TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2025                                                 12:32 P.M.



                                                ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE HOUSE WILL

                    COME TO ORDER.

                                 GOOD AFTERNOON, COLLEAGUES.

                                 IMAM MOHAMMED ISMAIL WILL OFFER A PRAYER.

                                 IMAM MOHAMMED ISMAIL:  GOOD AFTERNOON TO

                    EVERYONE.  THIS IS A GREAT HONOR TO STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY AND SHARE A

                    BRIEF REFLECTION FROM HOLY BOOK OF QURAN.  ONE THAT IT SPEAKS NOT ONLY

                    TO MUSLIM, BUT TO ALL OF US AS HUMAN BEINGS WE -- WE HAVE CREATED BY

                    SAME GOD, ONE GOD.  AND I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY SHARING A VERY

                    IMPORTANT VERSE FROM HOLY BOOK.

                                 (UNSPOKEN LANGUAGE)

                                 ALL HUMANITY, INDEED, I HAVE GREETED ALL OF YOU FROM A

                    SINGLE MALE AND FEMALE AND I HAVE MET YOU, PEOPLE AND TRIBE, SO THAT

                                          1



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    YOU CAN INTRODUCE EACH OTHER.  AND INDEED, THE MOST NOBLE AMONG YOU,

                    IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, IS THE MOST GOD FEARING OF YOU.  DIVERSITY IS A

                    BLESSING.  WE ARE ONE HUMAN FAMILY.  DIFFERENCE -- DIFFERENT IN OUR

                    CULTURE, COLOR, LANGUAGE AND TRADITION, BUT UNITED IN OUR HUMANITY.  OUR

                    SKIN COLOR, OUR BACKGROUND, OUR CULTURE, THESE ARE JUST PART OF THIS

                    STORY.  WHAT TRULY DEFINES US IS OUR CHARACTER, OUR HEARTS AND OUR

                    ACTIONS.

                                 SO, TODAY, AS WE SIT TOGETHER IN THIS GREAT GATHERING,

                    LET'S REMEMBER WE ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN HUMANITY.  WE ARE

                    DIFFERENT, YES, BUT WE ARE MEANT TO USE THOSE DIFFERENCES TO BUILD, NOT

                    TO BREAK.  TO UNITE, NOT TO DIVIDE.  SO, WE SEEK ALMIGHTY GOD TO GRANT

                    US THE ABILITY TO DO OUR BEST IN RIGHTEOUS ACTIONS MY -- IN -- IN -- IN

                    EVERY PART OF OUR LIVES.  WHILE ALLOWING POWER OUR HEARTS WITH THE

                    STRENGTH SO THAT WE MAY BENEFIT OTHERS AND BRING HAPPINESS.

                    (INDISCERNIBLE) PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THIS LAND, PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY,

                    FROM EVERY TRIAL AND -- AND HARDSHIPS.  AMEN.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  VISITORS ARE INVITED

                    TO JOIN THE MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

                                 (WHEREUPON, ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER LED VISITORS AND

                    MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.)

                                 A QUORUM BEING PRESENT, THE CLERK WILL READ THE

                    JOURNAL OF MONDAY, MAY 26TH.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MISS SPEAKER, I MOVE TO

                    DISPENSE WITH THE FURTHER READING OF THE JOURNAL OF MONDAY, MAY THE

                                          2



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    26TH AND THAT THE SAME STAND APPROVED.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WITHOUT OBJECTION,

                    SO ORDERED.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  THANK YOU SO MUCH.

                                 GOOD AFTERNOON, COLLEAGUES AND GUESTS THAT OUR IN THE

                    CHAMBERS.  I'D LIKE TO SHARE OF QUOTE WITH YOU TODAY.  THIS ONE COMES

                    FROM ERYKAH BADU.  SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW OF HER WORKS.  HER WORDS

                    FOR US TODAY:  "BE THE REASON SOMEONE FEELS WELCOMED, SEEN, HEARD,

                    VALUED, LOVED, AND SUPPORTED."  AGAIN, THESE WORDS FROM ERYKAH BADU,

                    AN AWARD-WINNING SINGER AND SONGWRITER KNOWN AS THE QUEEN OF NEO

                    SOUL.

                                 MADAM SPEAKER, MEMBERS HAVE ON THEIR DESK A MAIN

                    CALENDER AS WELL AS A DEBATE LIST.  BEFORE ANY HOUSEKEEPING AND/OR

                    INTRODUCTIONS, WE'LL BE CALLING FOR THE RULES COMMITTEE TO MEET.  THAT

                    COMMITTEE'S GOING TO PRODUCE AN A-CALENDAR, WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP

                    TODAY.  WE WILL ALSO BE CALLING FOR THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEES TO MEET

                    OFF THE FLOOR:  CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOLLOWED BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,

                    FOLLOWED BY EDUCATION, FOLLOWED BY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS,

                    HEALTH, REAL PROPERTY AND TAXATION, AND WAYS AND MEANS.  IF THERE IS

                    A NEED TO ANNOUNCE ADDITIONAL FLOOR ACTIVITY, MADAM SPEAKER, I'D BE

                    GRATEFUL TO DO THAT AT THAT POINT.  BUT, AS FOR NOW, THAT'S THE GENERAL

                    OUTLINE OF WHERE WE'RE GOING.  YOU CAN BEGIN BY CALLING THE RULES

                    COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.  AND THANK YOU VERY

                    MUCH.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                          3



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 RULES COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.

                    RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERS PLEASE VISIT THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE

                    ROOM

                                 WE HAVE NO HOUSEKEEPING THIS MORNING, BUT A FEW

                    INTRODUCTIONS.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN

                    INTRODUCTION.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER.

                                 ON BEHALF OF OUR COLLEAGUE, MR. MAMDANI, I'D LIKE TO

                    INTRODUCE THE IMAM WHO GAVE US AN AMAZING PRAYER THIS AFTERNOON,

                    MOHAMMED ISMAIL.  HE IS ACTUALLY FROM THE AN-NOOR CULTURAL CENTER,

                    I'M SURE IN THE DISTRICT OF OUR COLLEAGUE, MR. MAMDANI.

                                 SO, WOULD YOU PLEASE OFFER HIM THE CORDIALITIES OF THE

                    FLOOR AND AGAIN WELCOME HIM TO OUR CHAMBERS.

                                 (APPLAUSE)

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON BEHALF

                    OF MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES, ASSEMBLYMEMBER MAMDANI, THE SPEAKER AND

                    ALL MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU, IMAM, TO THE CHAMBER, EXTEND THE

                    PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR TO YOU.  HOPE YOU ENJOY OUR PROCEEDINGS TODAY.

                    THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOU PRAYER THIS MORNING AND FOR JOINING

                    US.

                                 THANK YOU.

                                 (APPLAUSE)

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN

                                          4



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    INTRODUCTION.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE A -- AGAIN, FOR -- ON BEHALF OF

                    OUR COLLEAGUE, MR. MAMDANI, THE BAAG, B-A-A-G, IS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT

                    ORGANIZATION WHO TRAVEL WITH THE IMAM, WHO GAVE US OUR PRAYER TODAY.

                    WE WANT TO THANK THEM FOR TRAVELING WITH THE IMAM.  AND JUST MENTION

                    THAT THEIR SOCIAL WORK FOR ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO EMPOWERING,

                    UPLIFTING THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES.  THEY PROVIDE A PLATFORM OF

                    ADVOCACY, EDUCATION, AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, HELPING INDIVIDUALS AND

                    FAMILIES NAVIGATE COMPLEX SYSTEMS, AMPLIFYING THEIR VOICE, AND

                    BUILDING A STRONGER AND MORE INCLUSIVE SOCIETY.

                                 THEIR MISSION IS TO ENSURE THAT IMMIGRANTS, REGARDLESS

                    OF BACKGROUND OR STATUS, ARE HEARD, SUPPORTED, AND EQUIPPED TO LEAD

                    CHANGE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.  THROUGH THEIR GRASSROOTS OUTREACH

                    EFFORTS AND THEIR POLICY WORK, BAAG IS A TRUSTED PARTNER IN A POWERFUL

                    VOICE THAT IS OFTEN LEFT UNHEARD.

                                 MADAM SPEAKER, IF YOU COULD PLEASE WELCOME THESE

                    GREAT PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING GREAT WORK IN THEIR COMMUNITIES IN AND

                    AROUND OUR STATE TO OUR CHAMBERS AND OFFER THEM THE CORDIALITIES OF

                    THE HOUSE, AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF OUR COLLEAGUE, MR. MAMDANI.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON BEHALF OF

                    MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES, ASSEMBLYMEMBER MAMDANI, THE SPEAKER AND ALL

                    MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU, OUR DISTINGUISHED GUEST, TO THE ASSEMBLY

                    CHAMBER, THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE, EXTENDING THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR TO

                    YOU.  WE HOPE YOU ENJOY OUR PROCEEDINGS TODAY.  THANK YOU SO VERY

                                          5



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    MUCH FOR JOINING US.

                                 (APPLAUSE)

                                 MR. MAHER FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN INTRODUCTION.

                                 MR. MAHER:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 I RISE TODAY WITH THE HONOR OF INTRODUCING MY VERY

                    DEAR FRIEND MAUREEN HALAHAN, THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE ORANGE

                    COUNTY PARTNERSHIP.  MAUREEN IS JOINED HERE BY HER HUSBAND WILLIAM

                    POOLEY, HER SON MATT POOLEY, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW CATRINA POOLEY, HER

                    DAUGHTER AUDREY ZAJAC, AND HER THREE BEAUTIFUL GRANDCHILDREN, PAYTON,

                    CAMERON AND FINNLEY (PHONETIC).

                                 MAUREEN HAS WORKED FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY

                    PARTNERSHIP FOR OVER 20 YEARS.  AND IN THAT TIME, MORE THAN 300 MAJOR

                    ATTRACTIONS OF NEW BUSINESSES, COMPANIES, THAT HAVE CREATED OVER

                    11,000 NEW JOBS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, GENERATING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN

                    CAPITAL INVESTMENT.  AND ON TOP OF THAT, WITH AN EXISTING 318

                    COMPANIES, DUE TO THEIR EXPANSIONS, LED TO AN ADDITIONAL NEARLY 9,000

                    JOBS CREATED.  ASIDE FROM THAT, THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS APPOINTED 14 YEARS

                    AGO TO SERVE ON THE HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

                    COUNCIL.  WHEN THOSE COUNCILS WERE DEVELOPED, MAUREEN HALAHAN WAS

                    THE FIRST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NAME MENTIONED IN THE HUDSON VALLEY

                    DUE TO HER RÉSUMÉ.  SHE HAS BEEN HONORED AGAIN AND AGAIN BY A LITANY

                    OF ORGANIZATIONS.  AND INSTEAD OF READING ALL OF THOSE AWARDS, I WANT TO

                    JUST MENTION THE HONOR TITLE THAT MEANS THE MOST TO HER, AND THAT IS OF

                    LOVING WIFE, MOTHER, AND GRANDMOTHER.

                                 AND MY INTRODUCTION OF HER WAS SEPARATE FROM MY

                                          6



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    ELECTED CAPACITY, IT WAS ON THE BASKETBALL COURT, WHERE I PLAYED

                    BASKETBALL WITH HER SON, MATTHEW.  AND I LEARNED THAT, AS FIERCE AS SHE

                    ADVOCATES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SHE IS MUCH MORE FIERCE AS A

                    BASKETBALL MOM, YELLING ON THE COURT FOR HER KIDS, AND I'M SURE, IN THE

                    FUTURE, FOR HER GRANDKIDS.  SHE IS A DEAR FRIEND.  SHE IS RETIRING NEXT

                    WEEK WITH OVER 24 YEARS AT THE ORANGE COUNTY PARTNERSHIP.  SHE HAS

                    DONE SO MUCH TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES, OUR

                    COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTS.

                                 PLEASE EXTEND THE CORDIALITIES OF THE FLOOR TO MAUREEN

                    AND HER FAMILY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  OH BEHALF OF MR.

                    MAHER, THE SPEAKER AND ALL MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU, MA'AM, TO THE

                    SPEAKER'S HOUSE AND EXTEND TO YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR.

                    CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR VERY LONG TENURE AT THE ORANGE COUNTY

                    PARTNERSHIP.  YOU'VE DONE ASTOUNDING WORK AND IT -- IT SHOWS IN ALL THE

                    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE ORANGE COUNTY AREA.  AND WELCOME TO

                    YOUR EXTENDED FAMILY HERE TODAY; YOUR -- YOUR HUSBAND WILLIAM AND

                    YOUR SON MATT AND CATRINA, AUDREY, PAYTON, CAMERON AND FINNLEY, ALL

                    OF YOU WELCOME SO MUCH.  THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY.

                                 (APPLAUSE)

                                 MS. GALLAGHER FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN INTRODUCTION.

                                 MS. GALLAGHER:  THANK YOU SO MUCH, SPEAKER

                    [SIC].

                                 THIS -- I AM PROUD TO INTRODUCE MY YOUTH POLICY

                    COUNCIL FROM GREENPOINT BROOKLYN.  THESE STUDENTS HAVE BEEN

                                          7



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WORKING WITH MY STAFF OVER THE LAST YEAR TO DEVELOP POLICIES BASED ON

                    THEIR LIVED EXPERIENCE AS STUDENTS IN MY DISTRICT.  AND WE HAVE WITH US

                    TODAY YUHAI YIPP, ALTON BARACAT, JIN PARK, ADEER CHAULDRY, ELAINE

                    CHUU AND ISABELLA CHUME (ALL PHONETIC).  THESE STUDENTS ARE

                    PHENOMENAL.  I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE THEM SITTING IN THESE

                    SEATS IN JUST A FEW YEARS.  AND I'M REALLY EXCITED TO HAVE THEM HERE.

                    AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT THEIR BILL, THEY ARE HERE TO LOBBY YOU.

                                 SO, PLEASE EXTEND THE CORDIALITIES OF THE FLOOR TO THESE

                    WONDERFUL FUTURE POLICYMAKERS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON BEHALF OF

                    MS. GALLAGHER, THE SPEAKER AND ALL MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU, YOUNG

                    PEOPLE, TO OUR ASSEMBLY CHAMBER TODAY AND EXTEND THE PRIVILEGES OF

                    THE FLOOR TO YOU.  THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE ADVOCACY WORK THAT YOU ARE

                    DOING.  IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.  STRONG FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE.  WE

                    DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT.  AND THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US

                    TODAY.

                                 (APPLAUSE)

                                 (PAUSE)

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN

                    INTRODUCTION.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE SOME GUESTS THAT HAVE JUST

                    ARRIVED IN OUR CHAMBERS.  THEY ARE FROM THE CONSUL GENERATE [SIC]

                    PEOPLE'S OF REPUBLIC OF CHINA [SIC] IN THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE.  WE

                    HAVE MR. MA XIAOXIAO, WHO IS THE DEPUTY CONSUL GENERAL, WE HAVE

                                          8



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    ANDY CHEN, VICE CONSUL AND WE HAVE CINDY CHUU, VICE CONSUL AS

                    WELL.

                                 MADAM SPEAKER, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE WELCOME OUR

                    COLLEAGUES FROM THE CONSULATE GENERALS [SIC] PUBLIC -- REPUBLIC OF

                    CHINA [SIC] IN NEW YORK TO OUR CHAMBERS, OFFER THEM THE CORDIALITIES

                    OF THE FLOOR AND GIVE THEM YOUR NORMAL WARM GREETING.  WELL AND

                    MUCH APPRECIATED.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON BEHALF OF

                    MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES, THE SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME

                    YOU, OUR DISTINGUISHED GUESTS, TO OUR ASSEMBLY CHAMBER, VISITING FROM

                    OUR CONSUL GENERAL'S OFFICE, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA [SIC].  WE

                    EXTEND THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR TO YOU.  IT'S ALWAYS VERY IMPORTANT TO

                    HAVE SUCH GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS.  SO,

                    THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

                                 (APPLAUSE)

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, AS THE

                    RULES COMMITTEE HAS LITERALLY JUST STARTED, WOULD YOU PLEASE PUT OUR

                    HOUSE AT EASE FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON

                    MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES' MOTION, THE HOUSE STANDS AT EASE.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  THANK YOU.

                                 (WHEREUPON, THE HOUSE STOOD AT EASE AT 12:51 P.M.)



                                 ***********************

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE HOUSE WILL

                                          9



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    COME BACK TO ORDER.

                                 (WHEREUPON, AT 12:58 P.M. THE HOUSE WAS CALLED

                    BACK TO ORDER.)

                                 MR. BENEDETTO.

                                 MR. BENEDETTO:  AND AS WE'RE COMING BACK TO

                    ORDER, WE WOULD LIKE THE CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TO PLEASE MEET

                    IN THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  CONSUMER AFFAIRS

                    COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.  PLEASE SEE

                    CHAIR ROZIC IN THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.  CONSUMER AFFAIRS.

                                 MR. BENEDETTO.

                                 MR. BENEDETTO:  YES.  AS THE MEMBERS ARE GOING

                    TO THEIR COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THE MEMBERS HAVE ON THEIR DESK AN

                    A-CALENDAR.  MS. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO ADVANCE THE A-CALENDAR.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 ON A MOTION BY MR. BENEDETTO, THE A-CALENDAR IS

                    ADVANCED.

                                 ON CONSENT, PAGE 3, RULES REPORT NO. 256, THE CLERK

                    WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A00026, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 256, ROSENTHAL.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW AND THE

                    PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING MEDICAID FROM REQUIRING

                    PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR HIV MEDICATION.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THIS BILL IS LAID

                    ASIDE.

                                         10



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A01541-A, CALENDAR --

                    RULES REPORT NO. 257, PAULIN, BURDICK, GONZÁLEZ-ROJAS, SIMON,

                    WOERNER, FORREST, SAYEGH, KELLES, JACOBSON, EPSTEIN, LEVENBERG,

                    CLARK, REYES, BICHOTTE HERMELYN, ZINERMAN, ZACCARO, ROZIC, LEE.  AN

                    ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHING THE

                    CESAREAN BIRTHS REVIEW BOARD.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULT.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A01970-A, RULES

                    REPORT NO. 258, PAULIN, ZACCARO, DINOWITZ, ROSENTHAL, HEVESI, STIRPE,

                    WEPRIN, LEVENBERG, LEE.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN

                    RELATION TO COLLECTING AND REPORTING SEXUAL OFFENSE EVIDENCE ON THE

                    STATEWIDE ELECTRONIC TRACKING SYSTEM.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                         11



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULT.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 MR. BENEDETTO.

                                 MR. BENEDETTO:  I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE

                    JOB OF CONSUMERS AFFAIR [SIC] IS FINISHED.  AND SO WE NOW CALL UPON

                    MR. BRONSON IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE

                    ROOM, RIGHT AWAY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WE'LL BE SEEING MR.

                    STIRPE IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.  PLEASE VISIT MR.

                    STIRPE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE IMMEDIATELY IN THE

                    SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.

                                 THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A02384, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 259, EICHENSTEIN, WEPRIN, GALLAGHER, REYES, DILAN, ROSENTHAL,

                    WIEDER, STECK, ALVAREZ, KAY, LASHER, SANTABARBARA, TORRES, TAPIA,

                    GALLAHAN, JACOBSON.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW AND THE

                    PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR

                    RARE DISEASES, LIFE-THREATENING CONDITIONS OR DISEASES, DEGENERATIVE AND

                    DISABLING CONDITIONS, OR DIAGNOSES INVOLVING MEDICALLY-FRAGILE

                    CHILDREN.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THIS BILL IS LAID

                    ASIDE.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A02736-A, RULES

                                         12



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    REPORT NO. 260, JACOBSON, SANTABARBARA.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC

                    SERVICE LAW, IN RELATION TO CONSIDERATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN

                    UTILITY RATE PROCEEDINGS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULT.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY -- ASSEMBLY NO. A03121,

                    RULES REPORT NO. 261, ROSENTHAL, TAYLOR, BURDICK.  AN ACT TO AMEND

                    THE REAL PROPERTY LAW, IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS

                    FROM CHARGING TENANTS WITH FEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF RENT THROUGH AN

                    AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE OR ONLINE PAYMENT SYSTEM.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON A MOTION BY MS.

                    ROSENTHAL, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE.  THE SENATE BILL IS

                    ADVANCED.

                                 THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A03649-B, RULES

                    REPORT NO. 262, TAYLOR, ALVAREZ, MCDONALD, ROMERO, MCDONOUGH,

                    K. BROWN, MANKTELOW, SEAWRIGHT, O'PHARROW, TAPIA, CRUZ,

                    SANTABARBARA, DESTEFANO, GANDOLFO, BICHOTTE HERMELYN, SHRESTHA,

                                         13



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    GONZÁLEZ-ROJAS, PAULIN, LEVENBERG, RAMOS, LEMONDES, KASSAY,

                    GALLAGHER, SIMON, CHANDLER-WATERMAN, JACOBSON, WIEDER, BURROUGHS,

                    STECK.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE ELECTION LAW AND VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC

                    LAW, IN RELATION TO JOINING MULTISTATE VOTER LIST MAINTENANCE

                    ORGANIZATIONS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON A MOTION BY MR.

                    TAYLOR, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE.  THE SENATE BILL IS

                    ADVANCED.

                                 THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A03986-A, RULES

                    REPORT NO. 263, BORES, EPSTEIN, WEPRIN.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE

                    INSURANCE LAW AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO THE USE OF

                    VIRTUAL CREDIT CARDS BY INSURERS AND CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PLANS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 180TH

                    DAY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 MR. BORES TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. BORES:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 AT A TIME WHEN ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE TALKING TO

                    US ABOUT THE COST OF LIVING, OF AFFORDABILITY, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO FIND

                    ALL OF THE PLACES WHERE EXPENSES ARE INCREASING.  AND ONE OF THE CAUSES

                                         14



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    HAS BEEN INSURANCE CONTINUING ON INSISTING USING VIRTUAL CREDIT CARDS TO

                    PAY BACK OUR DOCTORS, OUR DENTISTS, OUR PROVIDERS, AND THEN TAKING A FEE

                    AS PART OF THAT.  AND SO THE PEOPLE WHO WERE PROVIDING US CARE END UP

                    HAVING TO TAKE A HAIRCUT AND INCREASE THEIR PRICES AS A RESULT.  SO THIS

                    BILL, WHICH ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY FOR THE PROVIDERS THAT WANT TO RECEIVE

                    PAYMENT BY A VIRTUAL CREDIT CARD WILL NOT ONLY ENSURE THAT WE HAVE

                    BETTER HEALTH PROTECTION EVERYWHERE, THAT OUR SMALL PROVIDERS CAN

                    CONTINUE TO PROVIDE CARE, BUT ALSO THAT COSTS GO DOWN FOR EVERYONE.

                                 I PROUDLY VOTE YES.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MR. BORES 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:  MADAM SPEAKER, IF YOU

                    COULD PLEASE CALL THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S

                    CONFERENCE ROOM.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  EDUCATION

                    COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.  PLEASE MEET CHAIR

                    BENEDETTO IN THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.  EDUCATION COMMITTEE

                    MEETING.

                                 THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A04346, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 264, DINOWITZ, SEAWRIGHT, JACOBSON, LEVENBERG, GLICK, SIMON,

                                         15



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    ZACCARO.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO THE

                    ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN IMMUNIZATIONS BY A PHARMACIST OR A CERTIFIED

                    NURSE PRACTITIONER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A04502-B, RULES

                    REPORT NO. 265, CUNNINGHAM, JACKSON, DE LOS SANTOS, YEGER,

                    ANDERSON, SHIMSKY, MCDONOUGH.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOCIAL

                    SERVICES LAW, IN RELATION TO ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES BY PUBLIC

                    ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO WORK PARTICIPATION

                    REQUIREMENTS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THIS BILL IS LAID

                    ASIDE.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A05367-A, RULES

                    REPORT NO. 266, WEPRIN, JACOBSON.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE

                    LAW, IN RELATION TO HIGH-DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLANS AND HEALTH SAVINGS

                    ACCOUNTS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                                         16



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A06685, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 267, OTIS.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE VILLAGE LAW, IN RELATION TO FILLING

                    VACANCIES IN ELECTIVE OFFICES IN VILLAGES WITH NOVEMBER ELECTIONS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON A MOTION BY MR.

                    OTIS, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE.  THE SENATE BILL IS ADVANCED.

                                 READ THE LAST SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, WOULD

                    YOU PLEASE CALL THE GOVERNMENT [SIC] OPERATIONS TO THE SPEAKER'S

                    CONFERENCE ROOM?

                                         17



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  GOVERNMENT [SIC]

                    OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM,

                    PLEASE.  COMMITTEE MEMBERS, PLEASE MEET CHAIR MCDONALD IN THE

                    SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM FOR GOVERNMENT [SIC] OPERATIONS.

                                 THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A06691, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 268, EPSTEIN.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL

                    LAW, IN RELATION TO MAKING THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE VARIOUS

                    ON-PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSE CONSISTENT WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC INTEREST

                    FACTORS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY WHEN

                    EVALUATING THE MERITS OF A LICENSE APPLICATION.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THIS BILL IS LAID

                    ASIDE.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A07280, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 269, KIM, GONZÁLEZ-ROJAS, DAVILA, BRAUNSTEIN, STECK,

                    BUTTENSCHON, TAPIA, COLTON, GLICK, KASSAY, LUNSFORD, GRIFFIN.  AN ACT

                    TO AMEND THE PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAW, IN

                    RELATION TO ESTABLISHING THE STATE PARKS PASSPORT PROGRAM.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON A MOTION BY MR.

                    KIM, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE.  THE SENATE BILL IS ADVANCED.

                                 READ THE LAST SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                         18



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A07406, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 270, OTIS.  AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 381 OF THE LAWS OF 2010

                    AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF AN OCCUPANCY TAX

                    IN THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION

                    THEREOF.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  HOME RULE

                    MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK.

                                 READ THE LAST SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A07454, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 271, JONES.  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY

                    PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE XIV OF THE

                    CONSTITUTION, IN RELATION TO THE MOUNT VAN HOEVENBERG OLYMPIC

                    SPORTS COMPLEX TO ESSEX COUNTY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                         19



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A07579, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 272, KAY.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LAW,

                    IN RELATION TO PROVIDING FOR A LICENSE TO SELL LIQUOR AT RETAIL FOR

                    CONSUMPTION ON CERTAIN PREMISES.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A07694, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 273, CONRAD, LUCAS, TAYLOR.  AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 413 OF THE

                    LAWS OF 2003 AMENDING THE LABOR LAW RELATING TO THE SELF-

                    EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND OTHER MATTERS, IN RELATION TO

                    EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF.

                                         20



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A08069, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 274, BRAUNSTEIN.  AN ACT TO AMEND PART P OF CHAPTER 39 OF THE

                    LAWS OF 2019, AMENDING THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW RELATING TO THE

                    ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING

                    THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, IF YOU

                                         21



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    COULD PLEASE CALL THE MEMBERS TO THE HEALTH COMMITTEE CONFERENCE

                    ROOM [SIC] TO SPEAK TO THE COMMITTEE MEETING, PLEASE?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  HEALTH COMMITTEE

                    TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.  MEMBERS ON THE HEALTH

                    COMMITTEE, PLEASE SEE CHAIR PAULIN IN THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE

                    ROOM.

