLIMITED FEES OR WHATEVER THE ATTORNEY
WANTS. IN ADDITION, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT FILINGS IN THE STATE COURT
SYSTEM HAVE BEEN DOWN, THERE IS NO EXPLOSION OF LITIGATION IN OUR STATE
COURT SYSTEM.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, AS I INDICATED A VERY DIFFICULT
AREA OF LAW. IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THERE ARE VERY,
VERY, VERY FEW LAWYERS, LESS THAN TEN THAT PRACTICE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
FULL-TIME AND, IN FACT, THE -- NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENS IN A LOT OF AREAS IS
YOU HAVE TO SEEK PRO BONO COUNSEL FROM A LARGE LAW FIRM. OR THE
INTERVENTION OF THE CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION BECAUSE NO ONE WILL TAKE
THESE CASES. WE NEED TO MODERNIZE OUR LAW AND NOT BE STUCK IN THE
19TH CENTURY. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. STECK IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. BROWN TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
30
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MR. BROWN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I -- I TALKED
ABOUT THIS BILL AND I HAVE NOTHING BUT THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR MY
COLLEAGUE AND SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THIS BILL, IN
PARTICULAR, ADVANCES THE LAW IN THIS AREA. CURRENTLY, A LITIGANT CAN
COME TO STATE COURT OR FEDERAL COURT IF THEY DECIDE TO, AND THE WAY THE
LAW WORKS IS CURRENTLY THEY COULD BRING A SECTION 1983 OR 1988 CLAIM
IN NEW YORK STATE AND THE PREVAILING PARTY CAN GET ATTORNEY'S FEES. SO
BECAUSE OF THAT, AND BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A SUPERFLUOUS AND
REDUNDANT LAW, I VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. BROWN IN THE
NEGATIVE.
MR. LAWLER TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. LAWLER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. "EVERY
PERSON WHO UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM
OR USAGE OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBJECTS
OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED ANY CITIZEN IN THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER
PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRAVATION OF ANY RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITY SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS SHALL BE
LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAWSUIT, IN EQUITY OR OTHER
PROPER PROCEEDINGS FOR REDRESS..." ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I CERTAINLY HOPE
THAT THIS BILL BASICALLY ELIMINATES QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR EVERY ELECTED
OFFICIAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. AND I HOPE THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE
STATE OF NEW YORK TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY, AFTER THEY HAVE SUFFERED
THROUGH THE MOST RESTRICTIVE GOVERNMENT OVER THE LAST YEAR, MANY OF
WHOM HAVE LOST THEIR BUSINESSES, MANY OF WHOM HAVE LOST THEIR
31
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
LIBERTIES, I HOPE THEY SUE EVERY SINGLE ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THIS BODY WHO
HAS VOTED TO PASS THESE LAWS. I HOPE THEY SUE THE GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK UNDER THIS BILL. THAT WOULD BE QUITE FITTING IN
PASSING THIS LEGISLATION.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
BECAUSE I DO THINK PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAVE SUFFERED
DEEPLY AND HAD THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATED BY THIS GOVERNMENT. SO I
ENCOURAGE ALL NEW YORKERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS LAW WHEN IT
PASSES. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LAWLER IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. IN ADDITION TO MR.
LAWLER WHO HOPES TO RECOVER SOME OF THAT $5 MILLION ON THE BOOK
DEAL, PLEASE RECORD THE FOLLOWING REPUBLICANS IN FAVOR OF THIS
LEGISLATION: MR. MORINELLO, MR. SCHMITT, AND MR. WALCZYK. THANK
YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
PAGE 9, CALENDAR NO. 94, THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00528-A, CALENDAR
NO. 94, PAULIN, GALEF, ENGLEBRIGHT, QUART, ZEBROWSKI, COOK, ABINANTI,
32
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
L. ROSENTHAL, COLTON, WEPRIN, OTIS, DINOWITZ, THIELE, SIMON,
GOTTFRIED, LUPARDO, PERRY, FERNANDEZ, GRIFFIN, STECK, JACOBSON,
CARROLL, SEAWRIGHT, REYES, BARRON, KELLES, ZINERMAN, JACKSON,
GONZÁLEZ-ROJAS. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING THE USE OF
PESTICIDES AT CHILDREN'S OVERNIGHT OR SUMMER DAY CAMP.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON A MOTION BY MS.
PAULIN, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS
ADVANCED.
MS. WALSH.
EXPLANATION IS REQUESTED, MS. PAULIN.
MS. PAULIN: YES, MR. SPEAKER. THE BILL WOULD
PROHIBIT CHILDREN'S CAMPS FROM APPLYING PESTICIDES TO ANY PLAYGROUND,
ATHLETIC OR PLAYING FIELD.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALSH.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE
SPONSOR YIELD FOR A FEW QUESTIONS?
MS. PAULIN: ABSOLUTELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. PAULIN YIELDS.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MS. PAULIN. AND I HAVE TO
SAY, YOUR BACKGROUND IS JUST BEAUTIFUL. I THINK WE ALL WISH THAT WE
WERE OUTSIDE IN A GARDEN LIKE THAT RIGHT NOW, THAT'S -- THAT'S VERY NICE.
MS. PAULIN: I WISH SO, TOO, WHICH IS WHY I PUT IT
ON.
(LAUGHTER)
33
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MS. WALSH: SO THIS BILL THAT, AS YOU SAID, WOULD
PROHIBIT THE USE OF ALL PESTICIDES AT CHILDREN'S OVERNIGHT OR SUMMER DAY
CAMPS, AND AM I RIGHT IN THINKING THAT THAT IS KIND OF A FOLLOW-UP TO
SOME LEGISLATION FROM 2010? COULD YOU JUST TALK ABOUT THE -- THE
HISTORY OR THE GENESIS OF THIS BILL?
MS. PAULIN: YES, ABSOLUTELY. WE -- WE AT THAT
POINT BANNED PESTICIDE USE ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AND YES, SO THIS IS AN
EXTENSION RECOGNIZING THAT CHILDREN ARE NOT MINI ADULTS AND THEIR
EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES COULD LEAD TO MANY HEALTH IMPACTS AND IT -- THAT
HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN BETWEEN 2010 EVEN MORE SO, AND NOW BY THE
PEDIATRIC COMMUNITY, DOCTORS, SO THAT THIS IS THE NEXT IMPORTANT STEP.
MS. WALSH: SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, I DIDN'T LOOK UP
THE 2010 LEGISLATION. DOES THAT -- DOES THAT BILL BAN THE USE OF ALL
PESTICIDES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE, NOT JUST THE SCHOOL YEAR, BUT THE ENTIRE
YEAR, ALL 52 WEEKS OF THE YEAR?
MS. PAULIN: I -- YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON'T HAVE THAT
IN FRONT OF ME. I'M SURE SOMEONE WILL TEXT ME AND TELL ME --
(LAUGHTER)
BUT -- BUT I -- I THINK IT'S SILENT ON WHETHER OR NOT, YOU
KNOW, BUT SO -- SO YES, I WOULD IMAGINE IF IT'S NOT AND IT IS SILENT, THEN
SCHOOL GROUNDS COULD BE INTERPRETED EITHER WAY.
MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO WITH THIS PARTICULAR BILL THAT
WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, WHAT -- WHAT ABOUT A CAMP THAT ONLY RUNS, AS
MANY DO, FOR EIGHT TO TEN WEEKS DURING THE SUMMER, SAY AN OVERNIGHT
CAMP. DOES THIS BILL PROHIBIT THE APPLICATION OF ALL PESTICIDES
34
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR, OR JUST DURING THE TIME THAT WE WOULD HAVE
CAMPERS THERE?
MS. PAULIN: THE BILL IS SILENT ON THAT.
MS. WALSH: OKAY.
MS. PAULIN: I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY THAT BASED ON
THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL, IF THERE WERE SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS THAT WERE
DEEMED PROBLEMATIC OR THEY -- THEY COULD GET STATE APPROVAL FROM
THEIR, YOU KNOW, FROM -- IF IN THE CASE OF A CAMP THAT'S LOCATED IN A -- IF
THEY'RE UNREGULATED, THEY WOULD GET STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
APPROVAL, IF THEY'RE IN A LOCATION THAT USES THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
THEN THEY WOULD GET APPROVAL FROM THERE, AND IF THEY HAD A COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT, FROM THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT. BUT
OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD BE AN EXPECTATION THAT THE -- THAT THERE WOULD
BE A BAN ON PESTICIDE USE BECAUSE OF THE SPILLAGE. YOU KNOW, WHEN,
YOU KNOW, WHEN IS THE RIGHT -- WHEN -- WHEN DO YOU -- YOU DON'T REALLY
SEE -- I MEAN, NOW WE HAVE BEAUTIFUL WEATHER, WE SEE MANY GARDENERS
PUTTING DOWN PESTICIDES, IT DOESN'T REALLY HAPPEN THAT MUCH IN THE
WINTERTIME. SO YOU KNOW -- SO BY THE TIME THE GARDENERS COME BACK
AND THE -- AND PESTICIDE IS PUT DOWN, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE VERY CLOSE
TO THE TIME THAT THE CHILDREN ARE COMING TO SCHOOL -- I MEAN COMING TO
CAMP.
MS. WALSH: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO -- NOW ALSO I
THINK -- I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, TOO, THAT WITH THE 2010 LEGISLATION
REGARDING SCHOOLS AND THIS PARTICULAR BILL, THERE IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT
OVERLAP, IS THERE NOT? SO, FOR EXAMPLE, PLACES THAT RUN MAYBE A DAY
35
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
CAMP THAT'S BEING HELD AT A -- ON SCHOOL GROUNDS WOULD ALREADY HAVE
THE RESTRICTION ON PESTICIDE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THAT PREVIOUS
LEGISLATION, CORRECT?
MS. PAULIN: I THINK THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF OVERLAP,
YES, BUT IT'S NOT, OF COURSE, ABSOLUTE.
MS. WALSH: OKAY.
MS. PAULIN: AND NOT FOR SLEEPAWAY CAMPS.
MS. WALSH: VERY -- YES, VERY GOOD. SO YOU STARTED
TO TALK A MINUTE AGO, AND I JUST WANT TO GET INTO THIS ISSUE A LITTLE BIT,
THE ISSUE OF AN APPLICATION FOR -- AN EMERGENCY APPLICATION PROCEDURE
FOR -- FOR ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO DO A SPECIAL TREATMENT. SO WHO
WOULD DECLARE OR -- THE EMERGENCY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY PRIOR TO
MAKING THIS APPLICATION TO -- TO PUT DOWN SOME PESTICIDES?