                                 THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A08153, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 275, P. CARROLL.  AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 674 OF THE LAWS OF

                    1993, AMENDING THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS LAW RELATING TO VALUE LIMITATIONS

                    ON CONTRACTS, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING SUCH PROVISIONS THEREOF.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A08154, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 276, BRAUNSTEIN.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW AND THE

                    PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION TO THE CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK STATE

                    ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                                         22



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, IF YOU

                    COULD CALL REAL PROPERTY TAXES [SIC] TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE

                    ROOM.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  REAL PROPERTY

                    TAXATION COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.  PLEASE MEET

                    CHAIR WILLIAMS IN THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM FOR REAL PROPERTY

                    TAX [SIC] COMMITTEE.

                                 THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A08298, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 277, P. CARROLL.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE FAMILY COURT ACT, IN RELATION

                    TO THE TIME LIMIT FOR APPEALS IN ALL CATEGORIES OF FAMILY COURT CASES AND

                    FOR THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DETERMINATIONS IN

                    CHILD SUPPORT, PATERNITY AND PARENTAGE PROCEEDINGS IN FAMILY COURT.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 120TH

                                         23



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    DAY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, IF WE

                    COULD NOW BRING OUR ATTENTION TO OUR DEBATE LIST.  BUT BEFORE WE DO

                    THAT, CAN WE CALL THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S

                    CONFERENCE ROOM?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WAYS AND MEANS TO

                    THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.  WAYS AND MEANS, SPEAKER'S

                    CONFERENCE ROOM.  SEE -- PLEASE SEE CHAIR PRETLOW, SPEAKER'S

                    CONFERENCE ROOM.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO

                    RULES REPORT NO. 223, IT'S ON PAGE 8.  THEN WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT

                    WITH CALENDAR NO. 11, IT'S ON PAGE 9; CALENDAR NO. 145, IT'S ON PAGE

                    17; AND CALENDAR NO. 150, IT'S ON PAGE 18.  THEN WE WILL GO BACK TO

                    RULES REPORT AND TAKE UP RULES REPORT NO. 154, IT'S ON PAGE 5; RULES

                    REPORT NO. 255, IT'S ON PAGE 8; AND THEN RULES REPORT NO. 154, WHICH

                    IS ON PAGE 5.  RULES REPORT NO. 195 IS ON PAGE 6; AND RULES

                    REPORT NO. 202 IS ON PAGE 6 AS WELL.  THAT WILL TAKE US THROUGH SEVEN

                                         24



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    DEBATES, MADAM SPEAKER.  WE WILL SEE WHAT OUR DIRECTION IS AFTER

                    THAT'S COMPLETED.

                                 THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 PAGE 8, RULES REPORT NO. 223, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  SENATE NO. S01194-B, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 223, SENATOR ADDABBO (A06326-A, VALDEZ, SIMON, OTIS, FORREST,

                    ZACCARO, SHRESTHA, BEEPHAN, DESTEFANO, DURSO, HEVESI, KASSAY,

                    BURROUGHS, SHIMSKY, GRIFFIN, SANTABARBARA).  AN ACT TO AMEND THE

                    PUBLIC SERVICE LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING GAS AND ELECTRIC

                    CORPORATIONS TO PROVIDE 45 DAYS' NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS WHENEVER THERE IS

                    A SERVICE RATE OR CHARGE INCREASE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 MR. PALMESANO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. PALMESANO:  YES, THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER, MY COLLEAGUES.

                                 THIS LEGISLATION BEFORE US IS BETTER THAN THE BILL WE

                    HAD LAST YEAR.  THE BILL LAST YEAR, FOR MY COLLEAGUES, DEALT WITH

                    NOTIFICATIONS FOR RATES AND CHARGES, BUT IT WASN'T SPECIFIC ENOUGH

                    BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE OUTLINED A WHOLE LIST OF CHARGES THAT WOULD

                                         25



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    REQUIRE NOTIFICATION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN COSTLY AND BURDENSOME.

                    BUT THIS BILL, I THINK, WAS ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY FOR MAJOR RATE

                    INCREASES UNDER SUBDIVISION C.  I THINK THE LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL

                    ADDRESSES THAT FAIRLY.  AND I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE A MAJOR RATE INCREASE

                    I THINK THAT NOTIFICATION IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR -- OUR RESIDENTS AND

                    OUR BUSINESSES.

                                 I THINK ONE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

                    WHEN THIS BILL IS ADVANCED FURTHER IS SOMETIMES THERE'S TEMPORARY

                    INCREASES AND THERE'S FINAL OR PERMANENT INCREASES.  REALLY, THE

                    INTENTION, I THINK, IS (INDISCERNIBLE) THE FINAL INCREASES, AND HOPEFULLY

                    AS THIS IS ADDRESSED WITH THE PSC IT WILL FOCUS ON FINAL RATE INCREASES.

                                 AND I WILL SAY THERE'S OTHER BILLS THAT WE'VE -- I'VE

                    SEEN AND LOOKING FOR THAT DEALS WITH THESE NOTIFICATIONS.  WE CAN'T JUST

                    KIND OF CONTINUE TO HAVE NOTIFICATION UPON NOTIFICATION.  THIS BILL, I

                    THINK, ADDRESSES WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND WAS DONE -- WAS WRITTEN

                    WELL TO ADDRESS THAT COMPARED TO THE VERSION LAST YEAR.

                                 I GUESS WHAT I REALLY WISH WOULD HAPPEN IS WE'D ALSO,

                    ON OUR BILLS, ITEMIZE WHAT THOSE CHARGES ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE PAYING

                    FOR; ALL THE GREEN ENERGY MANDATES THAT CONTINUE TO BE PLACED ON -- INTO

                    THE UTILITY BILLS BECAUSE THE RATE -- UTILITY RATES ARE GOING UP.  IT'S REALLY

                    BECAUSE OF THESE MANDATES THAT ARE BEING PLACED UPON THEM.  SO IT

                    WOULD BE NICE IF WE ITEMIZE THAT OUT FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR

                    BUSINESSES SO THEY'RE SEEING EXACTLY WHAT THEIR BILL CHARGES ARE GOING

                    TO.  AND THIS IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT WITH THE FACT THAT THE STATE NEVER

                    REALLY DID A -- A TRUST COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS TO SEE HOW MUCH

                                         26



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLCPA WOULD COST OUR RESIDENTS AND

                    BUSINESSES.  SO THIS WILL COME INTO HAND THERE BECAUSE YOU'RE DEALING

                    WITH MAJOR RATE INCREASES.  I JUST WISH WE COULD BE MORE SPECIFIC ON

                    OUR BILLS TO SHOW CUSTOMERS WHAT THEY'RE PAYING.

                                 SO -- BUT I WILL BE VOTING YES AND I URGE MY

                    COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. PALMESANO IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 MS. VALDEZ TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

                                 MS. VALDEZ:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, AND

                    THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES.  I KNOW THIS BILL HAS GONE THROUGH SOME

                    CHANGES OVER THE LAST YEAR, AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR FEEDBACK.

                                 AS WORKING NEW YORKERS STRUGGLE WITH SOARING FOOD,

                    HOUSING AND CHILDCARE AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS, RISING UTILITY BILLS ARE

                    JUST ANOTHER WAY THAT I KNOW ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE BEING

                    SQUEEZED.  THIS LEGISLATION IS SIMPLE.  IT REQUIRES THAT GAS AND UTILITY --

                    GAS AND ELECTRICITY UTILITIES PROVIDE 45 DAYS' NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS THAT

                    THEY CAN EXPECT SUBSTANTIAL RATE INCREASES.  THAT'S 45 DAYS FOR FAMILIES

                    TO PLAN AHEAD WHEN EVERY DOLLAR AND EVERY EXPENSE CAN MAKE OR BREAK

                    A MONTHLY BUDGET.

                                 I'M PROUD TO STAND ALONGSIDE MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE

                    COMMITTED TO PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES FROM THE WORST OF UTILITIES,

                    UNPREDICTABLE PRICING AND PROFITEERING.  AT A BARE MINIMUM, OUR

                    CONSTITUENTS DESERVE THE TRANSPARENCY THAT THIS LEGISLATION PROVIDES.

                                 THE TASK REMAINS FOR US IN THIS GREAT STATE TO END OUR

                                         27



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL FUELS AND USHER IN A GREEN NEW YORK, BUT I'M

                    GRATEFUL TODAY THAT WE CAN DELIVER SOME MEASURE OF RELIEF TO THE

                    WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES THAT NEED IT.

                                 I ALSO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO

                    DO THE SAME.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MS. VALDEZ IN THE

                    AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 PAGE 9, CALENDAR NO. 11, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A00056-B, CALENDAR

                    NO. 11, EPSTEIN, BURDICK, GALLAGHER, KELLES, GLICK, REYES,

                    CUNNINGHAM, RAGA, CRUZ, SEAWRIGHT, DAVILA, LEVENBERG, BICHOTTE

                    HERMELYN, SCHIAVONI, LEE.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY LAW

                    AND THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING RESIDENTIAL

                    LANDLORDS FROM CHARGING TENANTS A FEE FOR A DISHONORED RENT CHECK IN

                    EXCESS OF THE ACTUAL COSTS OR FEES INCURRED BY SUCH LANDLORD AS A RESULT

                    THEREOF.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  A PARTY VOTE HAS

                    BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO.

                                         28



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                    THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL GENERALLY BE OPPOSED TO THIS BILL;

                    HOWEVER, MEMBERS WHO WISH TO VOTE YES MAY DO SO AT THEIR DESKS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, THE

                    MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS -- IS GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS PIECE OF

                    LEGISLATION; HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE A FEW THAT WOULD DESIRE TO BE AN

                    EXCEPTION.  THEY SHOULD FEEL FREE TO DO SO AT THEIR SEATS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 MR. GANDOLFO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 WE HAD DEBATED THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS BILL A FEW

                    WEEKS AGO, AND ONE ISSUE THAT MANY TOOK WAS THE FACT THAT IF A LANDLORD

                    INCURRED A FEE THAT WAS GREATER THAN $20 FOR RECEIVING A BOUNCED CHECK

                    FROM A TENANT, THAT LANDLORD WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO RECOVER UP TO $20,

                    WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY LEAVE THEM AT A LOSS.  THIS AMENDMENT DOES

                    ADDRESS THAT ISSUE AND WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THAT.  NOW IF THE BOUNCED

                    CHECK FEE IS GREATER THAN $20, THE LANDLORD IS ABLE TO RECOUP THE ENTIRE

                    AMOUNT OF THE FEE THAT THEY INCURRED.  HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT ADDRESS

                    THE ISSUE OF ORAL MONTH-TO-MONTH LEASES AND ALLOWING THOSE LANDLORDS

                    TO COLLECT FEES FOR BOUNCED CHECKS.

                                 SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE AND

                                         29



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    I'M SURE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE THE SAME CONCERN.  THANK YOU,

                    MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO IN THE NEGATIVE.

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 PAGE 17, CALENDAR NO. 145, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A01433-A, CALENDAR

                    NO. 145, HUNTER, WEPRIN.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW, IN

                    RELATION TO PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PET INSURANCE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 180TH

                    DAY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN INTRODUCTION.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 ON BEHALF OF OUR COLLEAGUE MATT SLATER, I HAVE THE

                    DISTINCT HONOR OF INTRODUCING GEORGE AND ELAINE JOYNER, WHO ARE FROM

                                         30



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    BREWSTER, LOCATED IN THE LOVELY 94TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT.  GEORGE HAS

                    BEEN RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF FIVE SENIORS OF THE YEAR IN PUTNAM COUNTY,

                    AND HE IS UP HERE VISITING US TODAY TO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR BEAUTIFUL STATE

                    CAPITOL AND SEE HOW WE RUN THINGS AROUND HERE.

                                 SO MADAM SPEAKER, WOULD YOU PLEASE OFFER HIM ALL

                    THE CORDIALITIES OF THE HOUSE?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON BEHALF OF MR.

                    GANDOLFO, MR. SLATER, THE SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME

                    YOU, MR. AND MRS. JOYNER, TO THE ASSEMBLY CHAMBER, THE PEOPLE'S

                    HOUSE.  EXTENDING TO YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR.  CONGRATULATIONS

                    TO YOU, SIR, ON BEING ONE OF THE SENIORS OF THE YEAR, A PRESTIGIOUS

                    AWARD FOR SURE.  WE HOPE YOU ENJOY THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY.  THANK

                    YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

                                 (APPLAUSE)

                                 PAGE 18, CALENDAR NO. 150, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A03280-A, CALENDAR

                    NO. 150, BICHOTTE HERMELYN, STIRPE, COLTON, CRUZ, JACKSON, GIBBS,

                    LEVENBERG, SEAWRIGHT, EPSTEIN, HYNDMAN, SIMON, LUCAS, DAVILA,

                    WEPRIN, ROZIC, MEEKS, LUNSFORD.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE

                    LAW, IN RELATION TO ENACTING THE ELI PARKER LEVITT LAW.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1,

                    2027.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                                         31



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN:  YES, THANK YOU,

                    MADAM SPEAKER, FOR ALLOWING ME TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE.

                                 FOR TOO LONG, WE HAVE SEEN PREVENTABLE STORIES LIKE

                    ELI PARKER LEVITT AND HIS PARENTS.  THIS BILL WILL BE A HISTORIC STEP IN

                    ADDRESSING THE HIGH NUMBER OF PREMATURE BIRTHS AND DEATHS OF

                    PREMATURE BABIES.  THIS BILL WILL NOT ONLY ALLOW EASIER ACCESS TO

                    TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUNDS, BUT WILL ALSO SERVE AS A STORY FOR BABIES LIKE

                    ELI TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT JUST REMEMBERED AS STATISTICS BEFORE THE

                    SHORT LIVES THEY LIVED, AND THE CHANGES THAT WILL BECOME BECAUSE OF

                    THEIR LIVES.

                                 FOR THIS, I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND URGE MY

                    COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN

                    INTRODUCTION.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERRUPT OUR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE

                    PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING A GUEST OF OUR COLLEAGUE NIKKI LUCAS.  WE HAVE

                                         32



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WITH US TODAY SANDRA PINDER, WHO IS VISITING TODAY.  MISS PINDER HAS

                    FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS BEEN A RESIDENT OF EAST NEW YORK AND A

                    HOMEOWNER FOR 35 OF THOSE YEARS.  SHE IS AN AMAZING VOLUNTEER.  THERE

                    IS A HUGE LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHE HAS VOLUNTEERED HER LIFE TO, AND

                    FOR THAT WE HAVE TO DEFINITELY APPRECIATE HER.

                                 SHE HAS WITH HER AS WELL, MADAM SPEAKER, HER

                    DAUGHTER EMERALD (PHONETIC) MITCHELL AND HER SON-IN-LAW, SHAWN

                    MITCHELL.

                                 SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE WELCOME THESE AMAZING

                    CITIZENS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO OUR CHAMBERS TODAY AND OFFER

                    THEM THE CORDIALITIES OF THE FLOOR AND WELCOME THEM TO THE PEOPLE'S

                    HOUSE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON BEHALF OF

                    CRYSTAL PEOPLES-STOKES, OUR MAJORITY LEADER, MEMBER LUCAS, THE

                    SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU, OUR DISTINGUISHED

                    GUESTS, TO OUR ASSEMBLY CHAMBER AND EXTEND THE PRIVILEGES OF THE

                    FLOOR TO YOU.  HOPE YOU ENJOY OUR PROCEEDINGS TODAY.  THANK YOU SO

                    VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

                                 (APPLAUSE)

                                 PAGE 8, RULES REPORT NO. 255, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A08482, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 255, CRUZ, BRONSON, JACOBSON, SANTABARBARA.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE

                    WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING INSURANCE

                    CARRIERS AND EMPLOYERS FROM WITHHOLDING CERTAIN BENEFITS FROM INJURED

                    WORKERS BASED ON ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET.

                                         33



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  AN EXPLANATION HAS

                    BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MS. CRUZ.

                                 WE'RE ON DEBATE.  IF MEMBERS COULD KEEP THE NOISE

                    DOWN, PLEASE.

                                 MS. CRUZ.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY

                    CLAIMANT WHO IS CLASSIFIED BY THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD AS

                    HAVING A DISABILITY AND RECEIVES BENEFITS FOR SAID DISABILITY CANNOT HAVE

                    THOSE BENEFITS DENIED ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED

                    THEIR ONGOING ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MS. WALSH.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  WILL THE

                    SPONSOR YIELD?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU.

                                 OKAY.  SO LET'S JUST START AT THE BEGINNING, RIGHT?  SO

                    COULD YOU FIRST TALK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A LABOR

                    MARKET ATTACHMENT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  WELL, THERE'S CURRENTLY A REQUIREMENT FOR

                    CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO GO IN FRONT OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION

                                         34



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    BOARD AND ARE FILING A CLAIM TO BE ABLE TO ALSO DEMONSTRATE WHILE

                    THEY'RE RECEIVING BENEFITS THAT THEY HAVE GONE OUT AND CONTINUED TO

                    LOOK FOR WORK.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.  AND -- AND WHY-- WHY DO -- IS

                    THAT SOMETHING THAT'S ESTABLISHED IN STATUTE, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT

                    WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH CASE LAW?  WHERE'D THAT COME FROM?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR.  CAN YOU REPEAT

                    THAT?  AND -- AND MADAM SPEAKER, CAN WE --

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  COLLEAGUES, PLEASE.

                    WE'RE ON DEBATE.  WE NEED SOME QUIET.  PLEASE TAKE YOUR

                    CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE.  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

                                 MS. WALSH:  YES, OF COURSE.  WHAT I WAS ASKING

                    ABOUT WAS WHERE -- WHAT THE ORIGIN WAS OF THAT LABOR MARKET

                    ATTACHMENT REQUIREMENT THAT'S -- THAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE IN OUR CURRENT

                    LAW?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  MEANING IN -- IF IT'S IN STATUTE?

                                 MS. WALSH:  YEAH, IS IT IN STATUTE?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES, IT IS IN STATUTE.

                                 MS. WALSH:  I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT DEVELOPED DURING

                    CASE LAW OR DECISIONAL LAW.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THAT'S -- I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.  BUT I

                    KNOW THAT IT'S CURRENTLY IN STATUTE.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THERE WAS AN EVOLUTION OVER THE YEARS

                                         35



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WHERE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEEMED TO BE PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND THAT

                    WAS MAYBE, I WANT TO SAY 2017.

                                 MS. WALSH:  IT WAS.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THERE -- THERE'S NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT

                    FOR THOSE WHO ARE PERMANENTLY, FULL AND PARTIALLY DISABLED, BUT THE --

                    THE REQUIREMENT REMAINS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE -- WHO ARE NOT

                    PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR PARTIALLY.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.  SO -- AND THAT'S -- THAT'S EXACTLY

                    WHAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT NOW.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES.

                                 MS. WALSH:  SO IN 2017 THERE WAS A STATUTORY

                    CHANGE TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW THAT SAID THAT IF A CLAIMANT

                    IS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS AT THE TIME THE CLAIMANT IS FOUND TO BE

                    PERMANENTLY DISABLED, HE OR SHE NO LONGER NEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE

                    ONGOING ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET.  BUT IF YOU WERE PARTIALLY

                    DISABLED, THEN YOU -- YOU CONTINUE UNDER OUR CURRENT LAW TO BE -- TO

                    HAVE TO SHOW THIS LABOR MARKET ATTACHMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  IT'S ONLY FOR TEMPORARY PARTIAL.

                                 MS. WALSH:  TEMPORARY PARTIAL.  BUT THIS BILL

                    WOULD ELIMINATE THAT REQUIREMENT OF LABOR MARKET ATTACHMENT.  IN OTHER

                    WORDS, THAT PERSON WITH A TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY WOULD NOT NEED

                    TO SUBMIT FORMS OR SHOW AN ONGOING ATTEMPT TO -- TO WORK, EVEN WITHIN

                    THE LIMITATIONS THAT THEY ARE EXPERIENCING.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  SO THIS WOULD BE FOR A TEMPORARY PARTIAL

                    AND TEMPORARY FULL DISABILITY, AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE

                                         36



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    EXPERIENCING THAT THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD WOULD NO LONGER

                    REQUIRE THEM TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE CONTINUING TO LOOK FOR WORK IN

                    ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE CARRIER OF INSURANCE IS CONTINUING TO PAY THEIR

                    BENEFITS.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.  BUT IF -- SO UNDER OUR CURRENT

                    LAW, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THAT REQUIREMENT IS ON THE

                    CLAIMANT.  THE CLAIMANT HAS TO SUBMIT CERTAIN FORMS OUTLINING HIS OR

                    HER EFFORTS TO OBTAIN -- TO WORK, TO CONTINUE TO WORK, AND WHETHER THE

                    CLAIMANT ACTUALLY MAINTAINS SUFFICIENT ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET

                    TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED COMPENSATION BENEFITS IS A FACTUAL DETERMINATION

                    FOR THE BOARD, RIGHT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES.  THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A FORM, AND

                    THERE ARE -- THERE IS ENUMERATED LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD LOOKS

                    AT, INCLUDING IF THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT JOB SURGE, ACTIVE PARTICIPATION

                    OF VOCATIONAL AND REHABILITATION THROUGH ADULT AND CAREER CENTERS, OTHER

                    JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS, AND ATTENDANCE TO ACCREDITED EDUCATIONAL

                    INSTITUTION AND FULL-TIME PURSUE EMPLOYMENT.  WHICH, YOU KNOW, FOR

                    SOMEONE WHO IS NOT INJURED, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S AN ONEROUS

                    REQUEST.  BUT IF YOU ARE A PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO GO TO PHYSICAL

                    THERAPY WHO MAY HAVE AN INJURY THAT EVEN IF IT'S NOT PERMANENT, SHOULD

                    BE -- KEEPS YOU LIMITED FROM MOVEMENT AND KEEPS YOU LIMITED FROM

                    GOING OUT TO DO ALL THESE THINGS, THIS CAN BECOME AN ONEROUS

                    REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO RECEIVE NOT EVEN FULL PAYMENT OF YOUR WAGES.

                                 MS. WALSH:  RIGHT.  BUT WHY -- WHY WOULDN'T WE

                    WANT CLAIMANTS TO CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR WORK?  ARE YOU SAYING THAT -- IF

                                         37



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MERE ACT

                    OF GETTING ONLINE AND LOOKING FOR OTHER WORK OR MAKING CALLS OR

                    WHATEVER THEY WOULD NEED TO DO TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA WOULD STAND IN

                    THE WAY OF THEM HEALING FROM THEIR INJURIES OR SOMETHING.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  IT -- IT CAN.  IT CAN.  IT DEPENDS ON THE

                    SITUATION.  I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO MAKE SURE NOT

                    ONLY THAT THEY ARE GETTING THE PARTIAL BENEFIT THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY

                    BEEN DEEMED ENTITLED TO GET, BUT LOOK, IF THE EMPLOYER WANTS TO OFFER

                    THEM OTHER OPTIONS AND ACCOMMODATE THEIR INJURY DURING THAT TIME

                    WHICH WHERE THEY'RE NOT PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE EMPLOYER CAN

                    CERTAINLY DO THAT.  BUT WE SHOULDN'T -- WE SHOULDN'T REQUIRE THAT

                    SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN HURT AT WORK, ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED TO BE

                    HURT AT WORK, ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED TO BE ENTITLED TO THOSE BENEFITS,

                    TO HAVE TO NOW DO EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN AND IN THEIR POWER.

                    BECAUSE IF -- IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE, AGAIN, FOR

                    SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN INJURED, THEY CAN BE VERY ONEROUS.  AND WE

                    SHOULDN'T REQUIRE THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN GET THEIR

                    MEASLY COUPLE OF DOLLARS THAT THEY'RE GETTING RIGHT NOW, WHICH I THINK IT

                    SHOULD BE A LOT MORE BUT THAT'S NOT FOR THIS DEBATE.

                                 MS. WALSH:  YEAH.  I -- I DON'T KNOW IF AN

                    EMPLOYER WOULD AGREE THAT IT'S A MEASLY COUPLE OF DOLLARS.  I MEAN, IT --

                    IT'S -- IT'S BENEFITS.  I MEAN, WE KNOW, I THINK WE KNOW THAT NEW YORK

                    --

                                 MS. CRUZ:  WELL, I MEAN --

                                 (CROSS-TALK)

                                         38



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MS. WALSH:  -- HAS GOT THE SECOND-MOST --

                                 MS. CRUZ:  BUT FOR SOMEONE WHO'S --

                                 MS. WALSH:  I'M SO SORRY.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  NO, NO.  GO AHEAD.  I WAS GONNA SAY FOR

                    SOMEONE WHO'S GETTING PARTIAL, AND IT'S NOT EVEN FULL PARTIAL, IT'S PARTIAL

                    OF THE PARTIAL, THAT PERCENTAGE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN USED TO GETTING

                    A FULL SALARY, IT DOES FEEL LIKE A MEASLY COUPLE OF DOLLARS WHEN YOU'RE

                    TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET -- HOW TO GET CARE FOR -- FOR THEIR INJURY,

                    HOW TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILY, HOW TO PAY RENT.  IT BECOMES A

                    DECISION OF AM I GONNA GO TO CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR WORK EVEN THOUGH

                    I'M NOT PHYSICALLY READY TO AND I'M NOT HEALTHY ENOUGH TO DO IT, IN

                    ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT AN INSURANCE COMPANY, A CARRIER, IS CONTINUING

                    TO PAY.  AND -- AND SINCE YOU MENTIONED THE EMPLOYER, YOU KNOW, THE

                    EMPLOYER IS --  IS PAYING THE PREMIUM INTO AN INSURANCE COMPANY, INTO

                    A CARRIER WHO'S NOW THEN, IN TURN, PAYING THE WORKER, AGAIN, A VERY

                    PARTIAL AMOUNT OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE GETTING.

                                 MS. WALSH:  RIGHT.  BUT IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT LIKE THE --

                    THE INSURERS ARE ALSO CHARGING EMPLOYERS A CERTAIN CHARGE AND RATE AND

                    EXPERIENCE FOR THEIR (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) --

                                 MS. CRUZ:  OH, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE OFTEN INCREASING IT.

                    YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD FROM -- FROM ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENT WORKERS

                    THAT THERE'S BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL TURN

                    AROUND AND DENY THE CLAIMANT, AND THEN TURN AROUND AND INCREASE THE

                    AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE CHARGING THAT SAME EMPLOYER.  SO THERE -- IT'S

                    ALMOST LIKE A WIN-WIN FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PAYING THE WORKER

                                         39



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    AND THEY'RE GETTING MORE MONEY FROM THE EMPLOYER.

                                 MS. WALSH:  MM.  WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS:  SO

                    YOU -- YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT THESE ARE ONLY TEMPORARY PAYMENTS,

                    BUT HOW TEMPORARY ARE THEY?  CAN'T THEY GO ON FOR QUITE A WHILE WHILE

                    THE CASES ARE MOVING FORWARD?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  WELL, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE CAPPED AT TEN

                    YEARS, BUT IF THE PERSON BECOMES ABLE TO WORK BEFORE THOSE TEN YEARS,

                    WHICH WE CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THEY CAN, THEN -- APOLOGIES -- THEN THAT

                    PAYMENT WOULD STOP WHEN THEY'RE ABLE TO GO FULL-TIME BACK TO WORK.

                    AND IF DURING THAT TIME -- BECAUSE NOTHING IS ACTUALLY STOPPING THE

                    WORKER FROM -- FROM WORKING.  IF IN SPITE OF THE INJURY THEY ARE ABLE TO

                    FIND AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK THAT ACCOMMODATES THEIR TEMPORARY

                    DISABILITY, THEN THAT BENEFIT WOULD BE REDUCED FROM THAT POINT ON TO

                    ACTUALLY MATCH THE -- THE AMOUNT.

                                 MS. WALSH:  BUT IF -- IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT,

                    THEN UNDER THIS BILL THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO EVEN MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO

                    SEEK THAT KIND OF WORK THAT -- THAT WORKS WITHIN THE INJURIES OR

                    LIMITATIONS THAT THEY HAVE.  THEY COULD JUST SIT BACK FOR UP TO TEN YEARS

                    AND COLLECT A PARTIAL BENEFIT WHILE THEIR -- WHILE THEIR CASE IS ONGOING,

                    RIGHT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  I WOULD FRAME IT DIFFERENTLY.  I WOULD

                    FRAME IT AS --

                                 MS. WALSH:  YEAH.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  -- IF SOMEONE'S BEEN INJURED AT WORK AND

                    IT'S BEEN DETERMINED THAT THEY CAN GET THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF BENEFIT

                                         40



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    AND THEY GET BETTER BEFORE THE TEN YEARS, THEN THEY GET THE BENEFIT FOR

                    THAT DURATION OF TIME.  IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO LOOK FOR WORK, THEN WHAT

                    WE'RE SAYING WITH THIS BILL IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONDITION YOUR ABILITY

                    TO GET THE BENEFIT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED YOU'RE ENTITLED TO WITH

                    YOUR ABILITY TO LOOK FOR WORK.

                                 MS. WALSH:  WELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS VERY

                    MUCH.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. WALSH:  MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MS. WALSH:  SO AS I STARTED TO SAY A LITTLE BIT EARLIER,

                    THE -- WORKERS' COMPENSATION IS KIND OF INDIRECTLY PAID FOR BY

                    EMPLOYERS, BECAUSE EMPLOYERS ARE CHARGED BY INSURERS AND -- AND

                    THOSE COSTS ARE -- ARE INCREASING, YOU KNOW, EVERY DAY, EVERY YEAR.  IF

                    YOU ASK AN AVERAGE EMPLOYER IN NEW YORK THEY WILL SAY THAT THE COSTS

                    THAT THEY PAY ARE SUBSTANTIAL.  WE KNOW THAT NEW YORK STATE RANKS

                    ONLY SECOND BEHIND NEW JERSEY IN -- IN TERMS OF ITS WORKERS'

                    COMPENSATION COSTS.

                                 WE'VE -- WE'VE SPOKEN SO MANY TIMES IN THE CHAMBER

                    ABOUT THE UNFAVORABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE THAT WE HAVE IN THIS STATE.  WE

                    ARE THE LEAST BUSINESS-FRIENDLY STATE IN THE NATION.  WE HAVE THE HIGHEST

                    TAXES.  WE HAVE SOME OF THE HIGHEST INSURANCE COSTS THAT I THINK WHEN

                    WE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS BILL, I THINK -- I CAN UNDERSTAND IN SOME RESPECTS

                    WHY IN 2017 WE SAID THAT IF YOU HAD A PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY THAT

                    YOU NO LONGER NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE ONGOING ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR

                                         41



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    MARKET, BUT HERE NOW WE'RE EXTENDING IT EVEN FURTHER.  WE'RE SAYING

                    THAT IF YOU HAVE A TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY -- AND TEMPORARY, AS THE

                    SPONSOR NOTED, CAN GO ON FOR YEARS, FOR YEARS -- THAT DURING THAT TIME IT

                    SEEMS TO ME REASONABLE THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPECT A CLAIMANT TO

                    AT LEAST MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO SEEK WORK THAT THEY CAN PERFORM AND

                    THAT -- JUST AS WE DO WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED.  WE ASK PEOPLE

                    WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED TO MAKE A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO FIND OTHER WORK.

                    WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TO MAKE A REASONABLE

                    ATTEMPT TO BE DOING THINGS TO GET THEMSELVES OFF OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

                                 SO I THINK THAT THIS BILL REPRESENTS A DEPARTURE THAT WE

                    SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINING HERE AS -- AS A LEGISLATURE.  I THINK THAT IT IS

                    NOT UNREASONABLE TO ASK PEOPLE TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO FIND WORK THAT

                    THEY CAN DO, AND I -- YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A CONCERN RAISED BY THE

                    INDUSTRY THAT THIS COULD RESULT IN FRAUD, AND THIS COULD RESULT IN PEOPLE

                    -- I WOULD USE THE TERM MALINGERING -- PEOPLE MAY MALINGER BECAUSE

                    THEY'RE GETTING PAID REGARDLESS OF HOW HARD THEY'RE WORKING AT GETTING

                    BACK TO WORK.

                                 SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I AM OPPOSED TO THIS PIECE OF

                    LEGISLATION AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO ALSO VOTE NO ON

                    THIS.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. DURSO.

                                 MR. DURSO:  THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.  WOULD THE

                    SPONSOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES.

                                         42



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. DURSO:  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  THE SPONSOR

                    YIELDS.

                                 MR. DURSO:  JUST A COUPLE OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

                    THIS BILL IS -- IS REALLY ONLY IN EFFECT WHILE SOMEONE IS OUT ON

                    WORKMAN'S [SIC] COMP, CORRECT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THAT'S CORRECT.  AND -- AND IT'S TEMPORARY

                    WHILE THEY'RE OUT, YES.

                                 MR. DURSO:  OKAY.  SO TO RECEIVE WORKMAN'S [SIC]

                    COMP BENEFITS AN INJURY HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED, CORRECT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THAT IS CORRECT.

                                 MR. DURSO:  OKAY.  AND NOW WHILE THAT EMPLOYEE

                    IS RECEIVING THOSE BENEFITS THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING THROUGH A

                    COMPENSATION CASE, SEEING A DOCTOR, GOING THROUGH REHAB AT THAT TIME,

                    CORRECT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  MOST, YES.

                                 MR. DURSO:  MOST OF THE TIME.  OKAY.

                                 SO JUST FOR INSTANCE, I USED TO WORK IN SANITATION.  A

                    LOT OF PEOPLE GET HURT.  I'D HAVE A GUY GET HIS SHOULDER BEAT UP AND HE

                    WOULD END UP BEING DETERMINED THAT HE LOST 30 PERCENT OF THE USE OF

                    HIS SHOULDER, BUT YOU CAN NOW GO BACK TO WORK FULL DUTY BUT

                    UNDERSTANDING THAT 30 PERCENT OF THAT SHOULDER IS NOW DEAD.  ONCE THAT

                    DOCTOR HAS NOW ESTABLISHED SAYING YOU COULD GO BACK TO WORK

                    FULL-TIME, RIGHT, WITH NO RESTRICTIONS, DOES -- DO THEN THEY STILL QUALIFY

                    FOR THE WORKMAN'S [SIC] COMP BENEFITS THROUGH THIS BILL?

                                         43



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MS. CRUZ:  NO, AND I THINK THE KEY WORD HERE IS

                    "DETERMINED."  THERE HAS BEEN A DETERMINATION MADE AT -- AT A CERTAIN

                    POINT THAT THERE IS A NON-PERMANENT INJURY, AND WHEN THAT HAS HEALED

                    THERE IS ANOTHER DETERMINATION MADE THAT YOU'RE READY TO GO BACK TO

                    WORK EVEN AT 30 PERCENT.  OR, YOU KNOW, IT -- MAYBE IT IS A PERMANENT

                    INJURY, BUT THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF IN PRIOR LEGISLATION.  BUT UNDER

                    HERE, UNDER THE -- THE -- THE BILL THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, IT ONLY

                    IMPACTS THE ABILITY OF SOMEONE TO GET THE BENEFIT THEY'VE BEEN

                    DETERMINED TO QUALIFY FOR DURING THE TIME THAT THEY'VE BEEN DETERMINED

                    TO BE INJURED.

                                 MR. DURSO:  SO WHILE THEY'RE GETTING PT, WHILE

                    THEY'RE UNDER THE CARE OF A DOCTOR WAITING TO SEE IF THEY CAN RETURN TO

                    WORK, THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE RECEIVING THESE BENEFITS?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES.  THAT'S CORRECT.

                                 MR. DURSO:  SO UNDER THIS BILL, DOES AN EMPLOYEE

                    THEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE GOING BACK TO WORK ONCE THE DOCTOR HAS

                    SAID, YOU COULD RETURN TO WORK FULL DUTY?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THE -- THE BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE

                    CURRENT LEGAL REQUIREMENT.  YES, NO.

                                 MR. DURSO:  OKAY.  AND THEN ONCE THAT EMPLOYEE

                    DOES GO BACK TO WORK AT FULL DUTY OR A DOCTOR SAYS, YOU CAN NOW GO

                    BACK INTO THE WORK FIELD WITH WHATEVER THE DISABILITY IS PERCENTAGE

                    AMOUNT, DO THEN THE WORKMAN'S [SIC] COMP PAYMENTS STOP?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES.

                                 MR. DURSO:  OKAY.  THANK YOU, MS. CRUZ, I

                                         44



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    APPRECIATE IT.  THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  MS. CRUZ ON

                    THE BILL.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.  I JUST WANT TO

                    ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE SAID DURING THE DEBATE TO MAKE

                    SURE THAT WE ARE CLEAR ABOUT THE PICTURE THAT WE'RE PAINTING HERE ABOUT

                    WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS.

                                 THIS IS A TEMPORARY BENEFIT.  AS MY PRIOR COLLEAGUE

                    HIGHLIGHTED, ONCE A PERSON'S INJURY HAS BEEN HEALED, ONCE THEY'RE ABLE

                    TO GO BACK TO WORK, THEY HAVE A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO GO BACK TO WORK.

                    WE ARE IN NO WAY SAYING YOU CAN STAY ON THIS BENEFIT FOR THE REST OF

                    YOUR LIFE.  IF YOU ARE THEN NOW DETERMINED TO BE HEALED BECAUSE THERE

                    IS A LEGAL DETERMINATION BY DOCTORS, BY THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION

                    BOARD, THAT SOMEHOW YOU ARE NOW ABLE TO CONTINUE TO GET THE BENEFIT,

                    NO.  THE BENEFITS STOP, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO WORK.

                                 ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, AND -- AND ANECDOTALLY, IN

                    SPEAKING TO ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENT WORKERS AND IN SPEAKING EVEN TO

                    THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD FOLKS, THE MAJORITY OF CASES THAT END

                    UP IN LITIGATION IN FRONT OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD DEAL WITH

                    A DETERMINATION AROUND -- AROUND THE ISSUE OF MARKET ATTACHMENT.  AND

                    THIS WILL SAVE THOUSANDS AND IF -- IF NOT, EVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THE

                    WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD THAT SHOULD GO TO SERVING THE STATE IN

                    OTHER WAYS.  IT'S GOING TO SAVE MONEY EVEN TO EMPLOYERS BECAUSE

                    HOPEFULLY WE WON'T SEE CARRIERS ENGAGING IN THE BEHAVIOR THAT I

                                         45



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    HIGHLIGHTED EARLIER WHERE THEY DENY A WORKER THEIR COVERAGE AND TURN

                    AROUND AND RAISE THE RATES OF AN EMPLOYER.  IT'S -- I'VE HEARD IT SEVERAL

                    TIMES, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT ALSO IS SOMETHING THAT STOPS.

                                 AND LASTLY -- ACTUALLY, TWO MORE THINGS.  WHEN IT

                    COMES TO FRAUD, THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE CURRENT PROCEDURE THAT IF

                    EITHER AN EMPLOYER OR THE CARRIER SUSPECT THAT A WORKER IS ENGAGING IN

                    FRAUD BECAUSE THEY ARE ACTUALLY HEALTHY NOW AND CAN GO BACK TO WORK

                    AND ARE REFUSING TO DO SO OR FAKING THEIR INJURY OR WHATEVER IT IS, THE

                    IG'S OFFICE HAS A PROCESS BY WHERE YOU CAN REFER A CASE.  THE

                    INVESTIGATION IS DONE, A WORKER IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTING

                    FRAUD AND THEY HAVE TO PAY BACK THE MONEY.  THIS BILL DOESN'T CHANGE

                    THAT.  THAT PROCESS STILL CONTINUES.

                                 AND LASTLY, THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT AROUND OTHER TYPES

                    OF BENEFITS THAT -- THAT ARE AWARDED BY THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL

                    GOVERNMENT WHERE WE HAVE A WORK -- A -- A REQUIREMENT FOR THE PERSON

                    TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR WORK.  THERE'S BEEN STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT THOSE --

                    THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ACTUALLY DON'T WORK AND DON'T ENTICE PEOPLE TO

                    GO BACK TO WORK.  BUT IF ANYTHING, WE SHOULD BE MOVING AWAY FROM

                    THAT.  AND THIS ISN'T, LIKE, SOMEONE WHO IS UNEMPLOYED AND SHOULD BE

                    GOING TO LOOK FOR WORK.  THIS IS SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN DEEMED INJURED

                    EITHER PARTIALLY OR FULLY, BUT NOT PERMANENTLY.  AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE

                    SURE THAT WE ARE GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAL PROPERLY, TO

                    SURVIVE, BECAUSE THIS IS THE MONEY THAT THEY'RE GONNA USE TO PAY RENT

                    AND TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES.  AND -- AND LISTEN, NOTHING STOPS THE

                    EMPLOYER.  IF THE EMPLOYER IS IN A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN OFFER THE

                                         46



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WORKER SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT AND ACCOMMODATE THEIR INJURY, THEY

                    CAN DO THAT AS WELL.  BUT WE SHOULD NOT PUT THIS ON A WORKER WHO

                    SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON GOING TO PHYSICAL THERAPY, ON SEEING THE DOCTOR,

                    AND ON HEALING.

                                 AND WITH THAT, I'M GONNA BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

                    LATER AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES DO THE SAME.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  THANK YOU.

                                 READ THE LAST SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  A PARTY VOTE

                    HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MS. WALSH.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.  YES, THE

                    MINORITY CONFERENCE WILL GENERALLY BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS PIECE OF

                    LEGISLATION; HOWEVER, IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO VOTE IN THE

                    AFFIRMATIVE THEY MAY DO SO NOW AT THEIR SEATS.

                                 THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  MS. BICHOTTE

                    HERMELYN.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN:  THANK YOU, MR.

                    SPEAKER.  THIS IS A PARTY VOTE, AND THE MAJORITY WILL BE VOTING IN THE

                    AFFIRMATIVE.  THOSE WHO WISH TO VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE CAN DO SO AT THEIR

                    DESK.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                         47



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 MR. JACOBSON TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. JACOBSON:  THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, TO

                    EXPLAIN MY VOTE.

                                 I WAS A WORKERS' COMPENSATION JUDGE.  I ALSO

                    PRACTICED WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW FOR OVER 20 YEARS.  NEARLY ALL

                    OF MY CLIENTS WANTED TO GO BACK TO WORK.  THEY COULDN'T REALLY AFFORD

                    LIVING ON WHAT THEY WERE GETTING FROM WORKERS' COMP.  ONE OF THE

                    MAJOR DELAYS IN GETTING PEOPLE BACK TO WORK IS THE DENIAL OF TREATMENT.

                    AND THIS GOES AN ENDLESS PATH, AND -- AND YOU GET INTO A CYCLE WHERE

                    YOU WANT TO GET TREATED AND THEN THEY SAY NO.  YOU WANT TO GET

                    PHYSICAL THERAPY AND THEY SAY YOU HAD ENOUGH.  THEY'RE TRYING TO AVOID

                    SURGERY.  AND MOST OF THESE PEOPLE CAN'T DO THEIR REGULAR JOB AND THEY

                    HAVE TO GET RETRAINED.  AND THAT'S ANOTHER WAY THAT THEY TRY TO SAY --

                    AND EVEN THOUGH IF YOU'RE RETRAINING THAT CAN BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE

                    RULE.  IT'S DIFFICULT TO RETRAIN.  IT'S DIFFICULT THEN TO GET A NEW JOB IN YOUR

                    NEW OCCUPATION.

                                 SO I THINK THAT THIS -- THIS IS A GREAT BILL, AND I WOULD

                    URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  MR. JACOBSON

                    IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL HAS PASSED.

                                 PAGE 5, RULES REPORT NO. 151 -- 154, THE CLERK WILL

                                         48



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  SENATE NO. S00952-B, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 154, SENATOR KAVANAGH (A06423-A, LASHER, ROSENTHAL).  AN ACT

                    TO AMEND THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, IN RELATION TO THE LIABILITY OF A

                    GRANTEE OR ASSIGNEE FOR DEPOSITS MADE BY TENANTS UPON CONVEYANCE OF

                    RENT-STABILIZED DWELLING UNITS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  AN

                    EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MR. LASHER.

                                 MR. LASHER:  THANK YOU.

                                 THIS BILL WOULD EXTEND PROTECTIONS RELATED TO SECURITY

                    DEPOSITS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO MARKET RATE TENANTS UNDER THE 2019

                    HSTPA TO RENT-STABILIZED TENANTS.  IT WOULD HARMONIZE THOSE

                    PROTECTIONS.  THEY WERE HARMONIZED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF HSTPA

                    IN 2019.  THEY HAVE BEEN OUT OF HARMONY FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND THIS

                    WOULD REHARMONIZE THEM.

                                 MS. WALSH:  MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD

                    FOR SOME QUESTIONS, PLEASE?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  WILL THE

                    SPONSOR YIELD?

                                 MR. LASHER:  CERTAINLY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  THE SPONSOR

                    WILL YIELD.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  AND I

                    APOLOGIZE, I -- THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH NOISE IN THE CHAMBER, BUT I'M --

                                         49



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    I'M JUST NOT HEARING YOU SUPER WELL.  SO I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR

                    YOU JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THE BILL DOES.

                                 COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SPECIFICALLY UNDER THIS

                    BILL WHAT LANDLORDS ARE REQUIRED TO DO REGARDING THE SECURITY DEPOSIT?

                    LIKE, WHAT ARE THEY REQUIRED TO DO UNDER THIS BILL?

                                 MR. LASHER:  WELL, THAT'S THE ENTIRE -- THE ENTIRETY

                    OF THE BILL.  IT HAS A RANGE OF PROVISIONS.  IS THERE SOMETHING SPECIFIC

                    YOU'RE CURIOUS ABOUT?

                                 MS. WALSH:  NO, I WANTED YOU TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW

                    FOR OUR COLLEAGUES, PLEASE.

                                 MR. LASHER:  I -- I WOULD -- IN GENERAL, WHAT THE

                    BILL REQUIRES IS THAT LANDLORDS COLLECT NO MORE THAN ONE MONTH'S WORTH

                    OF SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RETURN IT TO TENANTS UNLESS THERE IS ITEMIZABLE

                    DAMAGE OR REPAIR NEEDED TO THE APARTMENT.  THAT IS SORT OF THE STANDARD

                    PRACTICE.  AGAIN, THIS IS THE -- THESE -- THIS IS WHAT HAS -- HAS BEEN

                    PRESENTLY AFFORDED TO MORE THAN A MILLION MARKET RATE TENANTS IN THE

                    CITY OF NEW YORK.  THIS WOULD APPLY THOSE PROTECTIONS TO A GROUP OF

                    TENANTS THAT IS TRADITIONALLY BETTER PROTECTED THAN MARKET RATE TENANTS,

                    RENT-STABILIZED TENANTS.

                                 MS. WALSH:  SO THIS BILL ONLY APPLIES TO NEW YORK

                    CITY, THEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

                                 MR. LASHER:  THIS BILL APPLIES TO RENT-STABILIZED

                    TENANTS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

                                 MS. WALSH:  IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.  OKAY.

                                 SO AS YOU SAID, BACK IN 2019, THE HOUSING STABILITY

                                         50



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 WAS PASSED, AND -- AND THAT'S THE

                    BILL THAT CONTAINED MIRROR PROVISIONS, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY, BECAUSE

                    YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HARMONY AND HARMONIZING THE TWO TYPES OF RENTAL

                    SITUATIONS.  ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS WERE MADE APPLICABLE TO LANDLORDS

                    OF NON-RENT-STABILIZED UNITS, CORRECT?

                                 MR. LASHER:  THAT'S CORRECT.

                                 MS. WALSH:  AND SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT

                    BASICALLY TAKES ALL THE THINGS FROM THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT

                    PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 AND IT -- IT APPLIES IT TO RENT-STABILIZED HOUSING

                    AS WELL IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK?

                                 MR. LASHER:  WELL, NOT ALL THE THINGS.  IT WOULD JUST

                    TAKE THOSE PROTECTIONS RELATED TO SECURITY DEPOSITS.  IT'S FAIRLY LIMITED.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.

                                 SO, AGAIN, AS YOU -- AS YOU SAID, THE -- AND IT IS A LONG

                    -- IT IS A LONG BILL.  WE -- WE DON'T NEED TO READ THE WHOLE THING OUT

                    LOUD.  BUT THE LANDLORD'S GOT TO PROVIDE AN ITEMIZED STATEMENT FOR ANY

                    PORTION OF THE DEPOSIT THAT'S BEING WITHHELD.  THE ENTIRE SECURITY

                    DEPOSIT MUST BE RETURNED UNLESS THERE ARE REASONABLE AND ITEMIZED

                    COSTS DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF RENT, DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY, NONPAYMENT

                    OF UTILITIES, OR MOVEMENT AND STORAGE OF THE TENANT'S BELONGINGS.

                    THERE'S A -- THERE ARE PROVISIONS INVOLVING INSPECTION OF THE CONDITION

                    OF THE PREMISES WITH THE LANDLORD BEFORE TAKING OCCUPANCY, AND I THINK

                    ALSO AT THE END.  AND THAT AFTER INSPECTION BEFORE THE TENANT MOVES IN,

                    THE TENANT AND THE LANDLORD HAVE TO EXECUTE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT

                    ATTESTING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH SPECIFICALLY NOTES ANY

                                         51



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    EXISTING DEFECTS OR DAMAGES PRIOR TO THE TENANT MOVING IN.  I MEAN, THAT

                    -- IT'S -- IT'S THAT -- IT'S THAT FLAVOR OF THINGS, RIGHT?

                                 MR. LASHER:  WELL, I THINK -- I THINK -- WITH

                    RESPECT, I THINK --

                                 MS. WALSH:  YEAH.

                                 MR. LASHER:  -- WE SHOULDN'T OVERSTATE WHAT'S --

                    WHAT'S HERE.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.

                                 MR. LASHER:  THE -- THE -- THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO

                    THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS, THAT'S IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE,

                    UPON EXIT THERE ARE DEDUCTIONS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITY DEPOSIT.

                    THIS MERELY GIVES THE TENANT SOME -- SOME ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE

                    NOT BEING CHARGED UNFAIRLY.  IT'S NOT -- I -- I THINK IT WOULD BE IN A VERY

                    SMALL PERCENTAGE OF CASES THAT -- THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD GET MADE

                    ON EITHER THE FRONT END OR THE BACK END.  AND AGAIN, I THINK IT'S JUST

                    REALLY IMPORTANT TO COME BACK TO THE FACT THAT FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW,

                    THESE PROTECTIONS HAVE APPLIED TO MORE THAN A MILLION MARKET RATE

                    TENANTS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.  I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, I HAVEN'T

                    HEARD BOO ABOUT IT.  AND I CAN'T IMAGINE APPLYING THEM TO A GROUP OF

                    TENANTS WHO IS [SIC] IN GENERAL FAR BETTER PROTECTED BY THE LAW, WOULD

                    CAUSE ANY PROBLEM AT ALL.

                                 MS. WALSH:  WELL, AND -- AND QUITE HONESTLY, AS A

                    REPRESENTATIVE FROM A SUBURBAN RURAL AREA OF UPSTATE NEW YORK, I -- I

                    WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY TO BE HEARING ABOUT ANY ISSUES IF THEY OCCURRED.

                                 MR. LASHER:  I'D BE -- I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW IF ANY

                                         52



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    OF YOUR COLLEAGUES WHO REPRESENT THE CITY OF NEW YORK HAVE HEARD

                    ISSUES WITHIN THEIR DISTRICTS RELATED TO FRICTION CAUSED BY THE SECURITY

                    DEPOSIT PROVISIONS OF THE 2019 LAW.  AGAIN, I HAVE A LOT OF

                    RENT-STABILIZED HOUSING IN MY DISTRICT AND A LOT OF MARKET RATE HOUSING

                    IN MY DISTRICT, AND THAT HAS NOT -- THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE 2019 LAW

                    IN THE AREA OF SECURITY DEPOSITS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COME TO MY DESK.

                    THESE ARE REASONABLE PROTECTIONS.  I THINK THEY'RE PROTECTIONS THAT ANY

                    OF US WHO RENT AN APARTMENT AND PUT DOWN A SECURITY DEPOSIT ARE SORT

                    OF CONSIDERED TO BE NORMAL AND EXPECTED, AND THIS SIMPLY PUTS THEM

                    INTO LAW.

                                 MS. WALSH:  VERY GOOD.

                                 SO IF THE LANDLORD GETS IT WRONG UNDER THIS BILL, THEY'RE

                    LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES UP TO TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT OR

                    ADVANCE, CORRECT?

                                 MR. LASHER:  IF YOU CAN JUST POINT ME TO THE LINE

                    YOU'RE LOOKING AT, PLEASE.

                                 MS. WALSH:  WELL... OH, MY GOD.  I DON'T KNOW THAT

                    I COULD.

                                 MR. LASHER:  I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY -- ANY

                    PART OF THE BILL YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS.

                                 MS. WALSH:  HOW ABOUT THE PART ABOUT PENALTIES TO

                    THE LANDLORD?  CAN YOU FIND THAT SECTION?

                                 MR. LASHER:  JUST POINT ME TO THE LINE.

                                 (PAUSE)

                                 MS. WALSH:  WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN.  THIS

                                         53



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    SEEMS TO BE HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY AN ATTORNEY.  THIS IS VERY LONG.

                                 MR. LASHER:  IT PROBABLY WAS JUST COPIED AND

                    PASTED FROM THE SECTION OF LAW THAT IT'S BEEN IN FOR THE LAST SEVERAL

                    YEARS.

                                 MS. WALSH:  I'M BETTING THAT THAT WAS WRITTEN BY AN

                    ATTORNEY, TOO, RIGHT?

                                 MR. LASHER:  I SHOULD HOPE SO.

                                 MS. WALSH:  YEAH.  ALL RIGHT.  WELL, I CAN'T -- I

                    CAN'T POINT YOU TO THAT.  BUT DO YOU HAPPEN TO INDEPENDENTLY KNOW,

                    WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE -- A LINE OF THE BILL WHETHER YOUR BILL CONTAINS

                    ANY KIND OF PENALTIES AGAINST A LANDLORD WHO DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE

                    BILL?

                                 MR. LASHER:  THERE -- THERE ARE PENALTIES FOR

                    WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.  AND WHERE IS THAT IN THE BILL?

                                 MR. LASHER:  ON LINE -- ON THE COPY THAT I HAVE IT

                    IS IN -- I'M LOOKING AT A PARAGRAPH 8.  IT IS ON LINE 47 OF MY PAGE 2.

                                 MS. WALSH:  YES, I SEE THAT.  THANK YOU.  OKAY.  SO

                    THERE'S PUNITIVE DAMAGES -- THERE YOU GO.  LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

                    OF UP TO TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT OR ADVANCE.  BUT YOU'RE --

                    YOU'RE CORRECT, IT DOES SAY ON LINE 48 THAT IT'S FOR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.

                    OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.  SO NOT SIMPLE MISTAKES THEN.  ALL RIGHT.  VERY GOOD.

                                 I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS --

                                 MR. LASHER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. WALSH:  -- MR. LASHER.