MS. PAULIN: WELL, AS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NOW,
YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE -- THERE'S A COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE CAMP AND WHOMEVER DOES THEIR RESPECTIVE GARDENING,
THEY'RE STILL GOING TO NEED A GARDENER TO TRIM AND TO MOW AND TO DO ALL
KINDS OF THINGS, RIGHT. SO THEY WOULD HAVE A RELATIONSHIP AND TOGETHER,
I WOULD IMAGINE TODAY THEY WOULD DECIDE, OH, WE HAVE TO PUT DOWN A
PESTICIDE. SO IT WOULD BE IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT WOULD HAPPEN
TODAY AND WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW THAT A DECISION WOULD BE MADE THAT
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO WITH, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS ON THE PATH THAT THE CHILDREN ARE WALKING, THERE'S POISON
IVY, THERE'S SOME REASON TO DO SOMETHING. I'M NOT -- THAT'S BEYOND THE
NORMAL ALTERNATIVE USES THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING.
36
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
SO WHAT -- WHAT -- THEY WOULD MAKE A DECISION AND
THEY WOULD ASK THEIR RESPECTIVE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. AGAIN, COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT IF THEY'RE IN A COUNTY WHERE THERE IS ONE, STATE
HEALTH DEPARTMENT IF THERE ISN'T. AND WHAT WE PUT IN THE BILL AFTER
TALKING TO -- TO THE CAMPS, WE WORKED VERY COOPERATIVELY WITH THE
CAMPS IN DEVELOPING THIS BILL AND WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION FROM THEM,
THAT -- THAT IF THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE THAT PROPER AUTH -- YOU KNOW, THE
AUTHORITY TO DO IT, THAT THEY COULD DO IT AND THEN PROVIDE THE
DOCUMENTATION LATER, SO THAT WE DIDN'T HOLD UP THE PREVENTION OF THAT
PEST ON -- ON THE LAND THAT CHILDREN ARE ACTUALLY OCCUPYING.
MS. WALSH: I DID SEE THAT IN THE BILL, I THINK IT WAS
LIKE WITHIN -- IF THEY DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM THE GOVERNING AGENCY
WITHIN, I THINK IT WAS LIKE 48 HOURS OR SO, THAT THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND
DO THE APPLICATION AND THEN, YOU KNOW, PUT IN THE -- THE BACKUP
DOCUMENTATION AFTERWARDS. SO I APPRECIATE THAT CHANGE TO THE -- THE
BILL BASED ON YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. SO -- SO --
YOU KNOW -- SO YOU HELPED TO CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO LIKE FOR
EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD A VERY WET SPRING AND IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE
GOING TO BE A LOT OF MOSQUITOES, WE KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW IN MAY IT'S
PEAK TICK SEASON. SO BASED ON THOSE TYPES OF OBSERVATIONS MADE AT A
PARTICULAR LOCATION THEY COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE A VERY BAD MOSQUITO SEASON, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE THINGS LIKE
WEST NILE VIRUS, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE THINGS LIKE ZIKA, CONCERNS
ABOUT ZIKA, SO BASED ON, YOU KNOW, OUR EVALUATION OF WHAT THIS
PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THE -- WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE IN TERMS OF A
37
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
TICK SEASON OR A MOSQUITO SEASON, THEN YOU COULD MAKE A REQUEST FOR
AN EMERGENCY APPLICATION BASED ON THAT; DO -- AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT
CORRECTLY?
MS. PAULIN: YES. AND ACTUALLY THE EMERGENCY
WOULD BE WITHIN 24 HOURS, SO THAT WE -- IT'S NOT 48 HOURS.
MS. WALSH: OH, VERY GOOD. OKAY. VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MS. PAULIN.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MS.
WALSH.
MS. WALSH: SO I -- THIS BILL IS INTERESTING BECAUSE
WHAT IT DOES IS INSTEAD OF RESTRICT THE USE OF PESTICIDES OR SAY THAT THERE
ARE SOME PESTICIDES THAT CAN BE USED AND SOME THAT CAN'T, OR SAYING THAT
-- BECAUSE IT'S SILENT ON THIS ISSUE IT'S SAYING NO PESTICIDES AT ALL, 52
WEEKS A YEAR UNLESS YOU REQUEST AN EMERGENCY PERMISSION TO APPLY A
PESTICIDE, I MEAN THAT'S A PRETTY STRINGENT PIECE OF LEGISLATION HERE.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SPONSOR IS COMING FROM IN THE SENSE THAT,
YOU KNOW, OUR LITTLEST PEOPLE, OUR KIDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ATTENDING
CAMPS, WHETHER THEY'RE DAY CAMPS OR OVERNIGHT CAMPS, MAY BE
PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO PESTICIDES, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT IF A
CAMPER IS NOT GOING TO BE ATTENDING A CAMP UNTIL SAY, YOU KNOW, END
OF JULY AND THERE'S A -- THERE'S A NEED TO APPLY SOME TYPE OF A PESTICIDE
TO SUPPRESS MOSQUITOES THAT COULD BE CARRYING, YOU KNOW, REALLY
TERRIBLE THINGS LIKE ZIKA OR WEST NILE THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE
SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN THERE IS. I KNOW THAT THERE IS
38
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
THIS EMERGENCY APPLICATION PROCEDURE, BUT AS SOME HAVE NOTED IN
RESPONSE TO THIS LEGISLATION, THERE'S A FEELING THAT RATHER THAN BANNING
THE USE OF ALL PESTICIDES, MAYBE IT WOULD BE BETTER TO PRESCRIBE THE USE
OF AN -- OF AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN AT CAMPS RATHER THAN GO
THROUGH A PROCEDURE LIKE THIS. AND I THINK REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN
TO IS A RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS. YOU KNOW, IS IT -- IS IT RISKIER TO ALLOW
APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES VERSUS SAY SENDING YOUR CHILD TO CAMP AND --
AND SMEARING THEM WITH -- WITH DEET, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THEY ARE --
THEY'RE SAFE IN THAT WAY. WHAT -- WHAT IS THE SAFER WAY TO PROCEED
HERE?
SO YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE -- THE IDEA THAT I KIND OF
LAID OUT WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE THIS -- AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
PLAN AT CAMPS RATHER THAN A WHOLESALE BAN OF ALL PESTICIDES, THAT WOULD
BE A PREFERABLE WAY TO GO, FOR ME ANYWAY. THIS BILL HAS BEEN AROUND
SINCE 2013, OUR LAST VOTE WAS IN 2016. THERE WERE 42 NO VOTES AT THAT
TIME. AND ALTHOUGH -- YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A NUMBER --- AS YOU -- AS
YOU WOULD IMAGINE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF GROUPS THAT OPPOSE THE BILL,
INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, THE TURF GRASS ASSOCIATION AND NEW YORK PEST
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. BUT EVEN DEC, I THOUGHT THIS WAS
INTERESTING, THEY TAKE NO OFFICIAL POSITION; HOWEVER, THEY DO SEE ISSUES
WITH WHO DECLARES AN EMERGENCY.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I -- I HAVE SOME MISGIVINGS
ABOUT THIS BILL. I THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY TO PROCEED THAT
I THINK WOULD BE A -- A LITTLE BIT BETTER. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I DON'T
THINK THAT I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL, BUT I DO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR HER
39
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. MANKTELOW.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, PLEASE?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. PAULIN, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MS. PAULIN: ABSOLUTELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. PAULIN YIELDS.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MS. PAULIN. JUST A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE HAD ASKED SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT PLAN AT ALL?
MS. PAULIN: I AM.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON
THAT IN REGARDS TO THIS?
MS. PAULIN: THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH
THE -- THE USE OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IS THAT THERE IS STILL A
RELIANCE ON PESTICIDES THAT COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT CHILDREN. AND
WHILE THAT IS A VERY GOOD APPROACH IN THAT YOU LIMIT THE USE OF
PESTICIDES, IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE THOSE PESTICIDES THAT ARE GOING TO BE
VERY PROBLEMATIC FOR -- FOR CAUSING CHILDREN ASTHMA AND CANCER AND ALL
KINDS OF OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A
PRE-EMERGE HERBICIDE AT ALL?
40
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MS. PAULIN: WITH -- I'M SORRY?
MR. MANKTELOW: WITH A -- EXCUSE ME. WITH A
PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE?
MS. PAULIN: A PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE.
MR. MANKTELOW: YEAH, BASIC -- BASICALLY WHAT
THIS DOES IS YOU PUT AN APPLICATION OF A HERBICIDE ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR
TO ANY OF THE -- THE WEEDS OR BUSHES OR WHATEVER COMING -- THAT WOULD
COME UP DURING THE SEASON.
MS. PAULIN: I -- I DO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IN
HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME OF THE -- YOU KNOW -- THE, YOU KNOW,
THE PEOPLE WHO DO PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT, THEY OFFERED THAT AS A
POSSIBILITY AND WHEN WE WENT BACK TO THE PEDIATRICIANS AND TO THE
HEALTH EXPERTS THEY SAID ABSOLUTELY DO NOT DO THAT, THAT WILL HAVE
RESIDUE IMPACT THAT -- THAT YOU CAN'T DETERMINE. SO -- SO WE DIDN'T
INCLUDE THAT IN THE BILL.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. IF YOU COULD SHARE THAT
WITH ME SOMETIME, I'D LIKE TO -- TO SEE THAT -- SEE THAT --
MS. PAULIN: I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME E-MAILS GOING
BACK AND FORTH WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT TRYING TO USE IPM.
MR. MANKTELOW: THAT WOULD BE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATED. YOU WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT SPILLAGE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN
WHAT YOU MEANT BY SPILLAGE?
MS. PAULIN: SO I -- WHAT I MEANT -- YOU KNOW,
MAYBE IT WAS THE WRONG USE OF WORD, BUT WHAT -- WHAT I MEANT WAS
JUST WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. YOU -- IT'S VERY HARD TO KNOW WHEN
41
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
YOU CAN APPLY A PESTICIDE AND HOW LONG IT STAYS ON THAT PROPERTY AND,
THEREFORE, COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON A CHILD EVEN IF IT'S USED A MONTH OR
TWO OR THREE MONTHS BEFORE. SO IT'S VERY HARD TO DETERMINE HOW LONG
THE IMPACT ON THAT LAND WOULD BE THAT SUBSEQUENTLY WOULD HAVE AN
IMPACT ON A CHILD. AND -- AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN MANY STUDIES ON ADULTS, YOU KNOW, ON PESTICIDES ON -- ON BIG
PEOPLE, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SO LIMITED AMOUNT OF STUDIES ON PESTICIDES
IN CHILDREN. AND ONE OF THE KEY FINDINGS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH COMMITTEE FOR A -- FOR THE ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS HAS BEEN THAT
THAT'S THE CASE, THAT THERE'S SO MANY -- THAT THE STUDIES ARE SO LIMITED
AND THE FEW THAT HAVE BEEN DONE HAVE SHOWN HOW DETRIMENTAL
PESTICIDES ARE TO THESE LITTLE BODIES. SO -- SO THE -- SO THEY ADVOCATE FOR
MORE STUDIES. AND MAYBE IF THERE WERE MORE STUDIES, WE WOULD KNOW
THAT THIS PESTICIDE OR THAT PESTICIDE COULD BE USED THREE MONTHS PRIOR.
BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE AND NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE,
THE SAFEST ROUTE AT THIS POINT IS TO NOT USE THEM.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO OUR PROFESSIONALS HERE IN
NEW YORK, OUR NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, OUR FEDERAL EPA, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, TO
ME THOSE ARE PROFESSIONALS. I KNOW USING FARM CHEMICALS TWO-THIRDS
OF MY LIFE, HAVING READ ALL THE LABELS AND -- AND WHAT GOES INTO THAT,
THOSE PESTICIDES ARE -- ARE HIGHLY VETTED PRIOR TO USING THEM. IT TAKES A
-- ROUGHLY TEN YEARS FROM START TO FINISH BEFORE A PESTICIDE ACTUALLY
MAKES IT TO MARKET. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID EARLIER, TOO, AS WELL, YOU
KNOW, I HAVE CONCERNS THAT THERE ARE PRODUCTS OUT THERE THAT WE COULD
42
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
USE SAFELY THAT WOULD PROBABLY PRO -- FOR INSTANCE, CONTROL OF TICKS, AND
MOSQUITOES. THERE ARE PRODUCTS OUT THERE THAT WE COULD DO PRIOR TO --
TO THE CHILDREN COMING TO THE CAMP WHICH WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN
DOING A -- AN EMERGENCY APPLICATION. AND IF WE DID IT -- AN EMERGENCY
APPLICATION, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE OR HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR THE
CHILDREN TO BE ALLOWED BACK INTO THAT CAMP, DO YOU KNOW?
MS. PAULIN: WELL, LET ME -- I KNOW THAT OUR
COLLEAGUE HAS JUST MENTIONED TWO OUTBREAKS, RIGHT, THAT SHE WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT, AND I'M IMAGINING THAT'S SIMILAR FOR WHAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS, OF COURSE, WEST NILE AND POSSIBLY ZIKA. SO LET
ME JUST SAY -- STICK WITH THOSE BECAUSE THEY EXIST ALSO ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS WHERE WE'VE ALREADY BANNED THEM. SO IN THE CASE OF ZIKA -
YOU PROBABLY KNOW THAT WAS A BIG TOPIC OF THE DEBATE WHEN WE DID THIS
LAST TIME - TO DATE, NEW YORK DOESN'T HAVE ANY CASES OF LOCAL
TRANSMISSION OF THE VIRUS; HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, IF -- IF THEY -- IF WE DID
AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY THAT WOULD BE OF CONCERN AND WE'D
WANT TO ADDRESS THAT. IN THE CASE OF WEST NILE, IT DOES EXIST ON SCHOOL
PROPERTY AS WELL, AND THEY'VE ALREADY MADE THAT ACCOMMODATION. THE
COMMISSIONERS HAVE ALREADY FOUND ALTERNATIVES AND A WAY TO DO THAT
WHEN CHILDREN ARE NOT ON THE PREMISES, WHICH I THINK -- SO SOME OF
THOSE DETERMINATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE ON SOME PRODUCTS AND,
YOU KNOW, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF THERE WAS A CAMP THAT SAID, YOU
KNOW WHAT? WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A CONCERN OF -- OF WEST NILE, OF TICKS
OR WHAT HAVE YOU, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD GO TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
JUST LIKE THE SCHOOLS ARE GOING NOW, AND THEY WOULD GET PERMISSION TO
43
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
USE WHATEVER ALTERNATIVES, WHATEVER SPRAYS, WHATEVER PESTICIDES WOULD
BE APPROPRIATE AT A TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY -- IT WOULD BE HELPFUL
FOR THE -- FOR THE CHILDREN.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY.
MS. PAULIN: AND -- AND I JUST WANT TO ALSO SAY, YOU
MENTIONED DEC, AS DID YOUR -- OUR COLLEAGUE. DEC DID HAVE AN ISSUE
IN THE BILL, THE PRIOR BILL, IN MAKING A DETERMINATION AND SO, THEREFORE,
WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH DEC AND WE ACTUALLY TOOK THAT OUT BECAUSE
THAT WASN'T HOW -- BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE IN THE
MIX BECAUSE THEY SAID FOR THE -- AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD AMEND THE
SCHOOL STATUTE, AS WELL, BECAUSE WHAT THEY DO IS THEY TAKE THE REQUESTS
AND THEY IMMEDIATELY GIVE IT OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. SO WE
JUST RESPONDED TO THEIR CONCERN IN THIS BILL. SO AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THEIR
CONCERNS ARE -- ARE ADDRESSED.
MR. MANKTELOW: SO WHEN YOU -- YOU SAID WE
SPOKE TO DEC ABOUT THIS, WHO IS WE?
MS. PAULIN: MY STAFF.
MR. MANKTELOW: YOUR STAFF CONTACTED DEC AND
TALKED WITH THEM?
MS. PAULIN: I -- ACTUALLY, DEC CONTACTED US, YOU
KNOW, BUT -- BUT EITHER WAY, WE -- WE SPOKE WITH THEM.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. SO YOUR STAFF HAD A LOT
TO DO WITH GETTING THIS BILL READY TO GO, CORRECT?
MS. PAULIN: YES, AS ALL MY BILLS, MY STAFF IS GREAT.
44
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MR. MANKTELOW: IN THE PROCESS, DID YOU HAPPEN
TO TALK TO ANY APPLICATORS, WHETHER THEY'RE PRIVATE OR COMMERCIAL
APPLICATORS, ABOUT THIS?
MS. PAULIN: YES, WE DID. WE TALKED TO
APPLICATORS. THEY CERTAINLY WERE -- DURING THE TIME WHERE WE HAD
DEVELOPED THE BILL, WE TALKED TO APPLICATORS AND CLEARLY THIS YEAR,
AGAIN, THEY -- WE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. MS. PAULIN, I -- I
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR COMMENTS.
AND, MR. SPEAKER, I'D LIKE TO GO ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.
MR. MANKTELOW: AS WE KNOW, AS WE'VE -- WE
TALK ABOUT IT ON THIS FLOOR ALL THE TIME THAT THINGS PROGRESS FORWARD, WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH BETTER THINGS, WITH BETTER PRODUCTS. MY CONCERN
HERE IS IF THIS BILL GOES THROUGH THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN TODAY THAT ANY NEW
PRODUCT THAT -- ANY NEW PRODUCT THAT COMES DOWN FROM A PESTICIDE
COMPANY, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO USE IT EVEN THOUGH IT'S COMPLETELY
SAFE FOR OUR CHILDREN. AND I UNDERSTAND STUDIES AND WHAT IT DOES AND
WHAT IT DOESN'T DO, BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHAT, I CAN GO AND LOOK AT STUDIES
ON HAIRSPRAY, AND HAIRSPRAY HAS AN AWFUL EFFECT ON PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA.
ARE WE GOING TO GET RID OF HAIRSPRAY? I -- I DON'T THINK SO. I -- I THINK
IT GOES BACK TO COMMON SENSE AND I THINK IT GOES BACK TO DOING THE
RIGHT THING, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING BY MOVING
NEWER PRODUCTS INTO NEW YORK STATE.
SO I -- I REALLY DO WANT TO SUPPORT THIS BILL BECAUSE I --
45
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
I LIKE THE POINT OF PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN, BUT SOMETIMES WE'VE GOT TO
TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH
THE SAME THING BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, ALLOW US TO DO THINGS MUCH SAFER
IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. SO AT THIS POINT I -- I WILL BE VOTING NO AND I
WILL BE ASKING MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME, AND I WILL BE MORE THAN
WILLING TO SIT DOWN WITH MS. PAULIN IN THE FUTURE TO HELP WORK OUT A
BETTER PLAN TO TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MR. MONTESANO.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL
THE SPONSOR YIELD, PLEASE?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. PAULIN --
MS. PAULIN: I WILL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: -- WILL YOU YIELD?
MS. PAULIN: YES. THANK YOU.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MS. PAULIN --
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU. MS. PAULIN, JUST A
QUESTION. I NOTICE IN THE -- IT'S PART OF THE BILL THAT CITIES WITH A
POPULATION OF ONE MILLION OR MORE ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. COULD YOU TELL ME WHY?
MS. PAULIN: YEAH. IT'S ACTUALLY INTERESTING
BECAUSE ORIGINALLY WHEN WE EXEMPTED THEM, IT WAS BECAUSE THE CITY
WASN'T SURE HOW THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET TO ALL OF THE
46
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
LOCATIONS AND THEY WANTED SOME ACCOMMODATION BECAUSE THEY USE A
LOT OF PUBLIC SPACE. IRONICALLY, IN THE MEANTIME THERE WAS A GROUP OF
WHAT STARTED OUT SEVEN YEARS AGO WITH A KINDERGARTEN TEACHER AND SHE
ORGANIZED, RIGHT AFTER ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
TODAY THAT CAME TAKE OUT FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS,
SHE ORGANIZED HER CLASS TO TAKE AN ACTION TO BAN PESTICIDES AND -- ON --
ON THESE PARKS. AND SHE TOOK THAT -- SHE DID IT EVERY SINGLE YEAR WITH
HER KINDERGARTEN CLASS AND IT TOOK SEVEN YEARS AND THOSE SEVEN GROUPS
OF COHORTS BANDED TOGETHER AND THIS YEAR WERE SUCCESSFUL IN BANNING
PESTICIDES ON -- ON ALL PUBLIC PROPERTY IN -- IN THE CITY SO THAT NOW YOU
COULD ARGUE THAT THE EXEMPTIONS, BECAUSE THE CITY OF NEW YORK
ALREADY DOES IT, WHERE BEFORE THE CITY OF NEW YORK DIDN'T KNOW HOW
THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE IT. SO -- SO KUDOS TO THOSE KIDS
BECAUSE THEY WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT, FRANKLY, I CAVED ON
WHEN I FIRST DID THE BILL SEVEN YEARS AGO.
MR. MONTESANO: THAT'S SO -- SO THE CITY OF NEW
YORK YOU'RE SAYING HAS ITS OWN PROGRAM TO BAN THESE PESTICIDES IN
THESE --
MS. PAULIN: THEY DO NOW, YES. IT JUST ADJUSTED --
MR. MONTESANO: OKAY, THEN HOW COME --
MS. PAULIN: -- THE ARTICLE, IT'S SO INTERESTING THESE
CHILDREN.
MR. MONTESANO: AND HOW ABOUT BUFFALO AND
ROCHESTER?
MS. PAULIN: THEY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THOSE CITIES
47
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
DO NOT HAVE --
MR. MONTESANO: SO MY QUESTION IS WHY SHOULD
THE CHILDREN OF THOSE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS BE SUBJECTED TO THIS TYPE OF
CHEMICAL, BECAUSE I AGREE, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE PROVIDING HERE.
MS. PAULIN: I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER
MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS A MILLION PEOPLE, YOU KNOW. DOES BUFFALO HAVE
A MILLION PEOPLE?
MR. MONTESANO: I MEAN, THEY'RE LARGE ENOUGH
AND I WOULD SUSPECT -- ASSUMING FOR THE MOMENT THEY DO, BECAUSE I
KNOW NEW YORK CITY ALWAYS GET AN EXEMPTION, BUT BUFFALO AND
ROCHESTER ARE LARGE CITIES AND THERE'S, UNFORTUNATELY I HAVEN'T SEEN THE
NEW CENSUS YET OUT, BUT ASSUMING FOR THE MOMENT THEY DID, WHY
WOULD THEY HAVE TO BE -- WHY SHOULD THEY BE EXEMPT FROM SOMETHING
LIKE THIS?