                                         54



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MS. WALSH:  SO, IF YOU LIKED THE PROVISIONS OF THE

                    2019 HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT, THEN THIS BILL WILL

                    NOT BOTHER YOU IN THE LEAST BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY TAKING THOSE PROVISIONS

                    RELATING TO SECURITY DEPOSITS AND APPLYING IT TO A LARGER GROUP OF NOW

                    RENT-STABILIZED HOUSING IN NEW YORK CITY.  IF YOU DIDN'T AND YOU FELT

                    THAT THOSE PROVISIONS WERE ONEROUS OR BURDENSOME OR COSTLY OR CREATED

                    A DISINCENTIVE FOR LANDLORDS IN NEW YORK CITY TO DO THE WORK THAT THEY

                    ARE DOING, THEN YOU PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO LIKE THIS EXPANSION OF IT.

                                 I WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF

                    LEGISLATION AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY KIND -- MY COLLEAGUES TO ALSO

                    VOTE NO.

                                 THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 30TH

                    DAY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  A PARTY VOTE

                    HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MS. WALSH.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.  THE

                    MINORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS PIECE OF

                    LEGISLATION.  YES VOTES MAY BE RECORDED AT THEIR SEATS NOW.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  MS. BICHOTTE

                                         55



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    HERMELYN.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN:  THANK YOU, MR.

                    SPEAKER.  YES, THIS IS A PARTY VOTE AND THE MAJORITY WILL BE VOTING IN

                    THE AFFIRMATIVE.  THOSE WHO WISH TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL CAN -- CAN DO

                    SO AT THEIR DESK.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  THE CLERK WILL

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL HAS PASSED.

                                 PAGE 6, RULES REPORT NO. 195, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A00182, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 195, CRUZ, STERN, BURDICK, SIMON, MCDONOUGH, WEPRIN, COLTON.

                    AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO HOMEOWNER NATURAL

                    DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, HOME SAFETY AND LOSS PREVENTION COURSES.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  MS. CRUZ, AN

                    EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT

                    OF FINANCIAL SERVICES TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR A PROPOSAL TO IMPLEMENT

                    THE HOMEOWNER NATURAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, HOME SAFETY AND LOSS

                    PREVENTION PROGRAM, AUTHORIZED IN THE 2016 BUDGET.

                                 MS. WALSH:  MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  SPONSOR, WILL

                    YOU YIELD?

                                         56



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER BURROUGHS:  THE SPONSOR

                    YIELDS.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

                                 SO COULD YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE -- THE

                    PROGRAM?  WAS IT ORIGINALLY STARTED IN 2016?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  IT WAS AUTHORIZED.

                                 MS. WALSH:  AUTHORIZED.  AND THEN WHAT HAS

                    HAPPENED WITH IT SINCE THAT TIME, NINE YEARS LATER?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  NOT MUCH.

                                 MS. WALSH:  NOT MUCH.  OKAY.  AND AGAIN, WHAT

                    WAS IT SUPPOSED TO DO?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  SO, THE PREPAREDNESS AND HOME AND

                    SAFETY AND LOSS PREVENTION PROGRAM [SIC] WOULD AUTHORIZE THE

                    SUPERINTENDENT TO PROVIDE FOR AND ALLOW INSURERS TO OFFER ACT -- ACT --

                    ACTUARIALLY-APPROPRIATE REDUCTIONS IN HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE FOR THREE

                    YEARS FOLLOWING A HOMEOWNER'S SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF A

                    HOMEOWNER NATURAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND [SIC] HOME SAFETY AND

                    LOSS PREVENTION COURSE.  SO BASICALLY, IT AUTHORIZES HIM TO CREATE A

                    PROGRAM THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES CAN THEN TURN AROUND AND PROVIDE TO

                    -- TO BUYERS, TO HOMEOWNERS.  AND IF THEY COMPLETE THE PROGRAM THEY

                    -- IT -- IT WOULD ENTAIL INFORMATION AND EDUCATION AROUND HOME AND

                    SAFETY PREVENTION, HOMEOWNER NATURAL DISASTERS AND LOSS PREVENTION.

                    THEY WOULD THEN GET A REDUCTION ON THEIR PREMIUM.

                                 MS. WALSH:  AND IS THERE ANY -- IS THERE ANY REASON

                                         57



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    -- LIKE, WHY HASN'T DFS EFFECTUATED THE PROGRAM AS WAS ORIGINALLY

                    INTENDED?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THAT'S A QUESTION FOR DFS.

                    UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T KNOW.  WE'VE ASKED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN

                    ANSWER.  IT'S WHY WE WANT TO, THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION, ASK THAT THEY

                    REQUEST FUNDING IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY GET THE WORK DONE.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.

                                 SO STARTING IN 2021 AND THEN '22, '23 AND LAST YEAR, THIS

                    BILL WAS -- OR, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENTLY NUMBERED, BUT THIS BILL HAD BEEN

                    INTRODUCED I GUESS MAYBE TO UNSTICK THE PROCESS OR MOVE THE PROCESS

                    FORWARD; IS THAT FAIR?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT.

                    IT -- AFTER THERE WERE SEVERAL NATURAL DISASTERS THROUGHOUT NEW YORK,

                    WE'VE STARTED THINKING ABOUT PROGRAMS THAT COULD HELP HOMEOWNERS IN

                    A SITUATION LIKE THAT, NOT ONLY TO GET THE EDUCATION OF HOW TO BE

                    PREPARED FOR -- FOR AN INSTANCE WHERE THERE'S A HURRICANE, BUT ALSO SAVE

                    MONEY AND THIS KIND OF HAD THE TWO.  AND IT WAS A PROGRAM THAT WAS

                    ALREADY CREATED, SO WE WEREN'T GOING TO ASK FOR THE CREATION OF THE

                    PROGRAM.  WE WERE JUST GOING TO ASK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AGENCY WAS

                    FOLLOWING THE STEPS THAT WE DICTATED ALMOST TEN YEARS AGO.

                                 MS. WALSH:  ABSOLUTELY.

                                 NOW, THERE ARE BUDGET HEARINGS THAT HAPPEN EACH

                    YEAR, AS WE KNOW, IN PREPARATION FOR THE BUDGET.  DO YOU HAPPEN TO

                    KNOW IF -- IF THE DFS'S FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM WAS BROUGHT

                    UP AT ANY BUDGET HEARINGS?  I MEAN, HAVE THEY OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION

                                         58



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    FOR WHY THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  I DON'T RECALL.  I DON'T RECALL.

                                 MS. WALSH:  YOU DON'T RECALL.  OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.

                                 SO SPECIFICALLY, THOUGH, THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE

                    DFS SUPERINTENDENT TO REVIEW EVERY SUCH COURSE THAT'S SUBMITTED TO

                    THE DFS FOR APPROVAL.  THE BILL ALSO DIRECTS THE DFS TO ISSUE AN RFP,

                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, FOR THE COURSES BY MARCH 1ST OF NEXT YEAR, 2026,

                    AND HAS DFS SUBMITTING A REQUEST FOR STATE FUNDING NEEDED TO MEET THE

                    REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BILL.

                                 SO QUESTIONS FOR YOU ARE -- AND I NOTE THAT THIS BILL IS A

                    LITTLE BIT SHORTER THAN THE PRECEDING DEBATE, SO I CAN ACTUALLY POINT YOU

                    TO PAGE 2, LINE 12 OF THE BILL, WHICH STATES THE DEPARTMENT, MEANING

                    DFS, I -- I'M ASSUMING, SHALL SUBMIT --

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YOU SAID PAGE 2, LINE 12?

                                 MS. WALSH:  PAGE 2, LINE 12, YUP.  THE DEPARTMENT

                    SHALL SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR STATE FUNDING IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE

                    PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YES.

                                 MS. WALSH:  NOW, WHO -- IT DOESN'T SAY WHO THE

                    DEPARTMENT IS SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT THEIR REQUEST TO.  CAN YOU CLARIFY

                    THAT, PLEASE?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YEAH.  I MEAN, THE CONSTITUTION'S PRETTY

                    CLEAR THAT THAT REQUEST DOESN'T COME TO THE LEGISLATURE, IT GOES TO THE

                    GOVERNOR.  SO WE DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO MENTION IT THERE.

                                 MS. WALSH:  AND -- AND YET, AND AS YOU AND I

                                         59



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER BEFORE DEBATE, THAT WAS PRECISELY THE ISSUE

                    THAT WAS RAISED LAST YEAR WHEN THE BILL WAS DEBATED; A CONCERN THAT THE

                    CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY ARTICLE VII, REQUIRES THAT ANY -- THAT THE

                    BUDGET IS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNOR AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT

                    THE LEGISLATURE -- THE LEGISLATURE CERTAINLY MAY HAVE INPUT, BUT

                    REQUESTS FOR -- REQUESTS LIKE THIS FROM DFS WOULD NOT COME TO US IN THE

                    LEGISLATURE.  SO I -- I JUST WANTED TO ESTABLISH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT

                    THAT -- ANY REQUEST IS GONNA BE FROM DFS TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THAT'S CORRECT.

                                 MS. WALSH:  OKAY.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

                    CLARIFYING THAT.  OKAY.

                                 LET ME JUST DOUBLE-CHECK IF THERE'S -- IF I HAVE ANY

                    OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU.  YEAH, SO MY -- AS -- AS YOU STATED, THE -- THE

                    PROGRAM REALLY HASN'T GOTTEN TOO FAR SINCE 2016.  MY NOTES INDICATE THAT

                    SINCE THE PROGRAM WAS ENACTED, DFS HAS NOT PROMULGATED ANY

                    STANDARDS OR GUIDELINES FOR THE COURSES OR THEIR -- THEIR REVIEW OF, YOU

                    KNOW, WHAT THEY NEED TO CONTAIN; IS THAT CORRECT?

                                 MS. CRUZ:  YEAH, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.

                    AND IT'S -- IT'S PRETTY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THIS IS A KIND OF ENDEAVOR THAT

                    WOULD NOT ONLY EDUCATE CONSUMERS/HOMEOWNERS ON HOW TO BE

                    PREPARED FOR ANY OF THOSE SITUATIONS, BUT IT WOULD ALSO SAVE THEM

                    MONEY.  SO I WOULD THINK THAT OUR STATE AGENCY WOULD PRIORITIZE THAT,

                    BUT HERE WE ARE ALMOST TEN YEARS LATER.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

                                 MS. CRUZ:  THANK YOU.

                                         60



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MS. WALSH:  MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MS. WALSH:  I THINK ALL OF US SEE THE VALUE OF

                    HAVING HOMEOWNER NATURAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS.  I DON'T THINK -- I

                    THINK ALL OF US AND -- AND OUR DISTRICTS ANYWHERE AROUND THE STATE HAVE

                    EXPERIENCED THESE TYPES OF WEATHER EVENTS, NATURAL DISASTERS, AND BEING

                    PREPARED IS A GOOD IDEA.  AND SO I THINK THAT THE -- THE UNDERLYING

                    REASONS FOR CREATING THIS PROGRAM BACK IN 2016 WERE GOOD ONES.  AND I

                    THINK THAT THIS -- TO ME, THIS BILL RAISES A LARGER ISSUE THAT WE EXPERIENCE

                    SOMETIMES AS LEGISLATORS WHERE WE HAVE DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY AND

                    TASKS TO STATE AGENCIES TO DO THINGS THAT WE BELIEVE ARE IMPORTANT, AND

                    THEN SOMETIMES, AS IS APPARENTLY THE CASE HERE, NOTHING HAPPENS.

                    NOTHING HAPPENS TO EFFECTUATE THESE -- THESE PROGRAMS.  AND SO WHEN

                    WE DELEGATE AND WE DON'T GET THE RESULT THAT WE NEED THAT WE BELIEVE

                    THAT THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK STATE NEED, I CAN APPRECIATE THAT THE

                    SPONSOR BELIEVES THAT WE -- WE NEED TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION TO ENSURE

                    THAT A PRIORITY THAT WE HAD ESTABLISHED THROUGH LEGISLATION IS ACTUALLY

                    CARRIED FORWARD.

                                 I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WHEN THIS BILL WAS

                    DEBATED THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED REGARDING

                    CONSTITUTIONALITY, AND SPECIFICALLY ARTICLE VII.  I DO BELIEVE THAT THE

                    SPONSOR HAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED AND CLARIFIED FOR THE RECORD THAT

                    REQUESTS FOR BUDGET -- BUDGET REQUESTS COMING FROM DFS WILL BE

                    DIRECTED, AS THEY SHOULD, TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR INCLUSION IN NEXT

                    YEAR'S BUDGET.  AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA COME BACK HERE

                                         61



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    FOR US TO WEIGH IN ON OR TO -- TO VOTE AGAIN ON OR TO APPROVE.  THAT'S NOT

                    THIS LEGISLATURE'S ROLE.

                                 SO I THINK WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, ALTHOUGH WE HAD A

                    SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE LAST YEAR -- IT WAS A VOTE OF

                    107 TO 40 -- I DO BELIEVE THAT WITH THE SPONSOR'S CLARIFICATION ON THE

                    RECORD AS TO WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION IS THAT THIS MAY BE

                    SOMETHING THAT -- THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT.  I WILL BE SUPPORTING

                    IT.  AND ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE A MIX OF VOTES, I DO THINK THAT THE

                    SPONSOR'S ANSWERS HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL, AND THAT IS, AFTER ALL, THE

                    PURPOSE OF DEBATE.

                                 SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 READ THE LAST SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  A PARTY VOTE HAS

                    BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MS. WALSH.

                                 MS. WALSH:  AND THAT MAY SURPRISE SOME OF YOU

                    BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST SAID.  BUT I THINK THAT BASED ON LAST YEAR'S VOTE,

                    IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF A -- A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD DO A FAST OR

                    A PARTY VOTE.  I WOULD SAY THAT THE MINORITY CONFERENCE WILL START FROM

                    THE POSITION BASED ON LAST YEAR'S VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.  BUT IF THERE ARE

                    MEMBERS THAT WISH TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME

                    TO DO SO AT YOUR SEATS.

                                 THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                         62



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN:  YEAH, THANK YOU,

                    MADAM SPEAKER.  ON OUR SIDE THIS IS A PARTY VOTE.  THE MAJORITY WILL

                    BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND THOSE WHO WISH TO VOTE NO CAN -- CAN

                    DO SO AT THEIR DESK.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 PAGE 6, RULES REPORT NO. 202, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A01248-B, RULES

                    REPORT NO. 202, TAPIA, ZACCARO, ALVAREZ, LAVINE, DE LOS SANTOS,

                    SIMONE, FORREST, SHIMSKY, LUCAS, CUNNINGHAM, CRUZ, SIMON, SAYEGH,

                    EPSTEIN, BICHOTTE HERMELYN, BORES, K. BROWN, CHANG, GIGLIO,

                    PIROZZOLO, DESTEFANO, PHEFFER AMATO, WEPRIN, SANTABARBARA.  AN ACT

                    TO AMEND THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING THE SALE

                    OF XYLAZINE ABOVE A CERTAIN WEIGHT.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  AN EXPLANATION HAS

                    BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MS. TAPIA.

                                 MS. TAPIA:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 THIS BILL WILL PROHIBIT THE LARGE-SCALE SALE OF XYLAZINE

                                         63



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WITHOUT DOCUMENTED PROOF OF SCIENTIFIC OR VETERINARY PURPOSES.

                    XYLAZINE IS NOT A NEW SUBSTANCE, BUT IT'S MISUSED AND ESCALATING -- AND

                    ESCALATING FAST.  IT'S SHOWING UP IN OVER A QUARTER OF THE FENTANYL

                    SAMPLES TESTED IN NEW YORK CITY.  AND ACCORDING TO DATA, MORE THAN --

                    MORE THAN -- MORE -- FROM THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND

                    PREVENTION, THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DRUG POISONING DEATHS IN THE

                    UNITED STATES INVOLVING XYLAZINE GREW FROM 260 IN 2018 TO 3,480 IN

                    2021, AN INCREASE OF 1,238 PERCENT.  WHEN MIXED WITH THE DRUG

                    SUPPLY, XYLAZINE CAN CAUSE SEDATION, UNCONSCIOUSNESS, SKIN -- SKIN

                    WOUNDS, AND EVEN DEATH.  NALOXONE -- NAL -- NAL -- NALOXONE DOESN'T

                    REVERSE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN OPIOID.  THERE IS NO KNOWN ANECDOTE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MR. TAGUE.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  WOULD

                    THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS, PLEASE?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                 MS. TAPIA:  YES, I YIELD.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  THANK YOU, ASSEMBLYWOMAN TAPIA.

                    JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS.

                                 I ACTUALLY SUPPORT THIS BILL, BUT THERE ARE SOME

                    CONCERNS.  OUR VETERINARIANS AND OUR FARMERS HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND

                    THERE'S JUST SOME ANSWERS THAT WE NEED TO A COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE.  BUT

                    WHAT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTATION FOR PROOF OF AGE AND PROOF OF

                    USE?

                                         64



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MS. TAPIA:  IT SHOULD BE -- IT SHOULD -- IT SHOULD

                    COME FROM A VETERINARIAN PROFESSIONAL.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

                                 MADAM SPEAKER, THERE'S SOME NOISE BEHIND.  I'M

                    HAVING TROUBLE HEARING.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  COLLEAGUES, IF WE

                    COULD KEEP IT DOWN, PLEASE.  I APPRECIATE IT.  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. TAPIA:  IT -- IT HAD TO COME -- THE (INDISCERNIBLE)

                    RECOMMENDATION HAS TO COME FROM A VETERINARIAN PROFESSIONAL

                    (INDISCERNIBLE) BECAUSE, I MEAN, THAT IS A -- A DRUG.  THAT IS

                    VETERINARIAN [SIC] DRUG.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  WELL, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT MY CONCERN

                    HERE IS, IS THAT VETERINARIANS USE THIS -- THIS DRUG.  AND I THINK THOSE

                    AND SOME DIFFERENT TYPES OF FARMERS, HORSE FARMERS, CATTLE FARMERS,

                    DAIRY FARMERS, THEY KEEP SOME OF THIS, YOU KNOW, IN STOCK ON THE FARM

                    FOR EMERGENCY USE.  AND THEY -- I THINK THEIR CONCERN IS IS WHAT -- YOU

                    KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IN TROUBLE, THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT

                    THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW.  BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS HOW, YOU

                    KNOW, WHAT -- WHAT ARE THEY GONNA USE FOR DOCUMENTATION OF THE USAGE

                    OF IT, HOW MUCH THEY ADMINISTERED, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MS. TAPIA:  THEY HAVE TO -- THE -- THE PEOPLE THAT

                    ARE GONNA USE OR BUY THE XYLAZINE HAVE TO PROVE WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BE

                    USED FOR.  THEY HAVE TO BE USED FOR VETERINARIAN USES.

                                         65



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. TAGUE:  OKAY.

                                 AND THEN NEXT, HOW SHOULD THE RECORDS OF THE

                    PURCHASES AND SALES TRACKS -- TRANSACTIONS BE KEPT OR REPORTED?  HOW --

                    HOW WOULD THEY DO THAT?

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MS. TAPIA:  OKAY.  THE VETERINARIAN THAT'S SELLING

                    THE DRUGS HAVE [SIC] TO KEEP TRACK OF IT AND HAVE TO KEEP A BOOK.  I

                    MEAN, MAKING SURE EVERYBODY THAT BUYS SOMETHING (INDISCERNIBLE).

                                 MR. TAGUE:  AND DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THIS LAW

                    IS GONNA REQUIRE THEM TO KEEP THOSE RECORDS FOR?

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MS. TAPIA:  IT'S NOT -- THAT IS NOT IN THE BILL.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  IT'S NOT IN THE BILL?

                                 MS. TAPIA:  NO.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  OKAY.

                                 AND THEN LASTLY, I GUESS, I SEE THAT THERE'S A LIMIT ON

                    THE AMOUNT -- WHO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP A LIMITED

                    AMOUNT OF THIS?  IS THERE A CERTAIN GROUP OF PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE

                    ALLOWED TO KEEP A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THIS ON HAND?  I THINK IT WAS 50

                    MILLILITERS; AM I CORRECT, OR...

                                 MS. TAPIA:  THEY'RE -- THEY'RE -- THEY SHOULD BE

                    PROFESSIONAL TO HAVE TO -- HAVE IT.  I MEAN, THE MAX THAT THEY COULD --

                    THEY COULD -- THEY COULD BUY IS 50 GRAMS, YEP.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  OKAY.  SO IS THIS FOR SOMEBODY THAT'S

                    -- DOES SOMEBODY HAVE TO BE LICENSED IN THE MEDICAL FIELD?

                                         66



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MS. TAPIA:  A VETERINARIAN WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A

                    LICENSE, YES.

                                 MR. TAGUE:  OKAY.

                                 WELL, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME ON THIS.  LIKE I

                    SAID, I AM GONNA SUPPORT THE BILL.  I WOULD JUST ASK MAYBE AS THE BILL

                    MOVES FORWARD TO MAYBE TIGHTEN UP SOME OF THOSE AREAS THAT WE

                    DISCUSSED SO EVERYBODY'S EXACTLY AWARE.  LIKE I SAID, MANY OF OUR

                    LARGE ANIMAL FARMERS KEEP A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THIS IN STOCK RIGHT ON

                    THE FARM IN CASE OF EMERGENCY.  THERE'S A CONCERN, YOU KNOW, HOW

                    MUCH THEY CAN ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.  AND

                    THEN I THINK OUR VETERINARIANS ARE ALSO CONCERNED BECAUSE ESPECIALLY IN

                    RURAL UPSTATE NEW YORK, MANY -- YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR VETERINARIANS

                    COVER HUNDREDS OF MILES OF LARGE ANIMALS, AND I THINK THEY ALSO WANT TO

                    MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE.  THEY DON'T WANT TO BE DRIVING

                    DOWN THE ROAD AND HAVE TOO MUCH OF IT IN THE VEHICLE AND GET PULLED

                    OVER AND THEN HAVE AN ISSUE.

                                 SO LIKE I SAID, IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN ANSWER SOME OF

                    THOSE QUESTIONS AS THE BILL MOVES ON, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, MADAM

                    SPEAKER, I'M -- I'LL BE VOTING IN THE POSITIVE ON THIS BILL.  THANK YOU --

                    THANK YOU AGAIN, ASSEMBLYWOMAN.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 READ THE LAST SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 90TH

                    DAY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE CLERK WILL

                                         67



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                 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, MADAM

                    SPEAKER.  IF WE COULD NOW CONTINUE OUR -- FROM OUR DEBATE CALENDAR.

                    WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT TO RULES REPORT NO. 203, IT'S ON PAGE 6.  AND

                    THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO RULES REPORT NO. 207, IT'S ON PAGE 7.  FOLLOWED

                    BY CALENDAR NO. 124, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ON PAGE 16.

                                 THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 PAGE 6, RULES REPORT NO. 203, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A01450, RULES REPORT

                    NO. 203, DINOWITZ, WEPRIN, EPSTEIN, TAPIS.  AN ACT TO AMEND THE

                    INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO RESTRICTING INSURERS FROM DEMANDING

                    INTRUSIVE PERSONAL, FINANCIAL AND TAX INFORMATION FROM INSUREDS AS A

                    STANDARD PRACTICE IN PROCESSING ORDINARY THEFT CLAIMS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  AN EXPLANATION HAS

                    BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MR. DINOWITZ.

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  THIS BILL WOULD ESTABLISH THAT IT

                    SHALL BE AN UNFAIR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT PRACTICE FOR AN INSURER TO DEMAND

                    PERSONAL, FINANCIAL AND TAX INFORMATION WHILE INVESTIGATING A THEFT

                                         68



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    CLAIM.  HOWEVER, IT ALLOWS FOR INSURERS TO REQUEST PERSONAL, FINANCIAL

                    AND TAX INFORMATION IF SPECIAL ARTICULABLE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH

                    DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL FACTS OF SUCH THEFT, AND

                    WHICH WARRANT THE MAKING OF SUCH A DEMAND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE

                    OF DETERMINING IF THE CLAIM IS FRAUDULENT.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MR. GANDOLFO.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                    WOULD THE SPONSOR PLEASE YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  YES, I WILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  THANK YOU.

                                 SO FIRST THINGS FIRST, THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY WHEN

                    PROCESSING THEFT CLAIMS?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  YES.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  OKAY.  AND IN THE TITLE OF THE BILL

                    IT CALLS -- IT HOLDS THAT DEMANDING THIS PERSONAL INFORMATION IS

                    INTRUSIVE.  WHY WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED INTRUSIVE IN YOUR VIEW?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  IF THE PERSONAL INFORMATION THAT

                    THEY'RE ASKING FOR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL CLAIM, THEN IT

                    WOULD BE INTRUSIVE.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  OKAY.  SO IT PROHIBITS THE

                    DEMAND OF THIS PERSONAL INFORMATION THAT'S OUTLINED HERE UNLESS THERE

                    ARE SPECIAL ARTICULABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WHAT WOULD BE A SPECIAL

                                         69



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    ARTICULABLE CIRCUMSTANCE?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  THEY -- THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW

                    THAT -- THAT THERE'S A STRONG POSSIBILITY OF FRAUD.  THEY JUST -- THEY CAN'T

                    SIMPLY SAY, OH, WE THINK THERE MAY BE FRAUD.  THAT CAN'T BE THE DEFAULT

                    THAT EVERY TIME THERE'S A CLAIM, WHICH I'M SURE MANY INSURERS DO,

                    THEY'RE GONNA WANT TO CLAIM FRAUD SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY UP.

                    THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY, AND IN

                    THAT CASE THEN THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF ONE TYPE OR ANOTHER MAY BE

                    RELEVANT.  BUT OTHERWISE, IT'S NOT RELEVANT.  IT'S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS,

                    SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE LISTED IN THERE, UNDER -- UNDER ORDINARY

                    CIRCUMSTANCES.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  OKAY.  BUT WHAT WOULD RAISE A

                    ACCEPTABLE RED FLAG THAT THEY MIGHT BE DEALING WITH AN INSTANCE OF

                    FRAUD?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  CURRENTLY, THE REGULATIONS -- I'LL --

                    I'LL GIVE YOU -- THE CURRENT REGULATIONS SAY THAT AN INSURER SHALL FURNISH

                    TO EVERY CLAIMANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE NOTIFICATION OF ALL ITEMS,

                    STATEMENTS AND FORMS WHICH THE INSURER REASONABLY BELIEVES WILL BE

                    REQUIRED OF THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 15 DAYS.  BUT WHAT THIS DOES IS IT

                    CLARIFIES THAT THAT'S -- THAT CERTAIN INFORMATION COULD ONLY BE ASKED FOR

                    IF -- IF THEY CAN SHOW THAT THERE'S A POTENTIAL OF FRAUD.  NOW YOU'RE

                    ASKING ME SPECIFICALLY, LIKE WHAT WOULD THAT BE.  I THINK WE -- I THINK

                    YOU KNOW WHEN YOU SEE IT.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  OKAY.  AND THERE -- THERE

                    CURRENTLY ARE DFS REGULATIONS THAT DEAL WITH THIS EXACT ISSUE?