MS. PAULIN: THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT; THEY'RE NOT
EXEMPT. THIS BILL DOES NOT EXEMPT THEM. IT ONLY EXEMPTED NEW YORK
CITY.
MR. MONTESANO: BECAUSE THE WAY I'M READING IT
IS THAT IT'S A MILLION A MORE, SO --
MS. PAULIN: A MILLION OR MORE RESIDENTS, AND THERE
ARE ONLY A MILLION OR MORE RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NOT IN
THE CITY OF BUFFALO OR THE -- OR THE CITY OF ROCHESTER.
MR. MONTESANO: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
48
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 180TH
DAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE ON SENATE PRINT 4478-A. THIS IS A PARTY VOTE. ANY MEMBER
WHO WISHES TO BE RECORDED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONFERENCE POSITION
IS REMINDED TO CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBERS
PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. THE REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE GENERALLY OPPOSES THIS LEGISLATION. THOSE WHO FEEL
OTHERWISE, MAKE SURE YOU CONTACT THE MINORITY LEADER'S OFFICE SO WE
CAN PROPERLY RECORD YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. MAJORITY COLLEAGUES WILL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS
ONE. SHOULD COLLEAGUES DESIRE TO BE AN EXCEPTION, THEY SHOULD FEEL
FREE TO CONTACT OUR OFFICES AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO RECORD THEIR VOTE.
THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
MR. MANKTELOW TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I
JUST WANT TO SHARE ANOTHER PART BEFORE I VOTE ON THIS, AND THAT'S I DON'T
49
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
UNDERSTAND WHY PESTICIDES SEEM TO BE A BAD WORD. PESTICIDES WERE
DEVELOPED TO HELP US TO GET RID OF INSECTS AND BUGS AND WEEDS THAT HURT
US, AND THEY'RE DONE AND USED IN A PROPER WAY. THEY DO A LOT FOR US AS
HUMAN BEINGS AND FOR OUR ANIMALS. AND I WENT TO A CONFERENCE MANY
YEARS AGO AND WE TALKED ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH PESTICIDES AND I
REMEMBER THE SPEAKER SAYING IF WE DID AWAY WITH PESTICIDES, WE COULD
NOT BUILD ENOUGH HOSPITALS SOON ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THE
DISEASES AND THINGS THAT PESTICIDES TAKE CARE OF.
SO IF THESE PESTICIDES ARE USED IN THE RIGHT WAY, WHICH
I'VE DONE FOR 30-SOME YEARS OF MY LIFE, NOTHING HAPPENS. THEY ARE
GOOD. I WAS NEVER CONCERNED ABOUT USING PESTICIDES AROUND MY
CHILDREN BECAUSE WE DID IT THE RIGHT WAY AND THE PROPER WAY. AND
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. IF THERE'S A BAD APPLE OUT THERE AND IT'S NOT
DONE IN THE PROPER WAY, ABSOLUTELY WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING, BUT THE
PESTICIDE ITSELF IS NOT THE BAD APPLE. SO AGAIN, I REALLY URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER VOTING NO ON THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER WAYS
AND BETTER WAYS, AND WE NEED TO USE PESTICIDES AS A DETERRENT TO MANY
THINGS. SO I THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. SPEAKER, FOR MY TIME -- OR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. IN ADDITION TO
THOSE ON THE FLOOR VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL, PLEASE RECORD MR. MIKE
LAWLER AND MR. MIKE MONTESANO IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
50
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER
AND COLLEAGUES. OUR NEXT TWO DEBATES WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP, ONE IS
ON PAGE 25, IT'S CALENDAR NO. 322 BY MS. GLICK, AND THE SECOND ONE IS
ON PAGE 22, CALENDAR NO. 288 BY MS. ROSENTHAL.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
PAGE 25, CALENDAR NO. 322, THE CLERK WILL READ.
THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S04248, CALENDAR NO.
322, SENATOR SKOUFIS (GLICK, L. ROSENTHAL, LUPARDO, COOK, VANEL,
JEAN-PIERRE, ZEBROWSKI, ABBATE, SEAWRIGHT, J. RIVERA--A05775). AN
ACT TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING THE
COURT TO CONSIDER THE BEST INTEREST OF A COMPANION ANIMAL WHEN
AWARDING POSSESSION IN A DIVORCE OR SEPARATION PROCEEDING.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, AN
EXPLANATION IS REQUESTED.
MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. FEELS GOOD TO
STAND UP ON THE FLOOR, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.
THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS SIMPLY TO REQUIRE THE COURT
TO CONSIDER THE BEST INTEREST OF A COMPANION ANIMAL WHEN DEALING WITH
EITHER A DIVORCE OR A SEPARATION SITUATION.
MS. WALSH: YES, MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE SPONSOR
YIELD?
51
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WILL YOU YIELD, MS.
GLICK?
MS. GLICK: MOST ASSUREDLY.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO YOU KNOW,
IT'S INTERESTING, SOMETIMES WE HAVE BILLS THAT ARE MANY, MANY, MANY
PAGES LONG; THIS IS JUST A FEW WORDS BUT IT COULD BE VERY IMPACTFUL ON
THE COURT SYSTEM. IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF LINES IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS
LAW, SO -- BUT I WANT TO BREAK IT DOWN AND KIND OF WALK THROUGH IT A
LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN THINK ABOUT WHAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS COULD BE.
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT -- WHAT ANIMALS SPECIFICALLY, WHAT COMPANION
ANIMALS WILL THIS ENCOMPASS? I MEAN, I WOULD IMAGINE DOGS AND CATS,
BUT ARE THERE ANY OTHER ANIMALS THAT WOULD BE ENCOMPASSED BY THIS?
MS. GLICK: WELL, ANY DOMESTICATED ANIMALS. IT
CERTAINLY DOES NOT -- THAT WOULD BE NORMALLY IN OR MAINTAINED IN A
HOUSEHOLD. IT DOES NOT, YOU KNOW, UNDER -- REFERS TO -- IT CERTAINLY DOES
NOT REFER TO ANY FARM ANIMALS.
MS. WALSH: OKAY. AND IT REFERS TO A SECTION OF THE
AG AND MARKETS LAW, ACTUALLY, TO DEFINE THAT, CORRECT?
MS. GLICK: YES, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
MS. WALSH: AND I'M JUST GOING TO GET THAT IN FRONT
OF ME FOR A SECOND. SO THAT -- THAT WAS INTERESTING, I HAD TO LOOK UP A
NEW WORD I DIDN'T KNOW, IT WAS -- LET'S SEE, A COMPANION ANIMAL WAS
GOING TO MEAN -- ACTUALLY A FARM ANIMAL WAS DEFINED AS ANY, AND SOME
OF MY FARMER FRIENDS HERE WILL KNOW, MEANS ANY UNGULATE --
MS. GLICK: THAT'S LIKE A COW.
52
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND IT LOOKED LIKE
ANIMALS THAT HAD, LIKE, HOOVES WOULD NOT COUNT; IS THAT RIGHT, LIKE --
MS. GLICK: RIGHT, THIS WOULD BE --
MS. WALSH: -- COWS AND GOATS?
MS. GLICK: IF YOU WOULD, THIS WOULD BE ANY ANIMAL
THAT WAS NORMALLY MAINTAINED IN THE HOUSE. SO IT WOULD INCLUDE, I
SUPPOSE, I GUESS IT COULD INCLUDE A RABBIT. PEOPLE FREQUENTLY KEEP
RABBITS, CHILDREN LOVE RABBITS, HAMSTERS --
MS. WALSH: GUINEA PIGS.
MS. GLICK: -- GERBILS.
MS. WALSH: FERRETS.
MS. GLICK: EVEN IF -- AND I -- I KNOW THAT PEOPLE
ARE FOND, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS A KID SOME OF MY FRIENDS WOULD GET
CHICKS AROUND EASTER, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY A VERY BAD IDEA BECAUSE THEY
DON'T STAY CHICKS. SO -- SO THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE THOSE -- THOSE
ANIMALS, BUT IT WOULD INCLUDE THE COMPANION ANIMAL THAT IS NORMALLY
MAINTAINED IN THE HOME. AND SO YES, IT COULD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, A
HAMSTER OR A GERBIL.
MS. WALSH: YEAH, LIKE -- WHAT ABOUT LIKE AN
IGUANA OR LIKE A BOA CONSTRICTOR? SOME OF MY -- ONE OF MY FRIENDS I
USED TO WORK WITH, HIS SON HAD SNAKES, WHICH FREAK ME OUT, BUT THAT
WAS THEIR PET, IT WAS A SNAKE; WOULD THAT COUNT?
MS. GLICK: WELL, IF IT IS MAINTAINED IN THE HOME
AND HAS BEEN CARED FOR AS A PART OF THE FAMILY, I WOULD IMAGINE,
ALTHOUGH I MUST SAY THAT WHEN WE STARTED THE BILL, SNAKES WERE NOT IN
53
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MY MIND, CERTAINLY IF YOU'RE IN AUSTRALIA THEY JUST COME IN.
MS. WALSH: YEAH.
MS. GLICK: THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY MAINTAINED,
THEY'RE -- USUALLY YOU CALL THE SNAKE GUY AND HE TAKES THEM OUT, BUT THIS
IS WHAT IS -- HAS BEEN THE COMPANION ANIMAL WITHIN THE HOME AND SO I
GUESS IT COULD INCLUDE SNAKES, BUT I SUSPECT THERE'S LESS FIGHTING OVER
SNAKES THAN DOGS.
MS. WALSH: YEAH, POT BELLY PIGS, TOO, ARE A BIG
ONE. THEY'RE PETS IN SOME PEOPLE'S HOMES. THEY LET THEM SIT RIGHT ON
THE SOFA WITH THEM, I'VE SEEN -- I'VE SEEN THEM AROUND. THEY'RE NOT
MAINTAINED OUT IN A STALL OR ANYTHING, THEY'RE RIGHT IN THE HOME. WOULD
THEY -- WOULD THEY COUNT UNDER THIS LEGISLATION, TOO?
MS. GLICK: I SUPPOSE IF THEY HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED
IN THE HOME, THAT IS QUITE POSSIBLE, BUT CERTAINLY IN MANY JURISDICTIONS
THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN -- MAINTAINING CERTAIN ANIMALS WITHIN
VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. SO SOMEBODY DOWN MY BLOCK DID HAVE A
CHICKEN, BUT THAT WAS ACTUALLY TOTALLY IN VIOLATION OF THE LOCAL HEALTH
CODE.
MS. WALSH: YEAH, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE
I'M GOING HERE BECAUSE I THINK, TOO, OVER THE YEARS, THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE
BIT OF A BLURRING OF LINES BETWEEN WHAT -- WHAT WOULD BE A FARM
ANIMAL. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT THEIR CHICKENS ARE LIKE THEIR PETS,
REALLY. YOU SEE THEM PERCHED ON THEIR SHOULDERS, YOU KNOW, LIKE A
PARROT WOULD. I GUESS A PARROT WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THIS BILL
BECAUSE THEY'RE IN A HOME IN A CAGE. THEY LIVE TO BE -- A REALLY LONG
54
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
TIME.
MS. GLICK: YES, YOU BETTER HAVE PROVISION IN YOUR
WILL IF YOU HAVE A PARROT.
MS. WALSH: THAT'S RIGHT, THEY COULD BE LIKE 100
YEARS OLD, I THINK; THAT'S RIGHT. YOU KNOW, GOATS -- I MEAN, GOAT YOGA IS
A BIG THING NOW, SO SOME PEOPLE THINK OF GOATS AS BEING ALMOST LIKE
PETS, TOO, BUT THEY HAVE HOOVES SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD COUNT
UNDER THIS BILL.
MS. GLICK: THAT IS NOT ANTICIPATED BY THIS
LEGISLATION IN ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
MS. WALSH: VERY GOOD. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, SO I MEAN -- SO THAT THE WORDS THAT REALLY STRUCK ME THE MOST, I
GUESS, AS SOMEBODY WHO PRACTICES IN FAMILY COURT IS THAT IT TALKED
ABOUT THE QUOTE, "BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMAL," AND EVEN FOR PEOPLE WHO
ARE NOT ATTORNEYS OR ATTORNEYS FROM FAMILY COURT, MOST PEOPLE I THINK
HAVE HEARD THE TERM BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
LIKE A MATRIMONIAL ACTION OR A FAMILY COURT ACTION. SO WAS THERE -- WAS
THERE A REASON FOR CHOOSING BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMAL, BECAUSE TO ME
THAT CONJURES UP A CERTAIN PROCESS AND PROCEDURE THAT WOULD BE USED TO
-- TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THESE COMPANION ANIMALS.
MS. GLICK: WELL, WE DON'T DIRECT THE COURT IN ANY
PARTICULAR WAY OTHER THAN TO SAY THEY SHOULD CONSIDER IT. IN THE PAST,
THEY HAVE BEEN VIEWED MORE LIKE FURNITURE OR PROPERTY OR, YOU KNOW,
JUST HOME GOODS OR WHATEVER, AND THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE SENTIENT BEINGS.
AND SO THE BEST INTEREST WOULD BE -- AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE TO TELL
55
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
YOU THAT SOMETIMES THERE ARE CONTENTIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES IN DIVORCE
PROCEEDINGS AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T EVEN WANT THE CHILDREN BUT
THEY DON'T WANT THEIR -- THE DEPARTING SPOUSE TO HAVE THE CHILDREN. SO
IN THIS INSTANCE WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THE COURT SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT
WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST AND THAT, TO A -- THE AVERAGE PERSON WOULD
BE WHO HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER, WHO HAS TAKEN -- WHO FEEDS
THE ANIMAL, IF IT'S AN ANIMAL THAT GOES OUTSIDE LIKE MOSTLY DOGS, BUT
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO WALK CATS. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET A LEAD
ON A -- I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO GET A LEAD ON A CAT, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO DO, SO WHO TAKES THE ANIMAL TO THE VET AND IF THE ANIMAL NEEDS
CERTAIN MEDICATION, WHO IS THE PERSON WHO NORMALLY ADMINISTERS THAT.
SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE WOULD ASSUME. THOUGH IT'S NOT
LINED OUT, WE LEAVE THIS TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT FOR THEM TO
INQUIRE. THAT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST WHERE THE ANIMAL HAS
GOTTEN ITS PRIMARY CARE AND WITH WHOM THE ANIMAL IS PRIMARILY BONDED.
MS. WALSH: YOU -- YOU'VE RAISED A REALLY
INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT IN THE PAST, AND I
THINK -- I THINK AS A SOCIETY I THINK WE'VE SORT OF EVOLVED TO A POINT
WHERE WE DON'T LOOK AT OUR COMPANION PETS AS BEING CHATTEL, AS BEING
LIKE FURNITURE OR DISHES OR A CAR THAT WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED AS PART OF
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION IN A DIVORCE. BACK WHEN WE DID LOOK AT IT MORE
AS A PROPERTY ANALYSIS, YOU'D LOOKED AT THINGS LIKE WHO BOUGHT, WHO
PURCHASED THE ANIMAL, AND SOMETIMES THEY CAN BE VERY EXPENSIVE,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH A BREEDER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
WHO PURCHASED, OR WAS IT A GIFT TO ONE OF THE -- YOU KNOW, ONE SPOUSE.
56
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
AND YOU'D LOOK AT IT FROM A PROPERTY POINT OF VIEW. THE THINGS THAT
YOU JUST MENTIONED ARE MORE OF A CUSTODY ANALYSIS, WHO HAS NURTURED
THE PET, WHO HAS MET THE PET'S EMOTIONAL NEEDS, AS MUCH AS WE CAN TELL
WHAT THOSE ARE, WHO HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HAPPINESS OF THE PET.
YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPES OF -- SO YOU'RE PROPOSING THROUGH THIS
LEGISLATION MORE OF A CUSTODY TYPE OF ANALYSIS IN DETERMINING WHO IS
GOING TO GET THE PET AT THE END OF THE DAY IN THIS CONTESTED MATRIMONIAL
ACTION; DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT?
MS. GLICK: WELL, YEAH, I SUPPOSE IN ANY OF THESE
DIVISION OF BOTH WHEN TWO PEOPLE ARE PARTING, SOMETIMES IT'S AMIABLE
AND SOMETIMES IT'S NOT. AND I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF SOME OF THE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS IN WHICH SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY HARMS THE
PET TO GET BACK AT OR TO THREATEN THE -- THEIR PARTNER. THIS IS REALLY
WHEN YOU ARE -- IF YOU ARE AT THE STAGE WHERE YOU'RE IN COURT, WE'RE JUST
RECOMMENDING THAT THE JUDGE HAS TO THINK ABOUT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
ANIMAL. NOW WE DON'T ENUMERATE THOSE THINGS --
MS. WALSH: RIGHT.
MS. GLICK: -- BUT WE WOULD, AS I SAID, THE
THOUGHTFUL STANDARD WOULD BE WHERE -- WHERE IS THE ANIMAL BEST SUITED.
AND THAT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE FACT THAT ONE PERSON IS
NEVER HOME.
MS. WALSH: YEAH. SO IN ADDITION TO THE THINGS
THAT YOU MENTIONED, THAT TYPE OF CUSTODY ANALYSIS THAT WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT, DOES THE PROPERTY ANALYSIS THEN GO OUT THE WINDOW? DO YOU
STILL -- IS IT STILL A FACTOR TO CONSIDER WHO PURCHASED THE ANIMAL OR
57
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
WHETHER IT WAS A GIFT?
MS. GLICK: WE DON'T IMPOSE ON THE JUDGE THAT -- A
HIERARCHY OF ITEMS TO CONSIDER, WE JUST SAID THAT AS WE'RE CHANGING
DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW TO SAY TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.
MS. WALSH: RIGHT.
MS. GLICK: AND THERE MAY BE INNUMERABLE FACTORS
THAT ARE INVOLVED IN ONCE YOU GO TO COURT ON A DIVORCE OR SEPARATION
SITUATION, YOU'VE ALREADY GOTTEN PAST THE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS YOUR
MOTHER'S CHINA, YOU CAN HAVE IT. WE'VE GONE BEYOND THAT WHEN WE'RE
ACTUALLY IN COURT.
MS. WALSH: RIGHT. SO TO YOUR POINT, THERE REALLY
AREN'T ANY GUARDRAILS AT ALL IN THIS LEGISLATION. IT DOESN'T REALLY GIVE ANY
GUIDANCE TO A JUDGE THAT'S GOING TO LOOK AT THIS ONCE THIS IS PASSED AND
SIGNED AND SAY, WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS? HOW AM I
SUPPOSED TO HANDLE THIS? AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'M ASKING
YOU SO MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS IS TO CREATE THAT KIND OF LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY THAT MAYBE WOULD BE INSTRUCTIVE TO A COURT THAT'S TAKING A LOOK
AT THIS LATER TO SEE WHAT WAS INTENDED. FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER YOU ARE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO COUNT THE PROPERTY ANALYSIS EVEN AS A FACTOR TO BE
CONSIDERED, OR WHETHER THAT -- OR WHETHER YOU'RE NOT. AND SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IN TERMS OF THIS CUSTODY
ANALYSIS.
BUT LET ME JUST MOVE ON BECAUSE I COULD TALK TO YOU
ALL DAY ABOUT THIS, BUT I DO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. SO HOW DO YOU
THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMAL?
58
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MS. GLICK: WELL, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE
GREAT CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND I THINK THAT THE COURT WILL
LOOK AT THIS AND THINK THROUGH WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ANIMAL. AND IN
DOING SO, THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS THAT -- THE ANIMAL DOESN'T CARE
WHETHER IT COST 5 BUCKS AT -- ON THE CORNER, 50 BUCKS FOR A -- THE SPAY
AND NEUTER DEPOSIT AT A RESCUE, OR WHETHER YOU WENT TO A BREEDER AND IT
WAS 1,500 BUCKS. THE ANIMAL HAS NO -- THAT DOES NOT BEAR ON THE
ANIMAL'S MIND.
MS. WALSH: SO DO YOU THINK -- REALLY WHAT -- ARE
YOU SAYING THAT THE COURT SHOULD TRY TO PUT ITSELF KIND OF IN THE MIND OR
THROUGH THE EYES OF THE ANIMAL AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT --
MS. GLICK: NO, I'M SAYING THE COURT --
MS. WALSH: -- WHAT ITS BEST INTERESTS ARE? BECAUSE
5 BUCKS DOESN'T MATTER TO AN ANIMAL, WE KNOW THAT.
MS. GLICK: I THINK WE'VE GONE A LITTLE FURTHER AFIELD.
LET ME JUST BE CLEAR. THE COURT SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE THINGS
THAT INDICATE WHAT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMAL. AND
THAT IS WHO HAS BEEN THE CAREGIVER, WHO HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY PERSON
WHO HAS TENDED TO TAKE IT TO THE VET, WHO IS THE PERSON WHO HAS ON A
REGULAR BASIS TENDED TO ITS NEEDS, BECAUSE WHEREVER THE PET IS GOING TO
GO, IT IS GOING TO NEED ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT IT HAS NEEDED UP TILL THAT
TIME AND, THEREFORE, DETERMINING WHERE THAT -- WHERE THE COMPANION
ANIMAL SHOULD RESIDE SHOULD BE BASED ON WHERE THE PET WILL BE BEST
CARED FOR.