                                         70



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  THERE ARE REGULATIONS, BUT IT'S NOT,

                    IN MY OPINION, SPECIFIC OR STRONG ENOUGH.  BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED

                    EARLIER, ANY TIME THERE'S A CLAIM, THE -- THE INSURANCE COMPANY CAN SAY,

                    OH, WE'RE NOT PAYING, IT'S -- IT'S FRAUD.  IT'S KIND OF LIKE ANY TIME THERE'S

                    A MEDICAL CLAIM IT'S TURNED DOWN.  THAT'S THE DEFAULT POSITION ALL TOO

                    OFTEN OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.  THEY'RE NOT PAYING.  BUT, IN FACT, THEY

                    SHOULD PAY ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY IF IT'S WARRANTED.  NOW,

                    WHEN THEY'RE INVESTIGATING, THEY SHOULD CERTAINLY INVESTIGATE THE

                    SPECIFICS OF WHAT HAPPENED, BUT TO ASK FOR INFORMATION LIKE, YOU KNOW,

                    WHERE -- WHERE WE LAST REGISTERED TO VOTE, I MEAN, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF

                    STUFF THAT ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO -- TO A CLAIM THAT THEY JUST HAVE NO

                    BUSINESS ASKING FOR AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ASK FOR IT.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  RIGHT.  BUT SAY YOU -- IF THEY

                    DETECT A PATTERN THAT MAY BE FROM, YOU KNOW, A JOB SITE, THEIR KEY --

                    CLAIMS BE -- ARE -- ARE CONTINUALLY SUBMITTED FOR MATERIALS BEING STOLEN.

                    WOULDN'T IT BE PERTINENT TO MAYBE LOOK INTO THE CLAIMANT'S BANK

                    ACCOUNT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT MORE SUMS OF MONEY BEING

                    DEPOSITED?  MAYBE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF INSINUATING A -- SOME KIND OF

                    FRAUDULENT MATERIAL THEFT RING?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  THE INSURER -- THE INSURERS ARE STILL

                    FREE TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL FRAUD TO COLLECT ANY PERTINENT INFORMATION.

                    BUT WHAT THE BILL DOES IS SIMPLY ELIMINATE EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION.

                    THEY COULD STILL INVESTIGATE.  IN FACT, IN MANY CASES THEY SHOULD

                    INVESTIGATE IF CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  OKAY.  SO THEY CAN INVESTIGATE,

                                         71



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    THEY JUST CAN'T GET ANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO AID IN THEIR

                    INVESTIGATION?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  WELL, THE BILL USES THE WORD

                    "ARTICULABLE CIRCUMSTANCES."  THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO -- BE ABLE TO SAY

                    A REASON WHY THEY NEED THIS INFORMATION OTHER THAN, WELL, MAYBE

                    THERE'S FRAUD.  THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  THEY -- THEY WOULD --

                    SOMETHING -- NEED SOMETHING MORE THAN THAT.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  WELL, HOW OFTEN ARE THEY JUST

                    SAYING, WELL, MAYBE THERE'S FRAUD AND OPENING UP EVERYONE'S BOOKS?  I

                    -- I WOULD IMAGINE CONSIDERING HOW MUCH FRAUD COSTS EVERY

                    POLICYHOLDER, THERE'S AN INTEREST FOR EVERYBODY FOR -- TO ALLOW INSURANCE

                    COMPANIES TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS DATA TO ROOT OUT FRAUD.

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS THERE

                    TO BE FRAUD.  WE CERTAINLY WANT TO WEED OUT FRAUD.  BUT THERE'S NO

                    REASON OR NO BASIS TO ASSUME THAT THERE IS FRAUD JUST BECAUSE

                    SOMEBODY'S MAKING A CLAIM.  YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, I -- I IMAGINE WE ALL

                    HAVE ONE KIND OF INSURANCE OR ANOTHER AND WE PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR

                    IT.  AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WHEN THE TIME COMES THAT WE MAKE A

                    CLAIM THAT WE ARE NOT THE ONES BEING INVESTIGATED.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  OKAY.  SO THE -- NOW IF -- MAYBE

                    I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION

                    HERE.  IF THERE WAS A, LET'S SAY, A ZIP CODE THAT HAD A PATTERN OF CAR PARTS

                    BEING STOLEN AND THEY WERE TRYING TO PIECE TOGETHER SOME KIND OF, YOU

                    KNOW, FRAUD RING THAT'S CONNECTED.  THEY COULDN'T JUST GO IN AND GET

                    SOME OF THIS INFORMATION?  IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ADDING JUST ANOTHER HURDLE

                                         72



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    THAT WOULD MAKE IT NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY GET SOME OF THESE

                    DETAILS THAT COULD UNCOVER MAJOR ACTS OF FRAUD.

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  WELL, I'M -- I'M NOT SURE HOW

                    SOMEBODY'S BUSINESS TAX RETURN -- I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE -- THE LAUNDRY

                    LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ASK FOR.  HOW SOMEBODY'S

                    BUSINESS TAX RETURNS, HOW -- THE PERMITS OR LICENSES WHICH PEOPLE HOLD,

                    VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION, JUST TO NAME A FEW.  HOW ANY OF THAT IS

                    POSSIBLY RELEVANT TO THAT.  AND IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATING CERTAIN ZIP

                    CODES, WELL, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT LEADS TO.  AND AS A PERSON WHO

                    LIVES IN THE BRONX, I DON'T LIKE, YOU KNOW, REDLINING AND THINGS LIKE

                    THAT.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  WELL, I DON'T MEAN ZIP CODES IN

                    TERMS OF GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS.  IF THERE ARE REPORT -- IF AN INSURANCE

                    COMPANY IS GETTING MULTIPLE CLAIMS WITHIN A SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREA,

                    WOULDN'T IT BE PRUDENT TO MAYBE LOOK INTO THE FACT THAT THIS COULD BE AN

                    ORGANIZED FRAUD RING?  WE HAD THE ISSUES OF CATALYTIC CONVERTERS A FEW

                    YEARS AGO BEING STOLEN ALL OVER THE PLACE.

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  WELL, I CAN TELL YOU AS A PERSON

                    WHOSE CATALYTIC CONVERTER WAS STOLEN, I DON'T THINK THAT IF -- IF THE

                    INSURANCE COMPANY WANTED TO INVESTIGATE THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE MY,

                    YOU KNOW, VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION OR MY PERSON -- OR MY -- MY

                    FINANCIAL RECORDS OR STUFF LIKE THAT.  WHY WOULD THEY NEED THAT?

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  SO WHAT IF THERE'S A SUSPECTED

                    FRAUD RING?  WOULDN'T DEPOSITS INTO A BANK ACCOUNT BE PERTINENT

                    INFORMATION TO AN INVESTIGATION?

                                         73



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  IF -- IF THERE WAS A FRAUD RING, ODDS

                    ARE IT'S THE -- THE -- THOSE WHO ARE CAUSING SUCH FRAUD ARE NOT THE

                    PEOPLE WHOSE CATALYTIC CONVERTERS ARE STOLEN.  IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT

                    THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WHO'S, YOU KNOW, LEADING A -- A CAR THEFT

                    RING OR A CATALYTIC CONVERTER THEFT RING.  BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY

                    HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE INDIVIDUAL VICTIMS.  YOU KNOW, WHEN

                    SOMEBODY IS PUTTING IN A CLAIM FOR -- THAT SOME -- SOMETHING OF THEIRS

                    WAS STOLEN, THEY'RE THE -- THEY'RE A VICTIM.  AND THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO

                    BE VICTIMIZED AGAIN BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY THAT DOESN'T WANT TO PAY

                    THE POLICY TO WHICH THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PAY IF CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT.

                    SO WE DON'T NEED TO VICTIMIZE THE PERSON A SECOND TIME.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  SO EVEN -- LET'S SAY EVEN PUTTING

                    ASIDE ANY AUTOMOBILE-RELATED THEFTS, WHAT ABOUT EVEN JEWELRY

                    INSURANCE?  SOMEONE HAS A RING INSURED, MAYBE THEY GO AND SELL IT,

                    CLAIM THAT IT WAS LOST.  THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD BE UNABLE TO

                    REALLY GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT IF IT LOOKED SUSPICIOUS?  THEY COULDN'T

                    LOOK FOR A DEPOSIT IN --

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  I -- I WOULDN'T SAY THAT.  AND I'M

                    NOT SURE OF HOW GETTING SOME OF THE INFORMATION -- THAT'S LISTED IN THE

                    BILL, COPIES OF THE INSURED'S PERSONAL AND BUSINESS TAX RETURNS, PERMITS

                    OR LICENSES OTHER THAN DRIVER'S LICENSE, LOAN APPLICATIONS WHICH THE

                    INSURED FILED.  STATEMENTS SETTING FORTH COUNTY AND STATE IN WHICH THE

                    INSURED HAS BEEN REGISTERED TO VOTE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME OTHER THAN

                    FROM THEIR PRESENT RESIDENCE.  IT'S JUST ABSURD.  THE -- THE THINGS THAT

                    ARE LISTED HERE, IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS IN MOST CASES FOR A PERSON TO

                                         74



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  RIGHT.  BUT NOT EVERY BIT OF

                    INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE APPLICABLE TO EVERY SINGLE SITUATION.  BUT IN

                    CERTAIN INSTANCES I'M SURE A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION MIGHT BE VALUABLE IN

                    THE COURSE OF AN INVESTIGATION.

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  WELL, IT CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.  I

                    MEAN, I'M NOT -- I WOULD NOT SAY THERE'S NEVER FRAUD, BUT WHAT'S MORE

                    PREVALENT IS THE FACT THAT THINGS ARE STOLEN AND PEOPLE HAVE POLICIES AND

                    THEY PAY A LOT OF GOOD MONEY TO HAVE THOSE POLICIES SO THEY CAN GET --

                    GET PAYMENT FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY.  AND IF -- IF THE PAYMENT IS

                    WARRANTED, IT SHOULDN'T BE HELD UP BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS,

                    YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR ALL THIS STUFF WHICH ALMOST AMOUNTS TO A FORM OF

                    HARASSMENT, FRANKLY.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  SO IT'S HARA -- OKAY.  NOW, HOW --

                    YOU KEEP SAYING THIS IS JUST DRAGGING ON.  ON AVERAGE, DO YOU KNOW

                    HOW LONG THIS IS EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF TIME FROM A CLAIM TO A

                    SETTLEMENT?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  I WOULD SAY THAT IF THIS BILL IS

                    SIGNED INTO LAW, IT WOULD ACTUALLY SHORTEN THE CLAIM AND POSSIBLY CUT

                    DOWN ON COSTS.  I THINK IT COULD CONCEIVABLY LOWER INSURANCE PREMIUMS

                    BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE THE FRAUD INVESTIGATION PROCESS MORE EFFICIENT

                    BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY

                    TO REQUEST EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION THAT WOULD THEN NEED TO BE REVIEWED

                    BY INVESTIGATORS.  SO BY -- BY ASKING FOR ALL THIS EXTRA STUFF, WHICH IS

                    LARGELY IRRELEVANT, THAT LENGTHENS THE PROCESS, PROBABLY ADDS TO THE COST

                                         75



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    OF THE PROCESS.  SO BY DOING THE RIGHT THING BY THE CLAIMANTS, WE'RE ALSO

                    PROBABLY SAVING THE INSURANCE COMPANY MONEY.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  WELL, DID YOU TELL THE INSURANCE

                    COMPANIES THAT?  BECAUSE I'M SURE THEY'D LOOK FOR ANY WAY TO

                    STREAMLINE THEIR BUSINESS.  ARE THEY JUST INVESTIGATING THIS STUFF FOR

                    FUN?  WHY -- WHY WOULD THEY ADD COSTS TO THEIR BUSINESS FOR NO

                    REASON?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  I GUESS THEY'RE HOPING THAT -- THAT

                    THEY WILL FIND FRAUD SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY.  THAT'S THEIR HOPE.  AND

                    MAYBE SOMETIMES THERE IS FRAUD.  I'M SURE THERE IS ON OCCASION.  BUT

                    THAT COULD STILL BE INVESTIGATED IF THERE ARE ARTICULABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.

                    THAT'S A TOUGH WORD TO ARTICULATE.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  IRONICALLY, YES.

                                 NOW, I'VE SEEN ESTIMATES THAT INSURANCE FRAUD,

                    ESPECIALLY IN THEFT CLAIMS, CAN COST PREMIUM POLICYHOLDERS ANYWHERE

                    FROM $4- TO $700 PER YEAR IN INCREASED PREMIUM COSTS.  SO I GUESS

                    WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS IF WE JUST TELL THEM TO STOP INVESTIGATING MOST

                    OF THE POTENTIAL FRAUD CASES, THAT POLICYHOLDERS WILL SAVE A GREATER

                    AMOUNT THAN $4- TO $700?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  NO.  THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT WHAT I

                    SAID.  I THINK IF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES CONCENTRATE ON INVESTIGATING

                    THOSE CLAIMS WHERE THERE'S VERY LIKELY TO BE FRAUD AND FOCUS THEIR

                    ENERGY ON THOSE INSTEAD OF ON ALL THESE CASES WHERE IT'S NOT GONNA BEAR

                    ANY FRUIT FOR THEM, BUT IT'S STILL GONNA COST THEM MONEY, WHICH

                    ULTIMATELY DOES GET PASSED DOWN TO THE INSUREDS.

                                         76



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  OKAY.  THANK YOU.

                                 MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MR. GANDOLFO:  MADAM SPEAKER, I THINK WHAT

                    THIS BILL IS DOING IS JUST MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR INSURANCE

                    COMPANIES TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL FRAUD WITHIN THE SYSTEM.  AND BY

                    MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DO THAT, IT ENDS UP COSTING EVERY

                    POLICYHOLDER UNDER THAT UMBRELLA.  IT'S ESTIMATED THAT FRAUD IN THE -- IN

                    THEFT CLAIMS CAN COST EVERY POLICYHOLDER ANYWHERE FROM $4- TO $700 A

                    YEAR.  SO WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING MORE INVESTIGATIONS INTO POTENTIAL

                    INSURANCE FRAUD AS WE SEE THAT INSURANCE COST PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE

                    BOARD OR GOING UP FOR EVERYONE.

                                 THE IDEA THAT IF WE JUST DECREASE THE INVESTIGATIONS AT

                    THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL SAVE MONEY AND THAT SAVINGS WILL BE

                    PASSED ON TO US, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING.  I THINK IF THAT WERE THE

                    CASE, INSURANCE COMPANIES WOULD ALREADY BE CUTTING DOWN ON

                    ERRONEOUS INVESTIGATIONS IN AN EFFORT TO PROBABLY INCREASE THEIR PROFIT

                    MARGIN.  BUT THERE ARE INSTANCES OF FRAUD OUT THERE NOW THAT I FEAR WITH

                    THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE SOLVED AND ROOTED OUT.

                                 SO I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE AND I ENCOURAGE

                    MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO AS WELL.  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. RA.

                                 MR. RA:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  WILL THE

                    SPONSOR YIELD FOR A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS?

                                         77



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  YES.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

                                 MR. RA:  CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN TO ME, IS YOUR

                    INTENTION HERE TO CODIFY THAT CURRENT REGULATORY PRACTICE WHERE THE

                    INSURER ISN'T SUPPOSED TO ASK FOR THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION UNLESS THERE

                    ARE GOOD REASONS TO DO SO, OR IS THIS INTENDED TO BE MORE EXPANSIVE AND

                    RESTRICTIVE WITH REGARD TO THE PRACTICE OF INSURERS WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO

                    SETTLE A CLAIM?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  I WILL TELL YOU MY IN -- MY INTENT

                    THIS WAY:  I WANT TO SEE TO IT THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T HOUND

                    PEOPLE TO DEATH WHEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR INFORMATION THAT'S IRRELEVANT TO

                    THE CASE.  IF THERE'S FRAUD, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE FRAUD.  I

                    THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE UPON THAT.  BUT WHAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING

                    IS DELAY, DELAY, DELAY BY ASKING FOR INFORMATION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO

                    WITH THE CLAIM, BUT, IN FACT, PLACES A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON THE

                    INSURED, WHICH, OF COURSE, ARE OUR CONSTITUENTS.

                                 MR. RA:  SO I'M GONNA TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT YOU'RE

                    NOT JUST CODIFYING THE REGULATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T -- DO NOT BELIEVE

                    THE REGULATION IS STRONG ENOUGH.

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  WELL, I DON'T HAVE TO CODIFY THE

                    REGULATIONS, THEY'RE ALREADY THERE.  I MEAN --

                                 MR. RA:  WELL, BUT I'M -- SO THERE'S A REGULATION THAT

                    SAYS COM -- THAT DIRECTS COMPANIES TO NOT DEMAND VERIFICATION OF FACTS

                                         78



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    UNLESS THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO DO SO.  SO WHAT -- WHAT I'M ASKING IS,

                    IS ARE YOU TRYING TO PUT WHAT THAT REGULATION DOES INTO A STATUTE OR DO

                    YOU THINK THAT REGULATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GO

                    FURTHER WITH THIS LAW?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  WELL, I -- I THINK THAT REGULATION IS

                    OKAY, BUT BY INCLUDING THAT AND KIND OF STRENGTHENING AND EXPANDING

                    IT, I THINK IT -- IT MEANS -- IT MAKES IT STRONGER IN TERMS OF PROTECTING

                    PEOPLE LIKE US WHO HAVE INSURANCE POLICIES.

                                 MR. RA:  OKAY.  AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU CAN

                    FURTHER JUST EXPLAIN.  SO THIS REGULATION REQUIRES THAT THERE BE GOOD

                    REASONS TO ASK FOR VERIFICATION OF FACTS.  THIS STATUTE SPECIFICALLY SAYS

                    THAT YOU COULDN'T ASK FOR IT, AND IT -- AND IT ACTUALLY LISTS OUT A NUMBER

                    OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF RECORDS THAT COULD BE -- THAT THE COMPANY MIGHT

                    ASK FOR.  AND IT SAYS UNLESS SPECIAL ARTICULABLE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE

                    BEEN DISCOVERED WHICH DIRECTLY RELATE TO -- TO THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL

                    FACTS OF SUCH THEFT WHICH -- AND WHICH WARRANT THE MAKING OF SUCH A

                    DEMAND.  SO IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MORE

                    DETAILED EXPLANATION BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS TO WHY THEY'RE

                    ASKING FOR THIS THAN THE CURRENT REGULATION WOULD JUST ASK FOR A GOOD

                    REASON; WOULD YOU AGREE?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  YEAH, YES.  THEY WOULD HAVE TO

                    ESSENTIALLY SHOW THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN

                    ORDER TO RESOLVE THE CASE.  AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THEM DOING THAT IF

                    THEY JUST SAY, WE JUST WANT THIS INFORMATION, NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

                                 MR. RA:  ISN'T SOMETIMES THAT INFORMATION WHAT

                                         79



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    LEADS TO THEM BEING ABLE TO LOOK AND SEE THAT THERE'S A SUSPICIOUS

                    SITUATION?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  NO.

                                 MR. RA:  NONE OF THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE RELEVANT

                    TO WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE A SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE WITH REGARD TO A

                    THEFT IN A CLAIM FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE?

                                 MR. DINOWITZ:  I DON'T THINK SO.

                                 MR. RA:  OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU, MR.

                    DINOWITZ.

                                 MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MR. RA:  SO I -- I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THERE -- I

                    MEAN, THERE IS CURRENT STATUTORY DFS REGULATIONS -- I'M SORRY, NOT

                    STATUTORY, BUT DFS REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRES GOOD REASONS TO ASK FOR

                    THIS INFORMATION.  AS MY COLLEAGUE STATED EARLIER, I -- I DO THINK THERE IS

                    A DESIRE BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY TO -- TO SETTLE CLAIMS TO, YOU KNOW,

                    COVER WHERE COVERAGE IS WARRANTED, AND CERTAINLY TO INVESTIGATE WHEN

                    THERE ARE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.  THERE MIGHT BE CERTAIN TYPES OF

                    CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, YOU KNOW, BY A PROCESS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FRAUD

                    IN THAT THEY MAY SEEK TO DO SOME VERIFICATION OF -- OF THE CLAIM.  I

                    THINK THIS STATUTE MIGHT -- OR IF THIS SHOULD BECOME STATUTE, MIGHT

                    INHIBIT THEM FROM DOING SO.  AND WE WANT ANYBODY WHO'S PAYING FOR

                    INSURANCE TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN A CLAIM.  LET'S -- LET'S NOT FORGET THAT.  BUT

                    IF THERE'S FRAUD IN A SYSTEM, AND WE'VE SEEN THIS ACROSS THE INSURANCE

                    MARKET IN ALL DIFFERENT AREAS, NOT JUST WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY THEFT, IT

                                         80



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    MEANS EVERYBODY ELSE PAYS MORE FOR INSURANCE.  IT'S -- IT'S NOT THE

                    PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMITTING THE FRAUD THAT END UP PAYING FOR THAT, IT'S

                    ALL THE OTHER POLICYHOLDERS.

                                 SO FOR THAT REASON I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.

                    THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1ST.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  A PARTY VOTE HAS

                    BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MS. WALSH.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  THE

                    REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS PIECE OF

                    LEGISLATION, BUT THOSE WHO WISH TO PERHAPS VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE MAY

                    DO SO NOW AT THEIR SEATS.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER.  THE MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS GENERALLY GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF

                    THIS CONSUMER-FRIENDLY PIECE OF LEGISLATION; HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE A

                    FEW THAT WOULD DESIRE TO BE AN EXCEPTION.  THEY SHOULD FEEL FREE TO DO

                    SO AT THEIR SEATS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                         81



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. BLANKENBUSH TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. BLANKENBUSH:  THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE.

                                 A LICENSED INSURANCE AGENT TAKES CE CREDITS EVERY

                    YEAR, AND ONE OF THOSE COURSES THAT THE STATE OFFERS IS FRAUDULENT

                    INSURANCE CLAIMS.  AND IF YOU TAKE THAT COURSE AND YOU READ WHAT

                    CAUSES THE MOST CLAIMS, FRAUDULENT CLAIMS, IS FINANCIAL STRESS.  SO --

                    AND THE OTHER THING IS, WHAT IS AN ORDINARY THEFT?  SO, THEFTS CAN BE

                    ORDINARY?  THE -- THE -- IT'S A POORLY WRITTEN BILL.  BUT IF YOU'RE -- IF

                    YOU'RE IN STRESS, FINANCIAL STRESS, WHETHER YOU'RE IN BUSINESS FOR

                    YOURSELF OR IT'S A PERSONAL ONE, A GREAT PERCENTAGE OF INSURANCE

                    FRAUDULENT CLAIMS IS BECAUSE OF THAT KIND OF STRESS.  AND YOU GET TO A

                    POINT WHERE IF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES FEEL THAT THERE'S SOMETHING NOT

                    RIGHT WITH THE CLAIM, THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE IDEA -- THEY WILL NOT HAVE

                    THE ABILITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD CAUSE SOMEONE,

                    AN INDIVIDUAL OR A BUSINESSOWNER, TO -- TO CLAIM A THEFT THAT REALLY

                    WASN'T A THEFT.

                                 SO IT'S A CONFUSING TYPE THING WHEN YOU SAY AN

                    ORDINARY THEFT.  AND SO I'M VOTING NO BECAUSE OF THE FACT IS THE

                    FRAUDULENT CLAIMS COURSES THAT THEY TELL YOU IS THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN

                    REASONS THAT WE -- WE HAVE FRAUD IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS BECAUSE

                    OF FINANCIAL AND TAX STRESS.  SO I'M GONNA BE VOTING NO FOR THOSE

                    REASONS.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. BLANKENBUSH IN THE NEGATIVE.

                                         82



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?  ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

                                 (THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

                                 THE BILL IS PASSED.

                                 PAGE 7, RULES REPORT NO. 207, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY NO. A02620-A, RULES

                    REPORT NO. 207, HEVESI, CLARK, RAGA, SIMON, KELLES, DINOWITZ,

                    ROSENTHAL, EPSTEIN, ZACCARO, R. CARROLL, LAVINE, GLICK, GONZÁLEZ-

                    ROJAS, BRONSON, CUNNINGHAM, MEEKS, ALVAREZ, PAULIN, DE LOS SANTOS,

                    BORES, SIMONE, GALLAGHER, WALKER, GIBBS, LUNSFORD, TAPIA, WOERNER,

                    BICHOTTE HERMELYN, CRUZ, SHRESTHA, SEAWRIGHT, DAVILA, HYNDMAN,

                    STECK, ZINERMAN, O'PHARROW, SCHIAVONI, LEVENBERG, P. CARROLL,

                    TAYLOR, BURDICK, WEPRIN, OTIS, FORREST, MAMDANI, VANEL, LUPARDO,

                    REYES, SEPTIMO, HOOKS, MITAYNES, BURROUGHS, SOLAGES, DAIS,

                    SHIMSKY, ANDERSON, KIM, VALDEZ, MCMAHON, LASHER, DILAN, WRIGHT.

                    AN ACT TO AMEND THE FAMILY COURT ACT AND THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

                    LAW, IN RELATION TO THE CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OF JUVENILES BY LAW

                    ENFORCEMENT.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  AN EXPLANATION HAS

                    BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MR. HEVESI.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  THANK

                    YOU, COLLEAGUES.

                                 THIS BILL WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS AND

                    PROCEDURES WHEN A YOUTH IS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

                    AND DURING INTERROGATION.

                                         83



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MR. REILLY.

                                 MR. REILLY:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  WILL

                    THE SPONSOR YIELD?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  ABSOLUTELY.  GOOD TO SEE YOU, MR.

                    REILLY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

                                 MR. REILLY:  THANK YOU, MR. HEVESI.

                                 SO, WHAT ARE THE MAJOR -- WHAT ARE THE MAJOR REVISIONS

                    TO THIS LAW FROM HOW IT EXISTS TODAY?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY, SO A COUPLE OF THINGS.  WE'VE

                    ALREADY PASSED THIS BILL FOUR -- FOUR YEARS AGO, SO IT JUST -- I'LL REITERATE

                    WHAT'S IN THE BILL FOR -- FOR MY COLLEAGUES.  THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE

                    IS BECAUSE WE'RE FINDING THAT 90 PERCENT OF OUR YOUTH, KIDS UNDER 18,

                    ARE WAIVING THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS AND THEY'RE CONFESSING AT THREE TIMES

                    THE RATE OF ADULTS.  SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS ADD ADDITIONAL

                    PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE KIDS, UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE THAT TELLS US THEY

                    ARE NOT CAPABLE, DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO -- TO DEAL WITH THESE

                    INTERROGATIONS.  SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS, WE ARE REQUIRING IN THIS BILL THAT

                    EVERY YOUTH, BEFORE THEY GO IN -- THEY'RE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, THEY HAVE

                    TO HAVE THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.  THAT COULD BE BY A PHONE,

                    TELECONFERENCE OR IN PERSON.  SO THAT'S THE FIRST PIECE.  IF THAT'S NOT DONE

                    AND THERE ARE STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM THE YOUTH DURING INTERROGATION

                    WITHOUT THE LAWYER PRESENT, THEN WE ADD A REMEDY INTO THE BILL THAT

                                         84



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    ALLOWS THOSE STATEMENTS TO BE STRICKEN.

                                 AND IN THE LAST PIECE, I THINK, MR. REILLY, THAT YOU AND

                    I HAVE TALKED ABOUT OFFLINE IS ABOUT HOW POLICE ARE TO IMMEDIATELY

                    NOTIFY THE PARENTS OF A YOUNGSTER AT THE SCENE.  WE HAVE AMENDED THAT

                    LANGUAGE BASED OFF OF OUR CONVERSATIONS AND -- AND INTERNAL ADDITIONAL

                    CONVERSATIONS WITH PROGRAM AND COUNSEL, THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE

                    THAT THE LAW READS THE WAY THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO READ, WHICH IS WE WANT

                    THE POLICE TO CONTACT THE PARENT OR THE PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE

                    IMMEDIATELY.  BUT WE DID WRITE INTO THE LAW AND WE AMENDED -- THAT'S

                    WHY YOU SAY AN A-PRINT -- TO SAY EVERY REASON -- EVERY REASONABLE

                    EFFORT TO DO THAT.  BECAUSE WE WANT OUR POLICE OFFICERS TO UNDERSTAND

                    THAT IF THERE'S A DANGEROUS CIRCUMSTANCE THEY CAN GET OUT OF THERE FIRST

                    BEFORE THEY DO THAT.