MS. WALSH: AND DO YOU ENVISION THAT THERE WOULD
59
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
BE ONE -- WHEN THE COURT MAKES A DISPOSITION AND REACHES A DECISION
THAT THE PET SHOULD GO TO LIVE EITHER WITH ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER, OR DO
YOU ENVISION JOINT CUSTODY WITH VISITATION RIGHTS? DO YOU ENVISION A --
SOME TYPE OF SUPPORT PROCESS WHERE FURTHER MEDICAL BILLS WOULD BE
SHARED BETWEEN THE PARTIES? I MEAN, HOW FAR DO WE TAKE THIS? IF WE'RE
GOING TO BE ANALYZING THIS AS WE WOULD WITH A CHILD CUSTODY CASE, THE
CHILD IS GENERALLY TRAVELING BETWEEN TWO HOMES, THERE'S A SUPPORT
ORDER, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN LATER AND SEEK A MODIFICATION
OR AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING. I MEAN WHAT -- WHAT MORE -- WHAT DO
YOU SEE HAPPENING HERE WITH THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION AS FAR AS ANIMALS
ARE CONCERNED?
MS. GLICK: I THINK A SITCOM, BUT SERIOUSLY --
MS. WALSH: I'M OUT OF TIME?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE HAVE EXHAUSTED
THE TIME, MY COLLEAGUES, AND WE DO HAVE OTHER MEMBERS WHO WANT TO
SPEAK ON THIS.
MS. WALSH: I HAD A LOT OF SAND LEFT, I GUESS NOT.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TALK TO MR. WALCZYK ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MANKTELOW.
MR. MANKTELOW: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, JUST
A QUICK QUESTION IF THE SPONSOR WILL YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MS. GLICK: OF COURSE.
MR. MANKTELOW: WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I
60
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
WILL GENERALLY -- I WILL DEFINITELY SUPPORT THIS BILL. BUT I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR YOU. SO I'M A SINGLE GUY, I HAVE A THREE-YEAR-OLD GERMAN
SHEPARD DOG, OKAY? I MARRY A WOMAN, WE GET MARRIED, WE LIVE
TOGETHER. I BECOME AN ASSEMBLYMEMBER SO NOW I'M IN ALBANY HALF OF
MY TIME. SHE'S THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER OF THAT DOG WHEN I'M AWAY, BUT
IT'S STILL MY DOG, I BROUGHT IT INTO THE MARRIAGE. SO WHEN WE GET TO THE
DIVORCE COURT, DOES SHE HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT DOG?
MS. GLICK: WELL, I WOULD SAY TO YOU THAT THE -- THE
COURT WOULD LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE -- IF YOU HAD BEEN MARRIED FOR,
DID YOU GIVE A SPECIFIC TIME?
MR. MANKTELOW: YEAH, LET'S GO WITH FIVE YEARS,
THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER.
MS. GLICK: OKAY. SO THE DOG IS FIVE YEARS OLD, YOU
HAD THE DOG PRESUMABLY FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE AND THE DOG IS
BONDED TO YOU, THAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT TO THE COURT TO SAY THAT
WHILE I HAVEN'T BEEN HOME ALL THE TIME, I CAME TO THE MARRIAGE WITH
THE COMPANION ANIMAL, THE COMPANION ANIMAL IS BONDED TO ME AND THE
DOG SHOULD GO WITH ME. BUT, YOU KNOW, A COURT COULD SAY THAT'S FINE,
BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE BEEN NEGLECTFUL,
PERHAPS THE COURT WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. MY BELIEF IS, YOU
KNOW, THAT THE COURTS HAVE TO NAVIGATE A LOT OF THESE VERY DIFFICULT
SITUATIONS AND THAT THEY GENERALLY DO A REASONABLY GOOD JOB AND I
WOULD ASSUME, WE'RE JUST SAYING, I WANT TO BE CLEAR: STOP THINKING
ABOUT THE COMPANION ANIMAL AS AN INANIMATE OBJECT AND THAT IT IS A
SENTIENT BEING AND, THEREFORE, THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION
61
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
ABOUT WHERE THE COMPANION ANIMAL WOULD BE BEST CARED FOR.
MR. MANKTELOW: I AGREE -- THE DOG IS --
MS. GLICK: AND YOU COULD CERTAINLY BRING YOUR DOG
TO THE LOB, LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE.
MR. MANKTELOW: DEFINITELY THE DOG IS NOT AN
INANIMATE OBJECT FOR SURE, IT'S A DOG THAT WANTS TO CUDDLE, THAT WANTS TO
BE PETTED, WANTS TO PLAY; IT'S DEFINITELY A LIVE CREATURE. SO AGAIN, THAT
WOULD BE UP TO THE JUDGE THEN AT THAT POINT, CORRECT?
MS. GLICK: WELL, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT, THEN YES, THE
JUDGE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS MY
DOG TO BEGIN WITH?
MS. GLICK: WELL, THAT MAY WEIGH VERY HEAVILY WITH
THE COURT.
MR. MANKTELOW: OKAY. WELL, MS. GLICK, I
APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS AND I WILL LET ME COLLEAGUES KNOW, I WILL
SUPPORT THIS BILL. I THINK IT DOES NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION
ABSOLUTELY. SO AGAIN, I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
MS. GLICK: THANK YOU.
MR. MANKTELOW: YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU,
MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, MR.
MANKTELOW.
MS. BYRNES.
MS. BYRNES: WELL, THANK YOU. IF THE SPONSOR
62
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
WOULD YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MS. GLICK: OF COURSE.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK YIELDS, MS.
BYRNES.
MS. BYRNES: GOOD AFTERNOON. I WON'T BELABOR IT,
BUT I KNOW INTENT ON THE PART OF THE SPONSOR IS VERY IMPORTANT WHEN IT
ULTIMATELY WILL COME TO HOW THIS IS INTERPRETED IN THE COURTS OF LAW,
WHICH OBVIOUSLY IT WILL BE. AND I AM GOING TO BE VOTING FOR IT, BUT I
JUST WANT TO GO BACK ONE STEP A LITTLE BIT TO LOOK AT WHAT CONSTITUTES A
COMPANION ANIMAL AGAIN, BECAUSE SINCE WE ARE LOOKING AT INTENT, I JUST
WANTED TO SAY THAT WHERE I LIVE, WHICH IS VERY RURAL COUNTRY, OTHER THAN
THE AMISH WHO USE HORSES AS FARM ANIMALS AND AS WORK ANIMALS, I
KNOW TONS OF PEOPLE WHO LEGITIMATELY HAVE HORSES AS PETS. WHERE YOU
OR I MAY GO OUT JOGGING OR TAKING A WALK AT NIGHT, THEY'RE OUT RIDING
THEIR HORSES AT NIGHT AND I JUST DON'T WANT, AS THIS LEGISLATION TO GO
THROUGH, ANY PRECLUSION OF ANY SPECIFIC ANIMALS AS BEING POTENTIAL
COMPANION ANIMALS. I DON'T MIND LEAVING IT UP TO THE COURT, BUT I
WOULD JUST HOPE AS THE SPONSOR THAT YOU'RE NOT PRECLUDING THEM BEING
DESIGNATED DEPENDING ON THE FINDINGS OF A COURT.
MS. GLICK: WELL, YOU KNOW, THE DEFINITION IS FROM
THE AG LAWS, ANY DOG, CAT, AND SHALL ALSO MEAN ANY OTHER DOMESTICATED
ANIMAL NORMALLY MAINTAINED IN OR NEAR THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE OWNER OR
PERSON WHO CARES FOR. SUCH OTHER DOMESTICATED ANIMALS SHALL NOT
63
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
INCLUDE A FARM ANIMAL AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION. SO IT'S VERY POSSIBLE,
AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND HOW ATTACHED PEOPLE ARE TO THEIR HORSES AND,
FRANKLY, THE MINIATURE HORSES, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME DOGS THAT ARE
QUITE A BIG BIGGER THAN MINIATURE HORSES, SO -- AND I HAVE BEEN
SURPRISED OCCASIONALLY ON THE THRUWAY WHEN THE SIDE OF A MINIVAN
OPENS AND OUT COMES A SMALL HORSE. SO WHILE I PERSONALLY UNDERSTAND,
I THINK THE SECTION OF LAW DOES LIMIT THE -- IT'S NOT MY INTENTION, BUT THE
AG AND MARKET, SINCE A HORSE HAS A HOOF, I SUSPECT THAT IT WOULD NOT
STRICTLY BE COVERED. ALTHOUGH SINCE WE'VE HAD THIS DEBATE, THERE IS THIS
-- HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE A LAW, THE COURT MIGHT LOOK AT THIS AND SAY THAT
IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS IS ACTUALLY MORE OF A COMPANION ANIMAL IF
IT IS PERHAPS THE ONLY HORSE THAT IS PART OF THE FAMILY, AS OPPOSED TO
PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, MAY HAVE SEVERAL, IN WHICH CASE THEN --
MS. BYRNES: AND THEY NORMALLY -- AND IF PEOPLE
LIVE IN THE TOWN AS OPPOSED TO THE VILLAGE, THEY NORMALLY HAVE THEM
LIVING ON THEIR PROPERTY, THEY ARE AT THEIR HOUSES. BUT ANYWAY, I JUST
WANT TO MAKE MY BEST PITCH BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT IN OUR COMMUNITY,
THEY'RE ALMOST AS PREVALENT AS DOGS AND CATS ARE. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
MS. GLICK: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE
IT AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE HORSES BUT DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH ROOM AND THEY DO BOARD THEM, IN WHICH CASE MAYBE THAT
BECOMES A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE, BUT THEN THEY COULD MAKE THE PITCH THAT
THEY'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER GOES TO THE BOARDING STABLE AND THEY'RE
THE ONLY ONE WHO INTERACTS WITH THE HORSE. BUT IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY
INCLUDED BASED ON AG LAW, REGRETTABLY.
64
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MS. BYRNES: SO YOU'LL LET THE COURTS MAKE A
DETERMINATION.
MS. GLICK: ABSOLUTELY. THE COURT CAN ALWAYS LOOK
AT THESE THINGS AND MAKE THEIR OWN RULING.
MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL BE
VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
MS. GLICK: THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
MS. BYRNES: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: NO PROBLEM.
MR. GALLAHAN.
MR. GALLAHAN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, IF THE
SPONSOR MIGHT YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK, WILL YOU
YIELD?
MS. GLICK: CERTAINLY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK YIELDS, SIR.
MR. GALLAHAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST
HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION IN A MARITAL DISPUTE. HYPOTHETICALLY
SPEAKING, A HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE MARRIED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND THE
DOCTOR OF THE WIFE PRESCRIBES, UNDER MANY CASES, THEY PRESCRIBE A
COMPANION ANIMAL. SO SHE HAS A CAT, BUT SHE CAN'T TAKE CARE OF IT SO
HE'S DOING ALL THE WORK TAKING CARE OF IT, IT'S A COMPANION ANIMAL UNDER
DOCTOR'S ORDERS PRESCRIBED TO HER, THEY GO TO COURT; HOW WOULD THIS BILL
AFFECT A SITUATION SUCH AS THAT?