                                 MR. REILLY:  SO, THANK YOU, MR. HEVESI.  SO JUST TO

                    CLARIFY THAT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTENING AND JUST TO GET IT ON THE RECORD,

                    SO LET'S SAY THERE'S AN INCIDENT AT 46TH -- 42ND STREET AND BROADWAY IN

                    TIMES SQUARE.  AND LARGE MOVIE THEATERS THERE, LARGE -- THERE'S A --

                    THERE'S A MOVIE THEATER THERE AND THERE'S A LARGE GROUP OF YOUTH THAT ARE

                    UNDER 18 YEARS OLD.  THEY'RE 16 AND 17.  BIG FIGHT, THEY GET INTO A -- A

                    SCUFFLE.  TEN ON TEN MAYBE.  AND NOW FIVE OF THEM ARE TAKEN INTO

                    CUSTODY.  SINCE THERE'S A LARGE CROWD THERE, IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE --

                    FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT ARE THERE TO TAKE THEM INTO CUSTODY AND

                    REMOVE THEM FROM THE SCENE WITHOUT EVEN MAKING A CALL?  JUST

                    BECAUSE OF -- JUST IN THAT SCENARIO, HOW WOULD THAT FIT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IF THE POLICE OFFICER DETERMINES THAT

                                         85



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    IT'S AN UNSAFE SCENE, THAT'S WHY WE ADDED IN THE PIECE ABOUT EVERY

                    REASONABLE COMPONENT, TOO.  WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR OFFICERS --

                    LOOK, THE -- THE -- THE PURPOSE OF THAT NOTIFICATION IS WE WANT TO MAKE

                    SURE THAT WE'RE SHRINKING THE TIME BETWEEN THE TIME THAT THE KID IS

                    GOING TO BE -- THE YOUNGSTER IS GOING TO BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND THE

                    TIME THEIR PARENTS GET NOTIFIED.  THAT'S WHY WE PUT IN THE LANGUAGE

                    "IMMEDIATELY."  BUT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU AND

                    WITH THE NYPD AND OTHER FRIENDS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE DECIDED

                    WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THE UNDERLYING LAW AS WRITTEN OUT IN THIS

                    BILL SAYS "EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT."

                                 MR. REILLY:  OKAY.  THANK YOU, MR. HEVESI.

                                 SO TO MOVE ON TO THE PIECE ABOUT STATEMENTS MADE.

                    NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL IS WRITTEN TO ENSURE THAT 16- AND 17-

                    YEAR-OLDS CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY.  THIS CANNOT BE WAIVED.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  CORRECT.

                                 MR. REILLY:  THEIR PARENTS CAN'T WAIVE IT FOR THEM,

                    EITHER, CORRECT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT'S CORRECT.  THEY CANNOT.

                                 MR. REILLY:  OKAY.  IT HAS TO BE BY IN-PERSON,

                    TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO CONFERENCE, CORRECT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.  ONE OF THOSE THREE.

                                 MR. REILLY:  OKAY.  SO THAT'S BASICALLY IF THE POLICE

                    OFFICER IS GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE OFFENSE, RIGHT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  CORRECT.

                                 MR. REILLY:  NOT WHEN IT'S -- THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO

                                         86



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WHEN THEY'RE GETTING PEDIGREE INFORMATION; IS THAT CORRECT?  LIKE, IF

                    THEY'RE ASKING THE 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLD THEIR NAME, DATE OF BIRTH,

                    ADDRESS.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  NEVER THOUGHT OF IT.  GOOD QUESTION.

                    LET ME CHECK WITH COUNSEL.  GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

                                 (PAUSE/CONFERENCING)

                                 YEAH, I -- I THINK THERE -- MY INSTINCT IS THAT -- WE'RE

                    GONNA CHECK FOR YOU AND I'LL -- I'LL TELL YOU AFTER.  BUT MY INSTINCT IS THAT

                    IN ORDER TO CONTACT THE PARENT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET SOME PEDIGREE

                    INFORMATION FROM THE KID, SO IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE THAT THEY'RE ASKING

                    FOR THAT.  IT'S THE OTHER PIECES I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, MAKING SURE THAT

                    THEY'RE --

                                 MR. REILLY:  SO JUST -- JUST TO CLARIFY.  SO WE'RE

                    LOOKING AT THE 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLD IN CUSTODY --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.

                                 MR. REILLY:  -- AND THE OFFICER GOING TO ASK

                    INQUISITIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INCIDENT, NOT THEIR PEDIGREE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES, SIR.

                                 MR. REILLY:  OKAY.  OKAY.

                                 SO ONE PIECE IN HERE IS ABOUT -- IT'S A SCENARIO THAT YOU

                    AND I HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, AND I'D LIKE TO JUST, IF YOU CAN PLEASE

                    GIVE ME SOME TIME TO GIVE -- LAY OUT THE SCENARIO.  YOU'RE AT A -- YOU

                    RESPOND TO, SAY, TOTTENVILLE HIGH SCHOOL AS A POLICE OFFICER, SHOTS

                    FIRED, YOU RESPOND.  TWO KIDS ARE RUNNING FROM THE SCENE.  YOU STOP

                    THEM.  ONE OF THEM HAS A GUN ON THEM, YOU ARREST HIM.  THERE WERE

                                         87



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    SUPPOSEDLY TWO GUNS.  YOU HAVE TWO INDI -- YOU HAVE TWO 16- AND

                    17-YEAR-OLDS.  THEY'RE NOW TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, THEY'RE IN THE BACK OF

                    RMP, RIGHT, THE RADIO MOBILE PATROL CAR, AND ONE OF THE GUNS IS

                    MISSING.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  MM-HMM.

                                 MR. REILLY:  THE TWO OFFICERS ARE IN THE CAR.  THEY

                    DON'T SAY ANYTHING, AND THE TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE TALKING AND ONE OF

                    THEM SAYS, OH, MAN, I HOPE NOBODY FINDS THAT GUN.  THEY'RE GONNA GET

                    HURT.  I LEFT IT OVER THERE BY THAT SIGN.  THE COPS OVERHEAR IT.  THEY GO

                    THERE, THEY RECOVER THE GUN.  ACCORDING TO THIS LEGISLATION, ANY

                    STATEMENTS MADE BY A DEFENDANT WHO'S 16 AND 17 WHO DID NOT CONSULT

                    WITH AN ATTORNEY AND DIDN'T WAIVE THAT RIGHT, THEY MUST BE EXCLUDED

                    FROM EVIDENCE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  MY -- WHAT QUALIFICATION?

                                 MR. REILLY:  YES.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  BECAUSE IN YOUR QUESTION YOU ASKED IF

                    THEY'RE IN CUSTODY, AND THAT'S THE DIVIDING LINE.  SO IF THE YOUTH IS IN THE

                    CAR, THEY'RE NOT IN CUSTODY AND THAT EXACT SAME THING HAPPENS, THAT'S AN

                    EXCITED UTTERANCE.  THAT'S -- THEY'RE ALLOWED TO -- THE POLICE ARE ALLOWED

                    TO USE THAT.  SO -- SO THE DISTINCTION IS IF THE YOUTH IS NOT IN CUSTODY,

                    YEAH, YOU CAN USE THOSE STATEMENTS.  BUT THE SECOND THAT YOU TAKE THAT

                    KID INTO CUSTODY, AUTOMATICALLY NOW YOU HAVE TO GET THEM AN ATTORNEY.

                                 MR. REILLY:  SO CURRENTLY, UNDER A HUNTLEY HEARING

                    --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  MM-HMM.

                                         88



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. REILLY:  -- RIGHT, WHEN THE SAME THING FOR --

                    RIGHT NOW FOR ANYONE WHO MAKES A STATEMENT IN REGARD TO THAT

                    SCENARIO, A JUDGE WOULD DETERMINE THE RELEVANCE OF IN CUSTODY, WERE

                    THEY TRICKED INTO SAYING IT, DID THEY SPONTANEOUSLY SAY IT, RIGHT, THE

                    DEFENDANT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  RIGHT.

                                 MR. REILLY:  IF THE JUDGE DETERMINES THAT THEY

                    FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY GAVE THAT INFORMATION WITHOUT BEING DIRECTED BY

                    THE POLICE OFFICER, THAT WOULD BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.

                                 MR. REILLY:  THIS -- THE LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL STATES

                    THAT IN NO WAY CAN A JUDGE ALLOW THAT TO BE PUT INTO EVIDENCE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT IS CORRECT.

                                 MR. REILLY:  IT WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY THROWN OUT.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT'S CORRECT.  I CAN EXPLAIN WHY AND

                    GET INTO SOME OF THE SCIENCE OF WHY (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK).

                                 MR. REILLY:  PLEASE DO.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO

                    THE SCIENCE OF IT, BUT PLEASE, A BASIS IF YOU CAN.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  VERY -- VERY --  SO FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT

                    A SCIENTIST --

                                 MR. REILLY:  YEAH.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  -- SO YOU'RE LUCKY.  SO, BASICALLY WHAT

                    WE'RE FINDING IS 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO -- TO

                    HANDLE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  NUMBER ONE, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME

                    -- LET ME -- LET ME TAKE A STEP BACK.  HERE'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

                                         89



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S MIRANDA RIGHTS, IT'S TWO SECTIONS OF

                    THE CONSTITUTION; IT'S YOUR FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO BE SELF-

                    INCRIMINATED, WHICH IS YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT; AND THEN YOUR SIXTH

                    AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY.  OKAY.  SO WE'RE SEEING THE KIDS ARE

                    JUST WAIVING THEM LIKE THESE RIGHTS DON'T EXIST.  THE SUPREME COURT

                    SAYS THAT FOR A WAIVER -- FOR ANY ADULT, ANY AMERICAN, TO WAIVE THEIR

                    RIGHTS, WAIVE THOSE PARTICULAR RIGHTS, THAT THEIR -- THE WAIVER HAS TO BE

                    KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY.  OKAY?  BUT WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS

                    THAT THESE KIDS, BY WAIVING THEIR RIGHTS AND THEY'RE ALSO CONFESSING

                    THREE TIMES THE RATE OF THE AVERAGE ADULT, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THESE

                    KIDS ARE BEING PUT UNDER -- UNDER STRESS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT'S NOT TO

                    SAY THAT THE POLICE ARE DOING ANYTHING WRONG.  THE COPS ARE DOING

                    EVERYTHING RIGHT.  BUT EVEN THE COURTS HAVE TOLD US THAT THIS IS AN

                    INHERENTLY PRESSURE-FILLED SITUATION FOR THESE KIDS, AND THEY'RE FOLDING

                    AND THEY'RE GIVING AWAY THEIR RIGHTS.  AND WHAT HAPPENS IS, AS A

                    CONSEQUENCE -- LET ME JUST FINISH THIS QUICK THOUGHT --

                                 MR. REILLY:  MM-HMM.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SO IT'S BAD FOR THE KIDS AND THEIR

                    FAMILIES BECAUSE YOU'RE CATCHING INNOCENT KIDS.  THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

                    NUMBER TWO, YOU ARE ALLOWING PERPETRATORS TO ROAM FREE.  YOU GOT THE

                    WRONG GUY.  WE GOT THE WRONG GUY, SO WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT.  AND SO

                    I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE -- THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLICE -- POLICE

                    DOING ANYTHING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING.  THIS IS ABOUT THE

                    CIRCUMSTANCE WE HAVE SET UP BEING SO LOPSIDED THAT KIDS ARE JUST

                    CONSTANTLY SAYING ANYTHING THEY CAN TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THAT ROOM

                                         90



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEIR BRAIN IS TELLING THEM TO DO.  THAT'S BECAUSE

                    THEIR PREFRONTAL CORTEX IS NOT DEVELOPED AS IT WOULD WHEN THEY ARE --

                    LATER ON IN LIFE.  I KNOW IT'S A LONG ANSWER, BUT I HOPE I GOT TO WHAT YOU

                    WERE ASKING.

                                 MR. REILLY:  NO, NO.  I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. HEVESI.

                    THANK YOU SO MUCH.

                                 MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MR. REILLY:  SO, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND I

                    UNDERSTAND THE REASON WHY WE MAY BE LOOKING TO GIVE ADDED

                    PROTECTIONS TO 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS.  AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE

                    OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM AND -- AND THE MANDATORY OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO

                    CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY.  WHAT I -- WHAT I RAISED ABOUT THE

                    SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCE IS A REAL CONCERN.  THERE -- THEY COULD STILL HAVE

                    THAT OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY IF THEY'RE ON -- IF THERE'S GOING TO

                    BE AN INTERROGATION, RIGHT?  AND LET'S -- LET'S UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT

                    MIRANDA RIGHTS ARE GIVEN WHEN THERE'S CUSTODY PLUS INTERROGATION.  YOU

                    DON'T NEED TO GIVE MIRANDA RIGHTS AT EVERY ARREST UNLESS YOU ARE GOING

                    TO ASK INQUISITIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INCIDENT.  WHEN THEY GIVE A

                    SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCE LIKE THAT SCENARIO I GAVE YOU IN FRONT OF A SCHOOL

                    WHERE THEY WERE SCARED SOMEONE WAS GOING TO FIND THEIR GUN AND THEY

                    GAVE UP WHERE IT IS WITHOUT BEING ASKED, THAT SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED

                    FROM EVIDENCE.  IN A HUNTLEY HEARING WITH AN ADULT, THAT WOULD BE

                    OKAY.  A 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLD RIGHT NOW, WITH A FIREARM, WHO DOES NOT

                    USE IT IN A CRIME, WHO ONLY MERELY POSSESSES IT, HAS IT IN THEIR

                                         91



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WAISTBAND, IT AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO FAMILY COURT.  SO IF THEY ARE

                    STOPPED ON THE STREET WITH A LOADED FIREARM, THIS TAKES EFFECT, THEY CAN'T

                    EVEN BRING THEM TO THE PRECINCT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BRING THEM

                    STRAIGHT TO COURT, TO FAMILY COURT, OR THEY HAVE TO CONTACT THE PARENTS

                    AND BRING THEM TO THEIR HOUSE.  BECAUSE IT'S NOT A DESIGNATED FELONY FOR

                    A 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLD.  FOR A FIREARM OFFENSE TO BE A DESIGNATED FELONY

                    FOR A 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLD, THEY HAVE TO DISPLAY THE FIREARM.  THEY HAVE

                    TO USE IT IN A CRIME, MEANING THAT THEY POINT IT AT SOMEBODY MAYBE AND

                    COMMIT A ROBBERY, OR THEY HAVE TO FIRE IT.  OR PISTOL WHIP A VICTIM WITH

                    IT.  THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT A 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLD CAN BE CHARGED IN

                    YOUTH PART CRIMINAL.  OTHERWISE, THEY GO TO FAMILY COURT.  AND THAT IS

                    EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW.  SO THE POINT ABOUT THE SPONTANEOUS

                    UTTERANCE IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REVISITED.

                                 THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. MOLITOR.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  WILL

                    THE SPONSOR YIELD?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THANK YOU, MR. HEVESI.

                                 I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH A FEW DIFFERENT PARTS OF THIS

                    BILL --

                                         92



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI:  PLEASE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  -- TO UNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE BIT

                    BETTER.  THIS BILL ONLY APPLIES TO ARRESTS; IS THAT CORRECT?  IF THERE'S AN

                    ARREST, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL WOULD APPLY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WHEN A CHILD IS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.

                    THAT'S WHEN THIS -- THAT'S THE TRIGGER OF THIS BILL.  IT'S NOT ARREST, IT'S

                    CUSTODY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  WELL, DO YOU HAVE THE BILL TEXT IN

                    FRONT OF YOU?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  LOOKING AT PAGE 6, LINE 23.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  IT SAYS UPON ARRESTING A JUVENILE

                    OFFENDER.  IT DOESN'T SAY UPON BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, DOES IT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH, THIS IS PART OF -- THERE ARE

                    MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF WHAT TO DO IN THE CASE THAT A CHILD COMES INTO

                    CUSTODY.  I'M GONNA CHECK THAT SECTION IN A SECOND.  BUT THAT'S PART OF

                    SEVERAL -- SEVERAL DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT OUTLINE IN DETAIL WHAT THE

                    POLICE SHOULD BE DOING IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES IF THE KID IS A

                    JUVENILE OFFENDER, IF THE KID IS A PINS KID WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO

                    TAKE THE CHILD.  BUT I WILL -- I WILL CHECK THAT WITH COUNSEL.  BUT PLEASE

                    ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE

                    BETWEEN CUSTODY AND ARREST, ISN'T THERE?  CUSTODY IS A LEGAL STANDARD

                    THAT'S BOTH SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE.

                                         93



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MR. HEVESI:  I'M SORRY, SIR.  ASK THE LAST PART OF

                    YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.  I APOLOGIZE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  SO, AS YOU KNOW, CUSTODY IS -- IS A

                    LEGAL STANDARD.  IT'S GOT AN OBJECTIVE ELEMENT AND A SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT.

                    IT'S BEEN DETERMINED BY THE -- YOU KNOW, EACH SITUATION HAS TO BE

                    FLUSHED OUT WITH THE COURTS.  SO IT CAN'T BE UPON TAKE -- BEING TAKEN

                    INTO CUSTODY BECAUSE CUSTODY IS BOTH FACTUAL AND LEGAL, RIGHT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YOU'RE -- YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE

                    SECTION YOU REFERENCED.  IT DOES SAY ARREST.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  SO -- SO IN THE SITUATION WHERE THE

                    POLICE ARE JUST -- I'M GONNA USE A DIFFERENT WORD -- DETAINING, LET'S SAY

                    THERE'S A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AT A PARTICULAR SCENE AND THEY ARE JUST --

                    THEY'RE -- THEY'RE SAYING TO ALL OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS, YOU CAN'T LEAVE.

                    WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.  THIS SECTION MIGHT NOT APPLY

                    IN THAT PARTICULAR SCENARIO, RIGHT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  GIVE ME THE SCENARIO AGAIN?

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  IN -- IN A SCENARIO WHERE THERE'S A

                    BUNCH OF PEOPLE AT A SCENE AND THE POLICE SAY TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS, YOU

                    CAN'T GO.  WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON, THIS BILL MIGHT NOT

                    APPLY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T

                    BE -- I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE ARRESTED OR IN CUSTODY AT THAT POINT.  SO I

                    THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, IT WOULD NOT APPLY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  OKAY.  AND IF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF

                                         94



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    THE POLICE WERE ASKED THOSE INDIVIDUALS, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST

                    TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.  WOULD YOU MIND COMING DOWN TO

                    THE STATION WITH US, AND THEY SAY, YEAH, OF COURSE.  THIS BILL WOULDN'T

                    APPLY, RIGHT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  CORRECT.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  OKAY.  AND THEN WHILE THEY WERE AT

                    THE POLICE STATION THE POLICE ASKED, CAN YOU JUST TELL US WHAT

                    HAPPENED?  THIS BILL WOULDN'T APPLY, RIGHT?

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SO -- SO THE STANDARD IS IF THEY'RE NOT

                    IN CUSTODY, BUT ALSO IF THEY ARE FREE TO LEAVE.  IF -- IF THE PERSON IS FREE

                    TO LEAVE, THEN THIS BILL DOESN'T APPLY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  WELL, NOW YOU'RE CITING ONE OF THE

                    -- ONE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS OR SUBSECTIONS, I GUESS, OF THE CUS --

                    CUSTODIAL DEFINITION.  WHETHER SOMEONE BELIEVES THEY'RE FREE TO LEAVE,

                    THAT'S A SUBJECTIVE THING, ISN'T IT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES, AND THAT'S PART OF THE STANDARD OF

                    CUSTODY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  IT'S ONLY ONE PART OF THE STANDARD OF

                    CUSTODY, THOUGH.  THERE'S AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS AND A SUBJECTIVE

                    ANALYSIS.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THAT'S BEEN DETERMINED BY THE

                    COURTS.  SO WHETHER SOMEONE BELIEVES THAT THEY'RE FREE TO LEAVE, YOU

                    KNOW, IF AN INDIVIDUAL BELIEVES THAT THEY'RE NOT FREE TO LEAVE, THAT

                                         95



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL APPLY, DO THEY?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  NO, THAT'S TRUE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  OKAY.  NOW, LET'S SAY THE POLICE

                    THEN ARE AT -- AT A SCENE AND THEY DO NEED TO MAKE AN ARREST.  THEY PUT

                    SOMEBODY IN HANDCUFFS, THEY SAY, YOU'RE UNDER ARREST.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE POLICE

                    TO RIGHT THEN AND THERE NOTIFY THE PARENTS OF THAT INDIVIDUAL, OR I BELIEVE

                    THE LANGUAGE IS --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE.  WHAT

                    DOES THAT -- WHAT DOES PERSON WHO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE MEAN?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IF A PARENT'S NOT AVAILABLE THERE'S AN

                    ADULT THAT CAN -- IS IN CARE OF THE KID.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  DO THEY HAVE TO BE A LEGAL

                    GUARDIAN?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  I DON'T BELIEVE THEY DO, NO.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  OKAY.  SO IN A SITUATION WHERE --

                    AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FACETIOUS HERE --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  NO, IT'S OKAY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  -- BUT I'M JUST FLUSHING THIS OUT

                    HERE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  PLEASE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A -- A

                    SINGLE CHILD WHO ONLY HAS TWO PARENTS AND THAT -- AND I KNOW THIS IS AN

                                         96



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    EXTREME EXAMPLE, BUT THAT INDIVIDUAL MURDERS THEIR PARENTS.  THE

                    POLICE WOULDN'T -- OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER.

                    THEY COULD JUST TAKE THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO THEY SUSPECT OF COMMITTING

                    THAT CRIME TO A -- A FACILITY, RIGHT, FOR CHILDREN?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WELL, IF IT -- IF IT -- YOU'RE RIGHT.  SO IF

                    IT'S A JUVENILE OFFENDER AND IT'S A CASE OF A JUVENILE OFFENDER WHICH

                    MEANS IT'S A FELONY, THE POLICE ARE INSTRUCTED TO TAKE THEM TO THE NEXT

                    AVAILABLE MAGISTRATE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  WELL, ISN'T -- DOESN'T -- DOESN'T --

                    DOESN'T 140.27 REQUIRE THEM TO TAKE THEM TO A -- I'M SORRY, A -- A

                    FACILITY DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IT DOES.  SO -- SO WHAT YOU'RE

                    REFERENCING IS, AND YOUR OTHER COLLEAGUE MENTIONED THIS AS WELL, IN THIS

                    BILL THERE'S A SERIES OF, IT'S ALMOST A TO-DO LIST.  IF YOU'RE FACED WITH A KID

                    WHO'S A -- A PINS KID, A PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION WHO HAS NOT

                    COMMITTED A CRIME, THEY GET TO CALL TO THE PARENTS OR THE PLR.  IF IT'S A

                    JUVENILE OFFENDER, THEN YOU CONTRACT -- CONTACT THE MAGISTRATE AND THEN

                    YOU CAN TAKE THEM TO THE FACILITY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.  BUT ALSO, YOU

                    KNOW, LET ME ADDRESS, IF I CAN, THE CIRCUMSTANCE.  I KNOW IT'S A

                    EXTREME, BUT IF A KID KILLS THEIR PARENTS, I MEAN, IF -- YOU KNOW, DOES

                    THAT QUALIFY?  DID THE OFFER -- THE OFFICER MAKE EVERY REASONABLE

                    ATTEMPT TO GET TO THE PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE?  THAT'LL BE UP TO A

                    JUDGE, BUT MAYBE THERE'S AN AUNT THAT CAN LOOK AFTER THE KID.  SO -- SO I

                    DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT I --

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  SO EVEN -- I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

                                         97



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH, GO AHEAD.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  EVEN IN THAT SITUATION, THE POLICE

                    STILL NEED TO MAKE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO TRY TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO'S

                    LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CHILD.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.  SO THE GOAL IS OF THIS ENTIRE

                    SECTION OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE LINED OUT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE

                    -- THE YOUTH WHO IS ABOUT TO BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY GETS TO A PARENT OR A

                    PERSONAL LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.  THAT'S ALL THAT'S

                    HAPPENING HERE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  AND IF THEY CAN'T, THEN THEY'RE

                    PERMITTED TO TAKE THE CHILD TO THAT FACILITY THAT'S DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF

                    ADMINISTRATOR AS A SUITABLE PLACE FOR QUESTIONING OF CHILDREN --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  -- RIGHT?  AND NOW, THE CHIEF

                    ADMINISTRATOR IS THE ONE WHO DESIGNATES THIS PLACE.  AS FAR AS YOU

                    KNOW, AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IT'S OKAY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  -- ARE THERE, LIKE, FACILITIES IN CLOSE

                    PROXIMITY TO MOST POLICE JUR -- POLICE --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SO -- SO THE ANSWER IS, I'M SURE IT'S A

                    MIXED BAG DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION.  BUT WHAT THE -- WHAT THE --

                    THE CHIEF OF THE COURTS WILL TRY TO DO IN THIS INSTANCE IS TO MAKE THE

                    INTERROGATION -- THE PLACE OF THE INTERROGATION NOT LOPSIDED.  SO YOU

                    DON'T WANT TO DO IT AT THE POLICE PRECINCT.  THERE ARE OTHER PLACES THAT

                    ARE MORE NEUTRAL SPACES, AND I'M SURE THAT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE

                                         98



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    COURTS TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT FACILITIES ARE APPROPRIATE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  OKAY.  AND THEN ONCE THEY'RE TAKEN

                    TO THAT FACILITY, THE POLICE CAN QUESTION THAT INDIVIDUAL BUT THEY HAVE TO

                    DO A FEW THINGS FIRST, RIGHT?  THEY HAVE TO ADVISE THAT INDIVIDUAL OF

                    THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS, AND THEN SECOND TO THAT, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT

                    INDIVIDUAL WITH AN ATTORNEY --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  -- SO THAT THE ATTORNEY CAN ADVISE

                    THEM BASICALLY TO NOT WAIVE THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS, RIGHT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  ACTUALLY, IT'S BEFORE THEY GET THEIR

                    MIRANDA RIGHTS.  BEFORE THEY'RE READ THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS, THEY ARE

                    SUPPOSED TO BE CONNECTED WITH AN ATTORNEY EITHER BY PHONE, ZOOM OR

                    IN PERSON.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  OKAY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  AND AGAIN, JUST THE -- JUST THE GENERAL

                    PRINCIPLE HERE, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO GET AN ADULT IN THE ROOM

                    WHO HAS THE -- A THIRD-PARTY WHO HAS THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IN

                    MIND BECAUSE THE CHILD IS NOT ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFICULTIES OF THIS

                    PRESSURE-FILLED SITUATION.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  NOW, YOU -- WOULDN'T YOU AGREE

                    WITH ME THAT ONCE THAT ATTORNEY ENTERS -- ENTERS THE EQUATION --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  -- EVEN IF THE ATTORNEY SAYS TO THEM,

                    YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD WAIVE THE MIRANDA RIGHTS, LET'S --

                    LET'S GO THROUGH THIS HERE.

                                         99



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SURE.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  SAY THE -- THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY

                    ADVISES THE CHILD, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD WAIVE YOUR MIRANDA RIGHTS,

                    BUT THE CHILD DOES ANYWAY.  IN THAT SITUATION --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  -- WOULDN'T ALL THE STATEMENTS OF

                    THAT CHILD GET SUPPRESSED?  BECAUSE --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WHAT -- WHAT STATEMENTS?

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  ALL THE STATEMENTS OF THAT CHILD.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WHAT STATEMENTS DID THE CHILD MAKE?

                                 (CROSS-TALK)

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  LET'S SAY THE STATEMENTS WERE --

                    LET'S SAY THE STATEMENT WERE INCRIMINATING.  I COMMITTED THE CRIME,

                    RIGHT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IS THIS -- IS THIS AFTER CUSTODY?  I -- I

                    WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, I'M JUST TRYING TO SET THE -- THE

                    HYPOTHETICAL.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  YEAH.  SO, THE CHILD'S IN CUSTODY,

                    RIGHT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THE CHILD GETS AN ATTORNEY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YUP.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THE ATTORNEY SAYS --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YOU SHOULD WAIVE YOUR RIGHT --

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  I DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD WAIVE

                                         100



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    YOUR RIGHTS --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  -- RIGHT?  YOU SHOULD NOT TALK TO THE

                    POLICE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  AND THE CHILD IGNORES IT.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  IGNORES IT.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  STATEMENTS WILL STILL GET

                    SUPPRESSED, WON'T THEY?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WHICH STATEMENTS?

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THE STATEMENTS THAT THE CHILD MADE.

                    THE ADMISSION --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WHEN IN CUSTODY, OR -- OR -- SO THAT'S

                    -- THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE LOSING ME.  FORGIVE ME.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THEY'RE IN CUSTODY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THE -- THE -- OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  LET'S -- LET'S --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  I -- I THINK -- I THINK I GET IT.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  LET ME USE AN EASIER EXAMPLE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  GO AHEAD.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  BEFORE THE POLICE DO ANYTHING, THE

                    CHILD'S SITTING THERE, RIGHT?  NO QUESTIONS ARE BEING ASKED, AND THE CHILD

                    SAYS, I DID IT.  I KILLED MY PARENTS.  THAT STATEMENT GETS SUPPRESSED

                    AUTOMATICALLY, EVEN THOUGH NO QUESTIONS ARE ASKED, RIGHT?

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                         101



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SO -- SO THE ANSWER IS NO, THEY'RE NOT

                    SUPPRESSED.  THE KID WAIVED HIS RIGHT.  IF THE -- UNDER YOUR

                    HYPOTHETICAL, IF THAT CHILD WAIVES HIS RIGHT, SO HE'S BEEN ADVISED BY

                    COUNSEL, YOU SHOULDN'T WAIVE YOUR RIGHT, THAT'S -- THE -- THE CHILD SAID

                    NO -- THE YOUTH; LET ME STOP USING CHILD -- THE YOUTH SAID, NO, I IGNORE

                    THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.  OKAY, THEN THEIR STATEMENTS ARE NOT SUPPRESSED.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  WHAT IF WE NEVER GET TO THAT POINT?

                    WHAT IF THE POLICE DON'T EVEN HAVE -- THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO

                    ADVISE THE CHILD OF THE -- OF THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS AND THE CHILD JUST

                    SAYS, I DID IT.  I DID IT.  I KILLED MY PARENTS.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IN CUSTODY OR NOT IN CUSTODY?

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  IN CUSTODY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IN CUSTODY, IF THEY'VE BEEN ADVISED BY

                    A LAWYER, THEN THE ANSWER IS YES.  THAT STATEMENT WILL -- IS NOT

                    SUPPRESSED.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  SO THE POLICE ARE DRIVING THE KID

                    BACK TO THE SECURED FACILITY THAT'S SET UP BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, NOT

                    ASKING HIM ANY QUESTIONS AND THE KID SAYS, I KILLED MY PARENTS.  I SHOT

                    THEM WITH A SHOTGUN.  I HATE THEIR GUTS.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  KIDS -- KIDS NEVER -- I'M SORRY, THE --

                    THE -- IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, LAW ENFORCEMENT NEVER ASKED A QUESTION?

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  DO YOU SEE THE -- DO YOU SEE THE

                    PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE?  YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT CUSTODY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  BUT HOLD ON.  IF LAW ENFORCEMENT

                    DIDN'T ASK A QUESTION IT'S AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, SO IT IS ADMISSIBLE.

                                         102



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  WHERE'S THAT EXACTLY IN THE BILL?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IT'S NOT.  THAT'S EXISTING LAW.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  WHY ISN'T THAT EXEMPTION IN THIS

                    BILL?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WHAT -- WHAT EXEMPTION ARE YOU

                    LOOKING FOR?

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  THANK YOU, MR. HEVESI.

                                 SEE, THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BILL.  IS -- FOURTH

                    AMENDMENT JURIS PRUDENCE IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S HISTORICAL.  IT'S BEEN

                    FLUSHED OUT BY THE COURTS.  THERE'S PROCEDURE.  IT'S BOTH A FACTUAL AND A

                    LEGAL DETERMINATION.  WE CAN'T EVEN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT'S

                    CUSTODY AND WHAT'S NOT CUSTODY, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A

                    HIGHLY-REFINED LEGAL CONCEPT.  AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND THE

                    COURTS IN THIS STATE HAVE ESTABLISHED EXCEPTIONS TO THE MIRANDA

                    REQUIREMENT.  BY COD -- BY -- BY PUTTING THIS LANGUAGE IN STATUTE, WE

                    ARE MAKING OUR RESTRICTIONS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE U.S. SUPREME

                    COURT.  WE ARE MAKING IT HARDER FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO DO ITS JOB.

                    WE'RE -- WE'RE ELIMINATE -- WE'RE COMPLETELY ELIMINATING THE PROCESS

                    THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR HUNDREDS -- FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS NOW.

                                 LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.  I WAS A FORMER DEFENSE

                    LAWYER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MR. HEVESI, WHY DO

                    YOU RISE?

                                         103



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

                                 MR. MOLITOR:  NO, THANK YOU.  ON THE BILL.

                                 I HAVE BEEN A DEFENSE ATTORNEY.  NO DEFENSE ATTORNEY

                    WORTH THEIR SALT WOULD ADVISE THEIR CLIENT TO SPEAK TO THE POLICE FOR ANY

                    REASON WHATSOEVER IF THEY WERE UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.  SO WHAT

                    THIS DOES IS THIS EFFECTIVELY KILLS THAT INVESTIGATIVE TOOL FOR -- FOR POLICE

                    AGENCIES ALL ACROSS OUR STATE.  AND IT'S GONNA, YOU KNOW, JUST ADD IT TO

                    THE LIST TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO COMMIT CRIMES.

                                 I'LL BE FIRMLY IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                    WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  (INDISCERNIBLE/MIC OFF) -- WOULD

                    YIELD?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  HIS TIME -- HIS TIME

                    IS UP.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YOU KNOW WHAT?  WE'LL MAKE IT EASY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  HIS TIME IS UP.  MR.

                    HEVESI, HIS TIME IS UP.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  THANK YOU.  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                         104



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI:  ABSOLUTELY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                 THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. HEVESI, CAN YOU JUST PLEASE DEFINE WHAT CUSTODY

                    MEANS IN NEW YORK STATE?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WE GOT IT.  GIVE ME ONE SECOND, SIR.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  SURE.

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WHILE WE'RE LOOKING IT UP, DO ME A

                    FAVOR.  IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, CAN YOU TELL THE BODY?

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  NO, I'D RATHER WAIT FOR YOU, SIR.

                    THAT'S WHY I GET TO ASK THE QUESTIONS AND YOU GET TO ANSWER THEM.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  THANK YOU FOR THE OFFER.

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THE STANDARD THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH --

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  YEP.

                                 MR. HEVESI: -- IS THAT THE PERSON IS NOT -- BELIEVE

                    THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.  SO BASICALLY, IF YOU ARE --

                    BASICALLY, THE DEFINITION OF CUSTODY IN NEW YORK, THEN, IS IF AN

                    INDIVIDUAL IS NOT FREE TO LEAVE A SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.

                                         105



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.  SO COMMONPLACE IN NEW

                    YORK CITY, RIGHT, WE BOTH REPRESENT PARTS OF NEW YORK CITY, RIGHT,

                    COPS SHOW UP TO A SCENE, LET'S SAY THERE'S ABOUT A HUNDRED PEOPLE IN THE

                    STREET, RIGHT?  COPS SHOW UP, MAYBE THEY SEE SOMEBODY ON THE GROUND.

                    THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED.  WOULD YOU AGREE, MR. HEVESI?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  TO YOUR HYPOTHETICAL, SURE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OF COURSE NOT, RIGHT?  NO

                    RATIONAL PERSON WOULD REAL -- THINK THAT THE POLICE KNEW WHAT WAS

                    GOING ON.  ARE WE NOW EXPECTING THE POLICE TO SHOW UP AND NOT SAY A

                    WORD TO ANYBODY?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  NO.  QUITE THE REVERSE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WE'RE EXPECTING THAT THEY DON'T TAKE

                    IN YOUTH INTO CUSTODY WITHOUT LETTING THOSE YOUTH UNDERSTAND TRULY

                    WHAT THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS ARE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  WELL, ACTUALLY, MR. HEVESI --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT'S THE GOAL.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  -- THAT'S AN INTERESTING RESPONSE.

                    BECAUSE YOU JUST TOLD US THAT SOMEBODY IS IN CUSTODY WHEN THEY ARE

                    NOT FREE TO LEAVE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES, BUT IT -- BUT -- AND LET ME AMEND

                    BECAUSE COUNSEL CAME OVER AS WE WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH.  IT'S -- IT'S

                    SUBJECT TO THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THAT'S -- THAT'S THE -- THE

                    CURRENT LAW.  SO...

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.  SO LET'S TAKE THE TOTALITY

                                         106



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.  SO COUNSEL TELLS ME, AND I

                    THINK YOUR COLLEAGUE TO YOUR -- TO YOUR LEFT WAS CORRECT BEFORE.  THERE'S

                    AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD AND SUBJECTIVE.  SO IT'S ARE YOU ABLE TO LEAVE,

                    RIGHT, AND THEN ARE YOU ACTUALLY BEING DETAINED AND ARE YOU -- DO YOU

                    BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEAVE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.  SO NOW IT'S ARE YOU

                    ACTUALLY DETAINED AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE

                    SCENE?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT'S PART OF THE CURRENT LAW THAT --

                    THAT YOUR -- YOUR COLLEAGUE REFERENCED.  SO, YES.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  WELL, THAT'S -- THAT'S THE LAW THAT

                    YOU ARE SPONSORING, CORRECT?  BECAUSE NOW --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  NO, NO, NO, NO.  THAT'S EXISTING LAW,

                    MY FRIEND.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  WELL, LET'S -- LET'S -- LET'S -- LET'S

                    THINK THIS THROUGH, MR. HEVESI.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  PLEASE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  COPS SHOW UP TO A SCENE.

                    THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED.  MAYBE THERE'S SOMEBODY

                    ON THE GROUND, RIGHT?  WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OVER,

                    POTENTIALLY, THIS INDIVIDUAL OR NEXT TO THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE

                    FREE TO LEAVE AT THAT POINT?

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                         107



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.  SO THERE'S -- THERE'S A

                    DISTINCTION HERE.  GIVE ME ONE SECOND BECAUSE I WANT TO CLEAR THIS UP

                    AND CLARIFY THIS.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  I APPRECIATE IT.

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MR. HEVESI:  ASK THE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME, SIR.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.  POLICE SHOW UP TO A

                    SCENE.  LET'S SAY THERE'S ABOUT 50, 60 PEOPLE ON THE STREET.  MAYBE

                    THERE'S SOMEBODY ON THE GROUND.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  PEOPLE -- THE POLICE APPROACH

                    THE SCENE WITH THE PERSON ON THE GROUND AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AROUND

                    THAT INDIVIDUAL.  POLICE START ASKING QUESTIONS NOW.  WOULD YOU SAY

                    THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE FREE TO LEAVE?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.  I WOULD SAY THAT IF THEY'RE NOT IN

                    CUSTODY, BUT, BUT --

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  REALLY?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  BUT THE LAW ALLOWS, IF I'M -- IF I'M

                    GETTING THIS RIGHT, THAT IF A PERSON BELIEVES THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO LEAVE --

                    LET ME -- HERE WE GO.  HERE IT IS.  THE COURT APPLIES AN OBJECTIVE

                    CONTEXT-SPECIFIC TEST THAT CONSIDERS THE DEGREE OF INTIMIDATION THAT A

                    REASONABLE PERSON IN THE SUSPECT'S SHOES WOULD FEEL IF HE WERE -- HE

                    WERE FREELY -- TO FREELY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.

                    SO THE COURT APPLIES A TEST, PART OF THAT TEST IS WHETHER THE PERSON FELT

                    THAT THEY WERE DETAINED OR NOT.

                                         108



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.  LET'S -- LET'S

                    MOVE IT ON BECAUSE --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  -- I THINK THIS IS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S

                    NOT YOUR FAULT.  THIS IS NOT YOUR BILL SO I UNDERSTAND.  IT'S JUST A

                    RIDICULOUS BILL.

                                 ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. HEVESI.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SIR.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  LET'S SAY WE GET TO THE POINT

                    WHERE SOMEBODY NOW IS ACTUALLY IN CUSTODY AND THEY ARE TO NOTIFY THE

                    PARENTS.  WHO GIVES THEM THE INFORMATION FOR THE PARENTS FOR THEM TO

                    NOTIFY?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THE KID.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  THE KID?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THE YOUTH.  WE -- WE COVERED THIS IN

                    THE LAST ROUND OF QUESTIONING WHERE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GIVE PEDIGREE

                    INFORMATION.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  SO NOW WE ARE EXPECTING THE

                    MINOR, WHO'S UNDER 18, TO BE TRUTHFUL AND PROVIDE, HOPEFULLY, THE

                    PHONE NUMBER AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THEIR PARENTS AT THE SCENE?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES, WE WOULD HOPE SO.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  AND WE ARE ALSO SAYING THAT

                    EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT MADE.  WHAT EXACTLY IS -- DOES REASONABLE

                    EFFORT MEAN?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THE REASONABLE EFFORT IS A STANDARD

                                         109



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    THAT WE'RE APPLYING IF THE POLICE CAN'T, FOR SAFETY REASONS, CONTACT THE

                    KID.  THEY GOT TO GET OUT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE.  SO LET'S USE YOUR

                    HYPOTHETICAL.  THERE'S A HUNDRED KIDS AND THERE'S A MELEE.  COPS COME

                    AND -- GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  SURE.

                                 (CONFERENCING)

                                 MR. HEVESI:  FORGIVE ME, I LOST MY TRAIN OF

                    THOUGHT.  ASKS ME THE UNDERLYING QUESTION AGAIN.  I APOLOGIZE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  WHAT DOES REASONABLE EFFORT --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THANK YOU.  I LOST IT.  THE REASONABLE

                    EFFORT STANDARD IS WHAT WE'RE PUTTING IN TO MAKE SURE THAT IF COPS HAVE

                    TO LEAVE AN UNSAFE SCENE THAT THEY GIVE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO DO

                    WHAT THIS LAW IS ASKING, WHICH IS CONTACT THEIR PARENT OR THE PERSON

                    LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE.  BUT IF THEY CAN'T DO THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY

                    HAVE TO MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO TRY TO DO THAT.  BUT IF THE SCENE

                    IS UNSAFE, THEY CAN LEAVE AND CONTACT THEIR PARENT LATER.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  SO THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF THE

                    INDIVIDUAL REFUSES TO GIVE THEIR PARENTS' CONTACT INFORMATION OR THEIR

                    PARENTS' NAMES?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WELL, THEN THE POLICE HAVE TRIED TO

                    CONTACT THE PARENT.  I BELIEVE THAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE EFFORT ON

                    THEIR PART TO TRY TO CONTACT THE PARENTS.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  SO NOW THEY'RE ALLOWED TO TAKE

                    THAT PERSON INTO CUSTODY AND QUESTION THEM?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IF THEY'VE TRIED TO CONTACT THE PARENTS,

                                         110



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    YES.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  WELL, NO --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) REASONABLE

                    --

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  I'M -- I'M SAYING -- FORGET THE

                    TRYING.  LET'S SAY THAT INDIVIDUAL REFUSES TO GIVE THEIR PARENTS'

                    INFORMATION --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  OKAY.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  -- OR CONTACT INFORMATION.  WHAT

                    HAPPENS THEN?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THEN IT -- THAT CIRCUMSTANCE -- THEN

                    OBVIOUSLY THE POLICE CAN'T CONTACT THE PARENTS, BUT THE POLICE IN THAT

                    CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE MADE EVERY

                    REASONABLE EFFORT.  THEY DID EVERYTHING RIGHT.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  SO -- SO NOW THAT GOES TO MY

                    SECOND QUESTION.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  ARE THEY NOW ALLOWED TO

                    QUESTION THAT INDIVIDUAL?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  NO, BECAUSE -- NO.  BECAUSE THAT'S THE

                    FIRST PART OF THE BILL.  THAT'S PARENTS.  NOW THEY HAVE TO GO AND BEFORE

                    THE YOUNGSTER IS READ THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS THEY HAVE TO HAVE CONTACT

                    WITH AN ATTORNEY.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.  SO NOW, EVEN THOUGH

                    THERE'S BEEN NO CONTACT WITH A PARENT, NOW THE POLICE ARE STILL REQUIRED

                                         111



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    TO NOTIFY AN ATTORNEY -- TO GET AN ATTORNEY FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL, CORRECT?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.

                                 ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.  WHY IS THE NEW YORK CITY

                    POLICE DEPARTMENT OPPOSED TO THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SO, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.  I'VE TALKED TO

                    THE NYPD, PARTICULARLY LAST YEAR.  THEY WERE OPPOSED TO -- TO THE

                    ENTIRE PRINCIPLE OF IT.  THEY WERE NOT CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENTS FROM

                    US OR FROM THE SUPREME COURT OR FROM THE -- THE NEW YORK STATE

                    COURT OF APPEALS THAT ARGUES THAT KIDS WHO ARE IN CUSTODIAL

                    INTERROGATION ARE JUST NOT ABLE TO HANDLE IT.  SO THAT WAS NUMBER ONE.

                    SO THEY -- IN GENERAL THEY DIDN'T LIKE THIS IN PRINCIPLE.  BUT THEY ALSO

                    SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T LIKE THE NOTIFICATION THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT

                    THE POLICE HAVE TO MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT.  SO WHAT WE DID WAS

                    WE AMENDED IT ON THEIR BEHALF TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BILL CLARIFIES THAT

                    THE NYPD HAVE TO MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT BEFORE THEY LEAVE THE

                    SCENE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  OKAY.  BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, OF

                    COURSE, IS THAT THE NYPD IS STILL OPPOSED TO THIS BILL.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  I'M SURE THEY ARE.  BUT WE'VE CLARIFIED

                    -- THEY -- THEY HAD TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL; ONE WOULD HAVE

                    GUT THE ENTIRE BILL.  THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE

                    YOUTH GET ACCESS TO AN ADULT THIRD-PARTY WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR BEST

                    INTERESTS.  SO, THE NYPD DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT, SO WE MOVED AHEAD

                    ANYWAY.  BUT WITH THE PIECE ABOUT NOTIFICATION TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR

                                         112



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    LAW -- LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE CLEAR ON WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO, WE

                    MADE THE AMENDMENT.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  ALL RIGHT.  WELL, THANK YOU SO

                    MUCH TIME -- THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, MR. HEVESI.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  ON THE BILL, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  SO, I DEBATED THIS BILL FOUR YEARS

                    AGO.  THE BILL, I BELIEVED AT THAT TIME, WAS ONE OF THE STUPIDEST PIECES

                    OF LEGISLATION THAT I HAVE SEEN THROUGH THIS ASSEMBLY.  I STILL BELIEVE IT

                    TO BE THE SAME.  THIS IS NOT LOGISTICALLY CORRECT, AND IT WILL NOT -- IT WILL

                    HAVE A TREMENDOUSLY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE POTENTIAL INVESTIGATION OF

                    CASES.  POLICE RESPOND TO A SCENE, THEY ARE THERE TO INVESTIGATE.  THEY

                    ARE THERE TO TALK TO PEOPLE.  IF THEY NOW HAVE TO TAKE AWAY FROM THOSE

                    EFFORTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO RELY ON THE INDIVIDUALS THEY ARE

                    QUESTIONING TO GIVE THEM INFORMATION FOR THEIR PARENTS AND TO SPEND THE

                    TIME TO CONTACT THEM, WHICH WILL NOW PRECLUDE THEM FROM FINDING OUT

                    MORE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE THE CASE, THIS

                    WILL ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY COMPROMISE A LOT OF INVESTIGATIONS.  MOST OF THE

                    TIME, I WOULD SAY ABOUT 99 PERCENT OF THE TIME, MOST OF THE

                    INVESTIGATION OCCURS ON THE SCENE.  THE POLICE SHOW UP, THEY SEE WHAT

                    -- THEY OBSERVE CERTAIN THINGS.  THEY QUESTION CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.

                    THEY GATHER CERTAIN EVIDENCE.  AND BASED ON THAT, THAT'S WHERE A CASE

                    IS -- BEGINS TO BE BUILT.  THIS, HOWEVER, WILL MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO

                    DO THAT.

                                         113



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 AT MY TIME AS A BRONX ADA, NOT ONLY DID I OBSERVE

                    SITUATIONS, UNFORTUNATELY, WHERE A LOT OF MINORS WERE ARRESTED AND

                    CHARGED WITH CRIMES.  I ALSO OBSERVED MANY TIMES WHERE DEFENSE

                    ATTORNEYS THEMSELVES, AFTER THESE CHIL -- THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE ARRESTED

                    AND BROUGHT TO COURT AND AWAITING ARRAIGNMENT, AND I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN

                    TO EXPLAIN HOW MANY TIMES A CASE WAS SECOND-CALLED, THIRD-CALLED,

                    CALLED AGAIN ON THE FOURTH TIME BECAUSE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY CAN --

                    CANNOT GET IN TOUCH WITH A GUARDIAN AND THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ARRAIGN

                    THE CASE UNTIL A GUARDIAN WAS CONTACTED FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL.  ARE WE

                    NOW REALLY EXPECTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO

                    NOTIFY A PARENT ON THE SCENE WITH POTENTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE STREET?

                    WOULDN'T A DEFENSE ATTORNEY THEMSELVES COULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE

                    PARENTS?  AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOURS LATER FROM THE COURTROOM?

                    HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

                                 I'M SORRY, THIS IS RIDICULOUS AND I VOTE NO.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN:  THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER.

                                 ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MS. BICHOTTE HERMELYN:  CUSTODY DOESN'T

                    NECESSARILY MEAN ARREST AS WE -- WE HERE.  CUSTODY IS WHEN YOU'RE --

                    ONE IS IN A POSITION WHERE THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE,

                    AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHERE OUR

                                         114



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    CHILDREN ARE APPROACHED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND THEY'RE HELD

                    IN CUSTODY.  AND VERY OFTEN, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE YOUNG, 16- AND

                    17-YEAR-OLDS, THEY DON'T KNOW THEIR RIGHTS.  THEY ARE SPONTANEOUSLY

                    UTTERING ANYTHING, EVEN IF THEY'RE INNOCENT.  AND WE KNOW THAT WE HAD

                    PASSED RAISE THE AGE WHERE 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS WHO ARE BEING

                    CHARGED MALICIOUS -- MALICIOUSLY OF CRIMES THAT WERE NONVIOLENT AND

                    THEY WERE BEING CHARGED AS ADULTS.  WE WERE ONE OF THE LAST TWO STATES

                    THAT FINALLY PASSED RAISE THE AGE.  AND BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING

                    WHERE MANY CHILDREN ARE WAIVING THEIR FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THEIR

                    MIRANDA RIGHTS, YOU STILL SEE A HIGH NUMBER OF CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY IN

                    VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, MINORITY COMMUNITIES ARE GETTING -- ARE

                    INCRIMINATED BECAUSE OF EXCITED UTTERANCE, SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCE, THEY

                    DON'T HAVE THE KNOWING FACTOR, THE INTELLIGENT FACTOR AND THE VOLUNTARY

                    FACTOR.  THEY JUST SAY ANYTHING.  SO THIS BILL THAT MY COLLEAGUE HAS IS TO

                    PROTECT THEM.  IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT IF A PARENT, AN ATTORNEY OR SOMEONE

                    WHO'S GOING TO PROTECT THEM, BECAUSE THOSE VERY STATEMENTS THAT ARE

                    MADE OR UTTERED OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS CAN BE USED AGAINST THEM,

                    INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS.  AND IF YOU COME BEFORE A JURY, GUESS WHAT?

                    EVIDENCE IS -- IS ADMITTED, IT'S ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS EXCITED

                    UTTERANCE, AND THEN YOU HAVE A JURY WHO'S GOING TO USE THAT EVIDENCE

                    AND IT'S GOING TO BE VERY PREJUDICIAL.

                                 THIS BILL IS GOING TO KEEP OUR KIDS SAFE BY NOTIFYING

                    THE ADULT IN THEIR LIFE WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND REDUCE UNNECESSARY

                    TRAUMA FOR THAT SAID CHILD BY NOT TAKING THEM DIRECTLY TO THE

                    STATIONHOUSE AND INSTEAD WAIT TO SEE IF IT'S NEEDED TO TAKE THEM TO A

                                         115



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    MORE APPROPRIATE LOCATION.  LET'S JUST TAKE THEM AT HOME IF THEY DON'T

                    NEED TO BE QUESTIONED.  THIS WILL KEEP OUR KIDS INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHTS

                    BY MAKING THEM BE IN CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE THEY'RE

                    QUESTIONED.  IT REDUCES THE RISK OF THEM UNKNOWINGLY WAIVING THEIR

                    MIRANDA RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS TO REMAIN SILENT.

                                 MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ALWAYS TALK

                    ABOUT HOW THEY WANT TO DO BETTER FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR

                    COMMUNITIES.  OUR CHILDREN ARE NOT MURDERERS, THEY'RE NOT RAPISTS,

                    THEY'RE NOT ALL THOSE BAD THINGS.  AND AGAIN, VERY OFTEN WHEN BLACK

                    AND BROWN KIDS ARE APPROACHED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND

                    THEY'RE INNOCENT, ANYTHING CAN BE SAID.  THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW

                    THEY'RE ARRESTED AND THEY'RE IN CUSTODY AND THEY'RE IN JAIL.  THIS BILL WILL

                    DIRECTLY ADD NEW SAFEGUARDS TO POTENTIAL (INDISCERNIBLE) WHILE THEY ARE

                    IN ONE OF THE MOST VULNERABLE MOMENTS AND FOR THIS, MADAM SPEAKER, I

                    THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR DOING THIS.  THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.  I THINK WE

                    SHOULD DO THIS FOR THOSE AS WELL IN MANY CASES BECAUSE ADULTS, YOU

                    KNOW, ARE VERY OFTEN ARE WAIVING THEIR RIGHTS.

                                 SO I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR THIS BILL AND I

                    WILL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. ANGELINO.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                    WOULD YOU ASK THE SPONSOR TO YIELD?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WILL THE SPONSOR

                    YIELD?