65
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MS. GLICK: WELL, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T PREJUDGE, IF
YOU WILL EXCUSE THE PUN, WHAT THE COURTS MIGHT SAY, AND I CERTAINLY
UNDERSTAND THERE CERTAINLY ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE OLDER FOLKS
SOMETIMES GIVE UP AN ANIMAL TO A CLOSE FRIEND, OR AS MY MOTHER DID
GAVE ME HER CAT BECAUSE SHE WAS GOING INTO ASSISTED LIVING AND HAD NO
OPTION. SO I THINK THAT THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO SEE WHAT WAS IN THE
BEST INTEREST AND IF IT WAS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD HAVE -- HAS BEEN,
QUOTE, "IN SOME WAY PRESCRIBED A THERAPY COMPANION," AND THAT PERSON
IS NO LONGER ABLE TO -- HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CARE FOR IT, BUT NOW THEY'RE
SEPARATING, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS WHERE THAT PERSON
WILL BE. IF THEY'RE -- YOU KNOW, THEY MAY HAVE -- THEY MAY NOW, NOW
THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A SPOUSE, THEY MAY BE IN A CIRCUMSTANCE
WHERE THEY ARE HIRING HELP TO ASSIST THEM AND IN WHICH CASE THEY MAY
VERY WELL BE ABLE TO HAVE THE -- THAT ASSISTANT HELP THEM TAKE CARE OF
THE ANIMAL.
MR. GALLAHAN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.
READ THE LAST SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL RECORD
THE VOTE ON SENATE PRINT 4248. THIS IS A FAST ROLL CALL. ANY MEMBER
WHO WISHES TO BE RECORDED IN THE NEGATIVE IS REMINDED TO CONTACT THE
MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBERS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
66
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MR. GOODELL TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. FROM TIME TO TIME,
WE AS A LEGISLATURE GET TOGETHER AND WE PUT TOGETHER A SPECIAL DAY. IT
MIGHT BE DEALING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR EARTH DAY, OR IT MIGHT BE
INVOLVED WITH SOME OTHER SPECIAL INTEREST AND TODAY SHOULD BE CALLED
THE BEST INTEREST OF LAWYERS DAY.
(LAUGHTER)
NOW WHAT THIS BILL DOES, THIS ALLOWS DIVORCE LAWYERS
TO GO TO COURT AND FIGHT EXTENSIVELY OVER WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A
PET. RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT'S LITIGATED IN A COURT AT ALL. AND
WHAT HAPPENS IN COURT RIGHT NOW IS THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE SAYS, YOU
GUYS WORK IT OUT OR I'LL DECIDE WHO IS GOING TO OWN THE PET. AND 99
PERCENT OF THE TIME, THE PARTIES WORK IT OUT WITHOUT LITIGATING IT.
SO NOW WE'RE ASKED -- AND, BY THE WAY, ONE OF THE
MOST LITIGIOUS ISSUES IN FAMILY COURT, BAR NONE, IS CUSTODY AND
VISITATION OF CHILDREN, WHERE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN. SO NOW
WE CAN THROW A GREAT BONE TO MY LAWYER FRIENDS SO THAT THEY CAN
LITIGATE OVER THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PET: WHO'S GOT A BIGGER YARD? BUT
HE COMES TO ME WHEN I CALL HIM. YES, BUT HE SLEEPS WITH YOU. YES, BUT
I FEED HIM. YES, BUT I TAKE HIM TO THE VET, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO LIKE
PERSONALITY PROFILES, PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSONALITY PROFILES, WHICH PARENT
IS BETTER AT PET MANAGEMENT. WE'RE GOING TO DO A PET PERSONALITY
EVALUATION, CALL IN PSYCHOLOGISTS TO TALK TO THE PET, CAT WHISPERS, OPEN A
SUBSEQUENT REVIEW. AND ALL OF THIS, BY THE WAY, GUARANTEES LARGE LEGAL
FEES. SO ONCE AGAIN, AT THE RISK OF BEING DISBARRED, I'M OPPOSING THIS
67
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
BEST INTEREST OF LAWYER BILL AS I HAVE THE PRIOR ONES. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: MR. GOODELL IN
THE NEGATIVE.
MS. WALSH.
MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE. SO I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT OUR PETS THAT WE LOVE
ARE MORE THAN JUST CHATTEL. I THINK THAT WE'VE EVOLVED LIKE THAT AS A
SOCIETY. THE PROBLEM I HAVE HERE WITH THIS BILL IS THAT BY SAYING YOU'RE
GOING TO LOOK AT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMAL, IT SOUNDS AN AWFUL LOT
LIKE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. AND LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, CHILD
CUSTODY BATTLES ARE DIFFICULT, PAINFUL, AND EMOTIONALLY WRENCHING
EXPERIENCES FOR ALL CONCERNED, THE PARTIES, THE CHILDREN, THE ATTORNEYS,
AND THE COURT. A COURT NEEDS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION
UPON WHICH TO MAKE A BEST INTEREST FINDING, ALMOST ALWAYS
NECESSITATING AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD. ARE WE GOING TO NEED AN
ATTORNEY FOR THE ANIMAL? A FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST OR PSYCHOLOGIST TO
EVALUATE THE CHILDREN AND THE PARTIES, AS WELL, TO CONDUCT COLLATERAL
INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS, CHILD CARE PROVIDERS, AND PEDIATRICIANS AND
THE LIKE, TAKING EXTENDED TESTIMONY FROM BOTH LAY AND EXPERT
WITNESSES. ARE WE GOING TO NEED A DR. DOLITTLE TO COME IN AND TALK
ABOUT WHAT THE DOG WANTS, RIGHT? COURT IS DOING AN IN CAMERA
PROCEEDING TO HEAR FROM THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL THOSE
THINGS FOR OUR PETS, BUT BY SAYING BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMAL, THAT'S
WHAT COMES TO MIND AS A PRACTITIONER. I THINK AS ONE COURT SAID, IN THE
68
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
RAYMOND CASE, THE BEST INTEREST FOR ALL CONCERNED IS THE STANDARD THAT I
WOULD LIKE -- I WOULD REQUEST THAT AMENDED TO THE BILL, I THINK THAT
WOULD REALLY HELP IT OUT. I'M SURE EVERYONE'S GOING TO STAND UP AND SAY
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR IT IN HONOR OF THEIR BELOVED DOG, I GET THE
EMOTIONAL APPEAL OF THE BILL, I GET THE REASON FOR THE BILL, I JUST THINK
THAT THE WAY IT'S WORDED IS JUST REALLY HANDING THE COURT SYSTEM, AN
ALREADY BELEAGUERED SYSTEM FULL OF MATRIMONIAL CASES JUST A BIG PILE,
AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: MS. WALSH IN
THE NEGATIVE.
MR. TAGUE.
MR. TAGUE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. TO EXPLAIN
MY VOTE.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: PROCEED.
MR. TAGUE: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I AM NOT A LAWYER
AND I DID NOT STAY AT A HOWARD JOHNSON'S LAST NIGHT, BUT FOR THE SAME
REASONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED BY MY TWO COLLEAGUES PRIOR, I WILL BE
VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS BILL AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL MY
COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME, PLEASE.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: MR. TAGUE IN
THE NEGATIVE.
MS. GLICK.
MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, QUICKLY TO
EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THE INTENTION IS TO SIMPLY CHANGE THE WAY IN WHICH
WE VIEW COMPANION ANIMALS IN THE EVENT OF A DIVORCE OR SEPARATION,
69
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
THAT THEY ARE ACTUAL ANIMALS, THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME THOUGHT GIVEN
AS OPPOSED TO THEM BEING VIEWED AS, YOU KNOW, JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF
FURNITURE. I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: MS. GLICK IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. IN ADDITION TO
THOSE VOTING NO ON THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY, PLEASE RECORD MR.
MCDONOUGH IN THE NEGATIVE. HE CALLED ME AND SAID ABSENT TESTIMONY
FROM THE DOG, HE'S GOING TO LET THE CURRENT SYSTEM WORK. THANK YOU,
SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER J. D. RIVERA: ARE THERE ANY
OTHER VOTES?
MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. IN ADDITION TO MR.
MCDONOUGH AND THOSE ON THE FLOOR, PLEASE RECORD THE FOLLOWING
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS IN THE NEGATIVE: MR. DIPIETRO, MR. FITZPATRICK, MR.
GALLAHAN, MR. MONTESANO, MR. SALKA, AND MR. TAGUE. ALSO, MR.
WALCZYK. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: ANNOUNCE THE
RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING TO PAGE 22, CALENDAR NO.
288, THE CLERK WILL READ.
70
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00715, CALENDAR NO.
288, L. ROSENTHAL, WEPRIN. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW
AND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICE PERSONNEL TO PROVIDE BASIC FIRST AID TO CATS AND DOGS UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: AN EXPLANATION
HAS BEEN REQUESTED, MS. ROSENTHAL.
MS. ROSENTHAL: THIS -- THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW
FIRST RESPONDERS TO ADMINISTER BASIC FIRST AID TO A DOG OR CAT IN THE
COURSE OF RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY, PROVIDED THERE ARE NO PERSONS
REQUIRING MEDICAL ATTENTION OR TRANSPORTATION AT SUCH TIME.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD THE SPONSOR
YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: DOES THE
SPONSOR YIELD?
MS. ROSENTHAL: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: THE SPONSOR
YIELDS.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MS. ROSENTHAL. NOW
THIS BILL DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH FIRST AID FOR A DOG OR CAT BEING PROVIDED
BY A CERTIFIED EMT OR A FIRST RESPONDER OR ADVANCED EMERGENCY
MEDICAL TECHNICIAN, IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. ROSENTHAL: YES.
MR. GOODELL: AND THE TYPE OF SERVICE THAT CAN BE
71
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
PROVIDED IN TERMS OF FIRST AID IS VERY SPECIFIC, RIGHT, LIKE OPENING AN
AIRWAY, MOUTH TO MOUTH RESUSCITATION?
MS. ROSENTHAL: YES, MM-HMM.
MR. GOODELL: OXYGEN, MANAGING VENTILATION BY A
MASK, CONTROLLING HEMORRHAGING, RETRACT PRESSURE, IMMOBILIZATION OF
FRACTURES, BANDAGING, AND ADMINISTERING NARCAN OR SOMETHING
SIMILAR, IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. ROSENTHAL: YES, NALOXONE, MM-HMM.
MR. GOODELL: SO IT DOESN'T INCLUDE PSYCHOLOGICAL
COUNSELING, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE PET IS UNHAPPY WITH A CUSTODY
DETERMINATION BY A FAMILY COURT JUDGE?
MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SAY
YOU CAN'T DO THAT SO PERHAPS THE ANIMAL MIGHT NEED THAT IF THEY'RE
INJURED. THEY MIGHT NEED THE COMFORT AND CARING OF A FIRST RESPONDER.
MR. GOODELL: ESPECIALLY IF THE FIRST RESPONDER IS
THE PET OWNER, RIGHT? AND I NOTE THAT WHAT THIS BASICALLY SAYS IS THAT IF
A CERTIFIED EMT OR FIRST RESPONDER OR ADVANCED EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TECHNICIAN PROVIDES FIRST AID TO A DOG OR CAT AND THEY DO SO IN
COMMUNICATION WITH A LICENSED VETERAN -- VETERINARIAN, THEN THEY DON'T
HAVE ANY CIVIL LIABILITY AS LONG AS IT'S DONE IN GOOD FAITH, CORRECT?
MS. ROSENTHAL: YEAH, AS LONG AS THEY ACTED
REASONABLY AND IN GOOD FAITH IN EFFECTUATING THE RESCUE.
MR. GOODELL: DOES THIS IN ANY WAY REQUIRE THE
CONSENT OF THE PET OWNER OR CUSTODIAN OR GUARDIAN?
MS. ROSENTHAL: NO, IT DOES NOT.
72
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MR. GOODELL: DOES THE PET OWNER FACE LIABILITY IF,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PET BITES THE FIRST RESPONDER AND THE PET HAS NOT BEEN
PROPERLY VACCINATED?
MS. ROSENTHAL: THAT'S NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS
BILL.
MR. GOODELL: I SEE. AND LIKEWISE, IF A CAT, FOR
EXAMPLE, SCRATCHES A FIRST RESPONDER, EVEN THOUGH IT'S -- OH, I'M SORRY.
NEVER MIND. I APOLOGIZE. I FORGOT WE BANNED DE-CLAWING CATS EARLIER.
SO THIS IS ONLY DESIGNED TO PROVIDE LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR THE FIRST
RESPONDERS, CORRECT?
MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, CURRENTLY IT'S ILLEGAL FOR
FIRST RESPONDERS TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY TREATMENT TO AN ANIMAL IF THEY'RE
NOT LICENSED VETERINARIANS, AND THERE ARE MANY FIRST RESPONDERS WHO
HAPPEN TO HAVE OCCASION TO HELP A CAT, A DOG, THERE ARE REPORTS OF
INCREASED INGESTION OF FENTANYL BY POLICE DOGS AND OTHERS, AND SO WE
WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO HELP OUT THE ANIMAL.
MR. GOODELL: CERTAINLY, A LAUDABLE OBJECTIVE.
DOES THIS BILL ENVISION THAT THE EMTS WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO TRANSPORT
THE INJURED DOG OR CAT TO THE -- TO A VETERINARIAN?
MS. ROSENTHAL: UM, I BELIEVE SO, YEAH.
MR. GOODELL: NOW THIS BILL IS ALSO CLEAR THAT ANY
EMT SERVICES, FIRST AID OR TRANSPORT, PRESUMABLY, IS SECONDARY TO ANY
MEDICAL NEEDS OF A HUMAN, CORRECT?
MS. ROSENTHAL: YES. AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING,
IT LAYS THAT OUT IN THE BILL.
73
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MR. GOODELL: I SEE. AND HOW ARE EMTS TO
RESPOND IF THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF USING AN AMBULANCE TO TRANSPORT AN
INJURED DOG TO THE VETERINARIAN AND THEY GET ANOTHER CALL?
MS. ROSENTHAL: I BELIEVE THOSE RULES AND REGS
WOULD BE PROMULGATED BY THE HOSPITAL OR THE AMBULANCE COMPANY.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS.
ROSENTHAL, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
SIR, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: ON THE BILL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL BECAUSE I APPRECIATE ANY EFFORTS THAT CAN BE DONE TO
HELP OUR PETS IN A TIME OF AN EMERGENCY. I DO NOTE, THOUGH, THAT IT'S NOT
WITHOUT RISK FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE MENTIONED. IF A DOG HAS NOT -- OR
A CAT HASN'T HAD A RABIES SHOT, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A POTENTIAL RISK TO
THE EMT, THERE'S A POTENTIAL RISK IF THAT DOG IS -- OR CAT IS BEING
TRANSPORTED IN AN AMBULANCE TO A VETERINARIAN HOSPITAL. BUT OVERALL, I
THINK THE INTENT OF THE BILL IS CORRECT THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF PEOPLE
HELP IN ANY WAY THEY CAN WITH ADMINISTERING FIRST AID, IF THEY'RE WILLING
TO, AND THAT THEY NOT INCUR LIABILITY SHOULD THEY DESIRE TO HELP. THANK
YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: THANK YOU.
MR. ANGELINO.
MR. ANGELINO: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: ON THE BILL.
MR. ANGELINO: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THIS. I'LL
74
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
BE SUPPORTING THIS. I'M AN ANIMAL LOVER AND I HAVE WAY TOO MANY IN
MY HOUSE RIGHT NOW. BUT THE -- I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABUSE
THAT MIGHT BE CAUSED BY -- WHEN PEOPLE HEAR ABOUT THIS BILL BEING
PASSED. IN MY -- IN MY EXPERIENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE, I SUPERVISED AN
AMBULANCE CORP OF FOUR AMBULANCE DAILY, AND MANY TIMES -- I DIDN'T
REALIZE IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW, BUT THEY HAVE ADMINISTERED FIRST AID TO
ANIMALS AND I'VE WITNESSED FIREFIGHTERS REVIVE DOGS, AND THIS IS
WONDERFUL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DONE. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WHEN THIS
BECOMES PUBLIC AND WIDESPREAD, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 9-1-1 ABUSE,
PEOPLE CALLING AND EXPECTING EMERGENCY CARE FOR PETS.
THE -- ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT THIS IS WHO'S
GOING TO PAY IF A TRANSPORT IS DONE OR MEDICAL CARE IS NEEDED BY A
VETERINARIAN? AND SO THIS MAY NEED SOME AMENDMENTS LATER ON AS THIS
STARTS TO PROGRESS AND STARTS TO GET USED. ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS --
AND I THINK MY COLLEAGUE HERE FROM THE WESTERN PART OF OUR STATE
MENTIONED, EMTS AND PARAMEDICS ARE NOT TRAINED IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
AND CARE, AND I WAS JUST CONCERNED IF THEY DO HARM. BUT I THINK,
HOPEFULLY, THEY WOULD BE COVERED AS GOOD SAMARITANS EVEN THOUGH
THEY'RE EXCLUDED FROM THE GOOD SAMARITAN EXCLUSION.
BUT OVERALL, I WOULD DO ANYTHING I COULD TO HELP AN
ANIMAL. I APPRECIATE THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR BUT, LIKE I SAID, I
JUST HAVE SOME CONCERNS BUT, OVERALL, I THINK IT'S GOOD, BUT IT'S GOING TO
NEED SOME TWEAKING IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: THANK YOU.
MR. MONTESANO.
75
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL
THE SPONSOR YIELD?
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: DOES THE
SPONSOR YIELD?
MS. ROSENTHAL: YES.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: THE SPONSOR
YIELDS.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU, MS. ROSENTHAL, JUST
A QUICK QUESTION BECAUSE I HEARD SOMETHING MENTIONED BEFORE AND I
JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IT. IF THE FIRST RESPONDERS ARE GIVING AID TO THE
DOG OR THE CAT, DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH GETTING ADVICE
FROM A VETERINARIAN, OR -- FOR THEM TO BE PROTECTED IF SOMETHING GOES
WRONG, OR COULD THEY JUST ACT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND
TRAINING THEY HAVE AS IT IS TO TREAT THE ANIMAL?
MS. ROSENTHAL: THEY CAN ACT WITH THE
KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING THEY HAVE, BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS
DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THEY DO TREAT THEM AND, IN FACT, I'VE HEARD ABOUT
FIREFIGHTERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THIS LEGISLATION
BECAUSE IT CONVEYS PROTECTION FOR THEM WHICH THEY HAVEN'T HAD UNTIL --
MR. MONTESANO: AND I'M FOR IT AND I SUPPORT IT,
AND I SEE MANY OCCASION OUT HERE IN MY COUNTY, IN NASSAU COUNTY, AT
HOUSE FIRES AND STUFF LIKE THAT WHERE YOU SEE FIREMEN HAVE SMALL MASKS
ON A DOG OR A CAT THAT THEY TAKE -- AND I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY
SOMETHING BEFORE THAT THEIR WORK HAD TO BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
VETERINARIAN IN ORDER TO BE INDEMNIFIED. THAT'S WHAT I SOUGHT TO CLEAR
76
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
UP.
MS. ROSENTHAL: YEAH, NO; NO.
MR. MONTESANO: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: READ THE LAST
SECTION.
THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 365TH
DAY.
ACTING SPEAKER J.D. RIVERA: THE CLERK WILL
RECORD THE VOTE ON ASSEMBLY 715. THIS IS A FAST ROLL CALL. ANY
MEMBER WHO WISHES TO BE RECORDED IN THE NEGATIVE IS REMINDED TO
CONTACT THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER AT THE NUMBERS PREVIOUSLY
PROVIDED.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.
MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, SIR. PLEASE RECORD MR.
DIPIETRO IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS LEGISLATION. THANK YOU, SIR.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: SO NOTED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS PASSED.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, DO YOU
HAVE ANY FURTHER HOUSEKEEPING OR RESOLUTIONS?
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE HAVE BOTH, MRS.
77
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
PEOPLES-STOKES.
ON A MOTION BY MR. PICHARDO, PAGE 25, CALENDAR NO.
317, BILL NO. A04954, AMENDMENTS ARE RECEIVED AND ADOPTED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, ON A MOTION BY MR. ABINANTI TO
RECONSIDER THE SUBSTITUTION OF SENATE BILL S06393 FOR ASSEMBLY BILL
A07358, AND SENATE BILL IS RECOMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES, AND SAID ASSEMBLY BILL IS RESTORED TO ITS PLACE ON THE
ORDER OF THIRD READING.
ON A MOTION BY MR. ABINANTI, PAGE 31, CALENDAR NO.
384, BILL NO. A07358, THE AMENDMENTS ARE RECEIVED AND ADOPTED.
AND ON BEHALF OF MR. DINOWITZ, ASSEMBLY BILL
RECALLED FROM THE SENATE, THE CLERK WILL READ THE TITLE OF THE BILL.
THE CLERK: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 455 OF THE
LAWS OF 1997.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MOTION TO RECONSIDER
THE VOTE BY WHICH THE BILL PASSED THE HOUSE.
THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.
(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)
THE CLERK WILL ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.
(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)
THE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE
ADOPTED.
NUMEROUS FINE RESOLUTIONS, MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES, WE
WILL TAKE THEM UP WITH ONE VOTE. ON THE RESOLUTIONS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR
SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTIONS ARE ADOPTED.
78
NYS ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2021
(WHEREUPON, ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NOS. 319-323
WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.)
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER. I NOW MOVE THAT THE ASSEMBLY STAND ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY,
MAY THE 21ST, TOMORROW BEING A LEGISLATIVE DAY, AND THAT WE WILL
RECONVENE AT 2:00 P.M. ON MAY THE 24TH, MONDAY BEING A SESSION DAY.
ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE ASSEMBLY STANDS
ADJOURNED.
(WHEREUPON, AT 3:35 P.M., THE ASSEMBLY STOOD
ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, MAY 21ST, FRIDAY BEING A LEGISLATIVE DAY, AND
TO RECONVENE ON MONDAY, MAY 21ST AT 2:00 P.M., MONDAY BEING A
SESSION DAY.)
79