                                         116



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES, SIR.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  I HAD NOT INTENDED TO ASK

                    ANYTHING, BUT THE LONGER THIS GOES ON THE MORE QUESTIONS START COMING

                    UP BUT I APPRECIATE IT.  THANK YOU, SIR.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SURE.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT

                    -- WELL, FIRST OFF, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR.  OFFICER TAKES 16,

                    17-YEAR-OLD OR YOUNGER INTO CUSTODY, ONCE THEY'RE MIRANDIZED, THEY

                    CAN'T GO BACK TO THE STATION UNTIL PARENTS ARE NOTIFIED IF I REMEMBER

                    CORRECTLY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.  EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT IS MADE

                    TO NOTIFY THEIR PARENTS.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  AND THEN, DO YOU ENVISION THEIR

                    PARENTS ARE COMING TO THE SCENE?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THEY

                    COULD.  THAT'S (INDISCERNIBLE), RIGHT?

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  BUT ULTI -- BUT EVENTUALLY IF A

                    YOUTH IS MIRANDIZED, THE PARENTS CANNOT WAIVE IT.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WELL, LET ME TAKE A STEP BACK.  THE

                    BILL -- WE'RE HOPING THAT THE YOUTH DOESN'T GET MIRANDIZED WITHOUT AN

                    ATTORNEY BEING CONTACTED.  BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.  NO. A PARENT CANNOT

                    WAIVE THIS ON BEHALF OF THEIR CHILD.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  YEAH, I HEARD YOU SAY THAT.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEP.

                                         117



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  YOU SAID I THINK SOMETHING TO

                    PARAPHRASING, A THIRD-PARTY NONINVOLVED PERSON WILL MAKE THE DECISION.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YES.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  WHY IS THAT BETTER THAN THE PARENT

                    MAKING A DECISION FOR THEIR CHILD?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  GREAT QUESTION.  AND THANK YOU FOR

                    ASKING IT BECAUSE AS A -- AS A PARENT MYSELF IT'S SORT OF

                    COUNTER-INTUITIVE, BUT LET ME TAKE YOU THROUGH -- LET ME TAKE YOU

                    THROUGH WHY THE PARENTS CAN'T WAIVE THIS RIGHT AND WHY YOU'RE NOT JUST

                    ASKING FOR THE PARENTS TO BE CONTACTED.

                                 SO, NUMBER ONE, STRANGELY, THE PRESENCE OF A PARENT

                    DOES NOT SERVE THE PROTECTIVE FUNCTION ANY OF US WOULD EXPECT.  I WILL

                    GIVE YOU THE CASE OF A GENTLEMAN NAMED STEVEN RUFFIN ACTUALLY WAS

                    WRONGFULLY CONVICTED IN A PRISON FOR ALMOST 14 YEARS AFTER HIS FATHER

                    CAME DOWN TO THE STATION AND ENCOURAGED HIM TO CONFESS.  AND WE SEE

                    PARENTS WHO ENCOURAGE THEIR KIDS TO SPEAK TO THE POLICE AGAINST THEIR

                    CHILD'S BEST INTEREST OUT OF A NUMBER OF THINGS, OUT OF FEAR, OUT OF

                    RESPECT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, FRUSTRATION AND THERE'S A FEW MORE.  LET

                    ME JUST TOUCH ON THESE.  I THINK IT'LL BE HELPFUL.

                                 NUMBER ONE, MOST PARENTS DON'T UNDERSTAND MIRANDA.

                    THERE ARE PARENTS WHO MAY HAVE FINANCIAL CONCERNS ABOUT THIS CASE

                    CONSIDERING THEY HAVE TO MISS WORK OR THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT COURT FEES

                    OR TRANSPORTATION.  SOME PARENTS ARE WORRIED ABOUT HUMILIATION OR

                    STIGMA.  AND THEN FINALLY THE LAST THING IS PARENTS SOCIAL THEIR KIDS TO

                    COMPLY WITH AUTHORITY FIGURES.  AND IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES THAT'S

                                         118



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    HELPFUL.  IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE THAT'S -- THAT'S DANGEROUS.  SO

                    FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS PARENTS ARE NOT ABLE TO WAIVE THAT RIGHT.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  SO A THIRD-PARTY ACTUALLY IS --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  A LAWYER.

                                 MR. ANGELINO: -- TAKING, RIGHT, A LAWYER --

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  YEP.

                                 MR. ANGELINO: -- IS ACTUALLY IN THE POSITION OF

                    BEING A PARENT, THEN.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  NO, NO. THE LAWYER IS GOING TO

                    PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT THE PARENT WOULDN'T HAVE --

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  RIGHT.

                                 MR. HEVESI: -- FOR EXAMPLE.  LET'S SAY

                    HYPOTHETICALLY A CHILD IS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND CALLS IN HIS PARENTS AND

                    SAYS TO HIS PARENTS, HEY, WHEN IS MY RECORD GOING TO BE EXPUNGED IF I

                    PLEAD GUILTY TO ASSAULT TWO?  A PARENT'S NOT GOING TO KNOW THAT.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  RIGHT.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  A LAWYER MIGHT, AND BY THE WAY IT

                    WAS A TRICK QUESTION.  IN NEW YORK STATE YOU -- YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR

                    RECORD EXPUNGED.  SO -- SO YOU CAN'T HAVE A PARENT.  YOU NEED A

                    LAWYER.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  SO AFTER THE ATTORNEY SAYS, DON'T

                    WAIVE YOUR RIGHT, CAN THE PARENT SAY NO, I WANT HIM TO TALK TO THE

                    POLICE?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SURE.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  AND THAT'S STILL GOING TO BE

                                         119



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    ADMITTED, THEN, IF THE PARENT --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IF -- AS LONG AS THE -- THE -- THE YOUTH

                    HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF HIS RIGHTS BY COUNSEL --

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  RIGHT.

                                 MR. HEVESI: -- IF HE WAIVES HIS RIGHT AFTER THAT, THEN

                    JUST RIGHTS ARE WAIVED.  THEN HE DOES NOT HAVE TO --

                                 (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK)

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  THAT -- THAT SOUNDS CONTRARY TO

                    WHAT I WAS TAUGHT BECAUSE ONCE A LAWYER, BASICALLY THEY'VE LAWYERED

                    UP, THEY SAY.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  THEY -- WE CAN'T USE ANYTHING.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  I -- I THINK THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL

                    MISUNDERSTANDING.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  IT'S BEEN YEARS OF A

                    MISUNDERSTANDING, THEN.  BUT --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  SO -- TELL -- TELL ME, MAYBE I'M GETTING

                    WRONG, IT'S POSSIBLE.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  ONCE A PERSON IN OUR VERNACULAR

                    "LAWYER'S UP", YOU CAN'T ASK THEM ANYMORE QUESTIONS.  SO ONCE THEY

                    ASK FOR THEIR ATTORNEY TO SHOW UP, AND THE ATTORNEY SAYS, MY CLIENT IS

                    NOT GOING TO WAIVE THEIR RIGHTS, THEY'RE GOING TO REMAIN SILENT, CAN A

                    PARENT SAY NO, I WANT THEM TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT -- THAT DECISION WILL ULTIMATELY

                    RESIDE WITH THE YOUTH, BUT AS LONG -- SO -- SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AS

                                         120



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    LONG AS IT'S BEEN MADE -- A LAWYER'S BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM SO HE

                    HAS GOOD LEGAL ADVICE, IF HE DECIDES TO WAIVE THAT LEGAL ADVICE, THAT'S

                    ON HIM.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN DO THAT.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  I BELIEVE THEY CAN.  I'M CONFIDENT THEY

                    CAN.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  OKAY.  VERY GOOD.  SO THE WHOLE

                    CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND IT'S -- IT'S

                    BEEN -- IT'S BEEN MODIFIED QUITE A BIT IN THE LAST FIVE, SIX YEARS.  WHAT IS

                    THE GOAL OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN NEW YORK STATE?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  WHAT'S THE GOAL OF OUR CRIMINAL

                    JUSTICE SYSTEM?

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  I THINK IT'S WHAT I WAS TAUGHT --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY TO KEEP US

                    SAFE, BUT THE --

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  I ALWAYS THOUGHT -- I ALWAYS

                    THOUGHT IT WAS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THAT'S RIGHT, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE

                    DON'T WANT KIDS WHO ARE AT THREE TIMES THE RATE FALSELY CONFESSING TO

                    CRIMES THEY DIDN'T COMMIT.  YOU'RE RIGHT.  WE WANT TO GET THE TRUTH.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  HOW DO WE GET THE TRUTH IF WE

                    KEEP MAKING IT MORE AND MORE CUMBERSOME TO EVEN ASK THE

                    QUESTIONS?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IT'S -- IT'S NOT -- SO -- SO WHAT YOU'RE

                    TRYING TO AVOID IS UNRELIABLE INFORMATION.  YOU'RE TRYING TO -- TO AVOID

                                         121



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    FALSIFIED INFORMATION.  WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT KIDS GET INTO THIS

                    CIRCUMSTANCE.  THEY START BEING QUESTIONED AND THEY FALL TO PIECES.  I

                    WILL EVEN -- GIVE ME ONE SECOND, BECAUSE OUR OWN CHIEF JUDGE OF NEW

                    YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS MENTIONED THAT, CHILDREN DO RESORT TO

                    FALSEHOOD TO ALLEVIATE DISCOMFORT AND SATISFY THE EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE

                    IN AUTHORITY, AND IN DOING SO OFTEN NEGLECT TO CONSIDER THE SERIOUS AND

                    LASTING CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ELECTION.  THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTAL

                    REASONS FOR THIS BEHAVIOR WHICH WE IGNORE AT THE PERIL OF THE

                    TRUTH-SEEKING PROCESS.  THIS IS ABOUT GETTING TO THE TRUTH.  WHAT WE'RE

                    TRYING TO AVOID IS HAVING THESE KIDS GIVE FALSE INFORMATION.  AND BY THE

                    WAY, LET ME -- LET ME TOUCH ON ONE LAST THING.  I THINK THIS IS PRETTY

                    IMPORTANT, AND FORGIVE ME, MY NOTES ARE ALL OVER THE PLACES.  HERE'S

                    ONE THING THAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO AVOID.

                                 IN 2021 THERE WAS A STUDY, A NATIONAL REGISTRY OF

                    EXONERATION -- EXONERATED PERSONS THAT SAYS OF THE 288 EXONERATED

                    PEOPLES SINCE 1989 IN NEW YORK STATE, 25 OF THEM WERE UNDER 18 AT

                    THE TIME OF ARREST.  ALL RIGHT?  SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET

                    THE PERPETRATORS OF THE ACTUAL CRIMES, NOT THESE KIDS WHO ARE

                    CONFESSING AT THREE TIMES THE RATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE COGNITIVE

                    CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES --

                                 (CROSS-TALK)

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  AND THAT NUMBER WAS 288 TIMES?

                                 MR. HEVESI:  IT WAS 288 EXONERATED IN NEW YORK

                    STATE SINCE 1989.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  ALL RIGHT.  EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE,

                                         122



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    AND IT HAPPENS WITH SOME REGULARITY AT ANY POLICE STATION ANYWHERE, A

                    PARENT COMES STORMING INTO THE STATION WITH A KID IN TOW AND SAYS TELL

                    THEM WHAT YOU DID OR I WANT HIM TO TELL YOU.  NOW WHAT DO WE DO?

                    AND SOME OF THOSE HAVE BEEN PRETTY BAD; CAR THEFT --

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.

                                 MR. ANGELINO: -- STOLE A GUN, THINGS LIKE THAT.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  SO THOSE DAYS ARE GONE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  YEAH, SO -- SO WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT

                    SOMETIMES -- SO AS A PARENT THIS IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SAY BECAUSE I

                    WANT TO BE THERE TO GIVE MY KID ADVICE.  BUT PARENTS COME INTO THE

                    SITUATION FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS OFTEN PUSH THE KID TO ANSWER THE

                    OFFICER'S QUESTION, OR THE OFFICERS WILL SAY SOMETHING LIKE HEY, YOU

                    GOTTA TELL YOUR MOM THE TRUTH.  SO -- SO ADDING PARENTS TO THAT DYNAMIC

                    IS NOT THE -- THE WAY TO SOLVE IT.  THE WAY TO SOLVE IT IS TO HAVE

                    SOMEBODY WHO'S AN INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  THANK YOU, MR. SPONSOR.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THANK YOU, SIR.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE BILL.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  SO NOT EVERYWHERE IN NEW YORK

                    STATE IS NEW YORK CITY.  WE DON'T HAVE COPS ON EACH BLOCK WALKING OR

                    IN AN RMP, THE -- THERE'S TROOPERS AND DEPUTIES OUT THERE THAT ARE MILES

                    AND MILES AWAY WITH NO CELL SERVICE, AND TRYING TO FIND A LOCATION THAT

                    THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION HAS DESIGNATED AS A PLACE TO

                                         123



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    QUESTION YOUTH IS NOT EASY.  I THINK MY COUNTY HAS THREE FOR 900 -- 905

                    SQUARE MILES AND THERE ARE CHILDREN NOW WHO ARE COMMITTING ADULT

                    CRIMES, THEY ALWAYS HAVE, BUT NOW LARGELY BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENED

                    IN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN ENACTED, THESE YOUTH ARE

                    ACTUALLY BEING GROOMED BY ADULTS TO COMMIT CRIMES BECAUSE THEY

                    KNOW NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND THIS IS ONE MORE STEP IN THE WAY

                    OF NEVER GETTING TO THE TRUTH OR JUSTICE FOR A VICTIM OF A CRIME.  EVERY

                    ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE'S LIKELY A VICTIM SOMEPLACE

                    AND THERE -- THERE ARE GREAT ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEFENSE AND

                    THE PROSECUTION WHO ARE STRIVING TO GET TO IT.  BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST

                    START HAMSTRINGING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON THE STREET WHO ARE

                    JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE TRUTH, THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

                    SYSTEM.  BUT THIS IS PRETTY CUMBERSOME.  IT MIGHT WORK IN NEW YORK

                    CITY AND I THINK EVERY PRECINCT HOUSE IN NEW YORK CITY HAS A

                    DESIGNATED AREA, BUT A LOT OF THE QUESTIONING THAT I'VE SEEN HAPPEN

                    HAPPENS IN THE BACKSEAT OF A POLICE CAR OR STANDING ALONGSIDE OF THE

                    ROAD WITH A CRIME SCENE NEARBY AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO FIGURE OUT

                    WHAT HAPPENED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.  THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES A LONE

                    TROOPER, A LONE DEPUTY HAS A PERSON UNDER ARREST AND WITNESSES WITH

                    HIM AND IF ONE OF THOSE WITNESSES, YOU CAN'T DETERMINE IF THEY'RE A

                    WITNESS OR A PERPETRATOR IT'S KIND OF HARD TO ASK THEM A QUESTION ON THE

                    SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH A (INDISCERNIBLE).

                                 THIS IS PRETTY CUMBERSOME.  I KNOW WHY NYPD

                    DOESN'T LIKE IT.  I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER AND I'LL BE VOTING NO. THANK YOU,

                    MADAM SPEAKER.

                                         124



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MR. GIBBS.

                                 MR. GIBBS:  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  YOU'RE ON.

                                 MR. GIBBS:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  I

                    WITHDRAW.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  READ THE LAST

                    SECTION.

                                 THE CLERK:  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT APRIL 1,

                    2026.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  A PARTY VOTE HAS

                    BEEN REQUESTED.

                                 MS. WALSH.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.  THE

                    REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS PIECE OF

                    LEGISLATION.  ANY OTHER VOTES CAN BE CAST AT THEIR SEATS.  THANK YOU VERY

                    MUCH.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, THE

                    MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS IN FAVOR OF THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION; HOWEVER,

                    THERE MAY BE SOME FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE AN EXCEPTION.  THEY

                    SHOULD FEEL FREE TO DO SO AT THEIR SEATS.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.  THE

                    CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

                                 (THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

                                         125



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MR. HEVESI TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. HEVESI:  THANK YOU, MY COLLEAGUES.  THANK

                    YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 LET ME -- I JUST WANT TO CLOSE WITH A COUPLE OF

                    THOUGHTS BECAUSE IT'S INTERESTING WITHIN LAW ENFORCEMENT THERE ARE

                    THOSE WHO ARE FOR IT AND THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST IT.  JUST SO MY

                    COLLEAGUES ARE AWARE.  WE HAVE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS HERE OR -- OR WE HAVE

                    COURTS SAYING THAT ENSURE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS IS MORE

                    IMPORTANT THAN BLIND FOCUS ON SECURING STATEMENTS, THAT THE PROCESS

                    MUST BE FAIR AND THE OUTCOME ACCURATE FOR IT TO BE LEGIT.  AND THAT

                    FINALLY THIS IS FROM A FORMER COMMISSIONER OF PROBATION:  THE INTEGRITY

                    OF THE SYSTEM NECESSITATES THAT WE ENSURE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF

                    CHILDREN ARE NOT ELUSORY.  AND I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH THIS POINT.  ONE OF

                    THE ANCILLARY CONSEQUENCES OF THIS WHOLE THING.  FIRST, AGAIN, BAD FOR

                    CHILDREN, BAD FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT THIS STUDY, A 2020 STUDY ANALYZED

                    109 WRONGFUL CONVICTION CASES WHERE DNA EVIDENCE WAS EVENTUALLY

                    USED TO IDENTIFY THE ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL THAT COMMITTED THE CRIME.  IN 94

                    PERCENT OF THOSE CASES THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ESCAPED ARREST -- SO THEY

                    ARRESTED THE KID OR THE CHILD FALSELY CONFESSED -- THE INDIVIDUAL WHO

                    ESCAPED THE ARREST WERE DEEMED RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL OFFENSES

                    INCLUDING 43 HOMICIDE-RELATED OFFENSES AND 94 SEX OFFENSES.  SO EVERY

                    TIME THAT WE HAVE A KID WHO FALSELY CONFESSES GOES INTO PRISON ON

                    UNRELIABLE INFORMATION, THAT MEANS THERE'S A PERB WALKING FREE OR

                    HURTING OTHER NEW YORKERS.

                                 LET ME END WITH THAT.  THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES

                                         126



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    FOR YOUR TIME.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. HEVESI IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  THANK YOU, MADAM

                    SPEAKER, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE.

                                 I JUST WANT TO SAY I KNOW THE -- WHENEVER THERE ARE

                    SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT ALWAYS GET [SIC] TO

                    BE UPSET PEOPLE BUT IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BECAUSE THE IDEA OF IT IS TO BRING

                    FORWARD SOMETHING IN THE GOOD.  AND I WOULD JUST WONDER FOR PEOPLE

                    WHO ARE POLICE OFFICERS OR FORMER POLICE OFFICERS OR ATTORNEYS, HOW DO

                    YOU TELL YOUR CHILDREN HOW TO ACT IF THEY GET STOPPED BY THE POLICE?  DO

                    YOU SAY TO THEM DON'T TALK UNTIL I'M THERE, OR DON'T TALK UNTIL YOU HAVE

                    LAWYER REPRESENTING -- REPRESENTING YOU?  OR DO YOU TELL THEM TO TALK

                    FREELY, UNDERSTANDING THAT WHATEVER THEIR FREE TALK IS CAN BE USED

                    AGAINST THEM.  I KNOW TONS OF FAMILIES WHO DO TELL THEIR YOUNG PEOPLE

                    THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS AND AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY TELL THEM HOW TO

                    DRIVE, HOW TO HOLD YOUR HANDS ON THE STEERING WHEEL, HOW TO DO ALL

                    THESE THINGS TO PROTECT YOURSELF, BUT THERE COULD BE SOME INCIDENCES

                    WHERE THERE'S SOME YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN TAUGHT THAT

                    LESSON.  THERE'S NO NEED FOR THEM TO LEARN IT WHILE THEY'RE INCARCERATED

                    BECAUSE THEY TALKED WHEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TALKING.  AND SO IF

                    THEY'RE TALKING WHEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE TALKING IT'S GOING TO BE USED

                    AGAINST THEM, MAYBE WE SHOULD RECONSIDER HOW WE ALLOW THAT TO

                    HAPPEN.  THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES.

                                         127



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 AND SO I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR.  I HEARD

                    ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE SAY THIS ISN'T HIS

                    BILL, BUT THE WAY HE DEBATED IT TODAY I'M VERY PROUD OF HIM.  IT LOOKS

                    LIKE HIS BILL TO ME.  I'LL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MRS.

                    PEOPLES-STOKES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 MR. REILLY TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. REILLY:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 SO AS I SAID DURING THE DEBATE I -- I APPRECIATE THE

                    INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION.  I JUST THINK IT GOES A LITTLE TOO FAR AND IT'S

                    SOMETHING THAT I SPEAK ABOUT ALL THE TIME WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CRIMINAL

                    JUSTICE LEGISLATION.  WHAT WE HAVE ON PAPER DOESN'T REALLY TRANSITION TO

                    THE REAL WORLD THE WAY WE THINK IT'S GOING TO.  AND THE REASON WHY I

                    BROUGHT UP THE ISSUES ABOUT THE SPONTANEOUS UTTERANCE IS BECAUSE THESE

                    ARE REAL LIFE CASES THAT HAPPEN.  AND THAT IS GOING TO IMPACT HOW WE

                    HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.  AND JUST LIKE WE DID IN THE

                    PAST WHERE WE NOW HAD -- WE HAD TO COME BACK MANY YEARS LATER AND

                    AMEND DISCOVERY, WE AMENDED A LITTLE BIT OF BAIL REFORM.  WE WILL BE

                    BACK HERE AGAIN AMENDING SOME PIECE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGISLATION

                    THAT MAY INCLUDE THIS, BECAUSE FAR TOO OFTEN WE GO FAR ONE WAY AND WE

                    TAKE AWAY THE REAL GOOD INTENT THAT'S IN HERE AND IF WE JUST TWEAK THAT, I

                    THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN COME TO A COMPROMISE ON AND WE

                    CAN ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IS SERVED FOR EVERYONE; THE CHILDREN THAT ARE THE

                    VICTIMS, THE CHILDREN THAT ARE THE DEFENDANTS AND FOR FAMILIES TO BE

                    UNITED.  I'LL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                         128



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. REILLY IN THE NEGATIVE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. TANNOUSIS:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR THE SPONSOR OF THIS

                    LEGISLATION.  I JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION BASED ON MY OWN

                    EXPERIENCES.  I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, POLICE OFFICERS SHOW UP TO A

                    SCENE THEY ARE THERE TO ASSIST, TO HELP PEOPLE, TO HELP PEOPLE IN DISTRESS,

                    TO PROTECT PEOPLE.  I THINK THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION LOGISTICALLY WILL NOT

                    WORK.  IT WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THEIR EFFORTS TO ACTUALLY HELP IN A

                    SITUATION AND NOW POTENTIALLY DO CURTAIL THEM INTO A WHOLE DIFFERENT

                    AVENUE WHICH MAY HINDER AN ACTUAL PROSECUTION.  I APPRECIATE THE

                    NUMBERS THAT WERE GIVEN BY THE SPONSOR PREVIOUSLY.  THE ONLY ISSUE I

                    DON'T SEE IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN UNLAW -- CONVICTIONS THAT SHOULDN'T

                    HAVE HAPPENED CONNECTED TO FALSE CONFESSIONS.  THAT I DO NOT SEE.  I

                    BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL NOT BE LOGISTICALLY SOUND.  THERE'S A REASON WHY

                    THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IS AGAINST THIS PIECE OF

                    LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT JUST NOT -- IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.  IT WILL

                    POTENTIALLY HINDER PROSECUTIONS ON THE STREET, INVESTIGATIONS ON THE

                    STREET, AND PROSECUTIONS IN THE COURTROOM.  AND I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS

                    PIECE OF LEGISLATION.  I WILL VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  MR. TANNOUSIS IN

                    THE NEGATIVE.

                                 MS. WALSH TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

                                 MS. WALSH:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                         129



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 SO, I -- I, TOO, APPRECIATE WHERE THIS BILL IS TRYING TO

                    COME FROM, I DO.  I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT FROM WHAT ANECDOTALLY I

                    HAVE HEARD ABOUT IN SOME CASES COERCED CONFESSIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS

                    WITH LOW IQ, FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO LACK THE MATURITY OR UNDERSTANDING

                    TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, THAT'S -- THAT'S A CONCERN.  I -- I JUST DON'T

                    FEEL THAT THIS BILL ADDRESSES IT IN A WAY THAT ACHIEVES THE PROPER BALANCE

                    AND AS WAS SAID EARLIER DURING THE DEBATE, WHICH I THINK WAS A VERY

                    GOOD DEBATE.  I THINK THAT WE ARE BLESSED AS A GROUP OF 150 OF US TO

                    HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, WHO ARE FORMER DEFENSE

                    ATTORNEYS.  WE HAVE A FEW ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLES, JUST NOT

                    EVERYBODY IS -- IS HERE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE, BUT FROM -- FROM MYSELF

                    HAVING A FAMILY COURT BACKGROUND, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE 16- AND

                    17-YEAR-OLDS THAT I SEE IN FAMILY COURT ARE VERY MUCH COMMITTING ADULT

                    CRIMES.  AND I THINK THAT -- I THINK THAT THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION, IN MY

                    OPINION, HAMSTRINGS LAW ENFORCEMENT TO TOO GREAT OF AN EXTENT AND I

                    THINK DISRUPTS THE BALANCE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE.  AS THE NEW

                    YORK STATE SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION STATED IN THEIR OPPOSITION:  THE

                    RECORDING REQUIREMENT FOR CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS OF JUVENILES

                    ALREADY PROVIDES AN AVENUE FOR THE DEFENSE TO CHALLENGE THE

                    ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS CAPTURED IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES BY

                    WEIGHING A RANGE OF FACTORS THAT BALANCE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WITH A

                    LEGITIMATE COGNITIVE AND EXPERIENTIAL DISADVANTAGES OF YOUTH.  I THINK

                    THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM WHICH DOES THAT.  I WOULD ALSO JUST NOTE

                    THAT THE FRONTAL LOBE ARGUMENT I -- I THINK IS VERY SELECTIVE SOMETIMES

                    WHEN WE LOOK AT LEGISLATION SO I'LL BE VOTING NO. THANK YOU.

                                         130



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. WALSH IN THE NEGATIVE.

                                 MR. ANGELINO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

                                 MR. ANGELINO:  THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

                                 ONE OF THE RIPPLE EFFECTS OR ONE OF THE UNINTENDED

                    CONSEQUENCES OF -- OF THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, WHEN POLICE OFFICERS

                    HAD TO STAY AT THE SCENE OR TAKE THE -- THE JUVENILE OR YOUTH HOME,

                    INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE POLICE STATION CERTAIN THINGS HAPPEN.  IT USED TO

                    BE YOU'D BRING THEM TO THE POLICE STATION, TALK TO THE YOUNG -- THE

                    YOUTH, WRITE A FAMILY COURT APPEARANCE TICKET AND OUT THE DOOR THEY

                    WOULD GO.  BUT NOW WHEN POLICE ARE STARTING TO TAKE THE YOUTH HOME,

                    THEY CAN'T FIND PARENTS AT HOME, THEY HAVE AN OLDER SISTER AT HOME AND

                    SOMETIMES THEY'VE SEEN THE DEPLORABLE CONDITIONS AND I KNOW IT'S

                    HAPPENED WHERE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IS NOW GETTING

                    INVOLVED BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOW GOING TO THE HOME TO MAKE

                    SURE SOMEBODY IS THERE TO DROP OFF THIS YOUTH.  AGAIN, UNINTENDED

                    CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN -- WHEN WE CREATE THESE LAWS.  I'LL

                    BE VOTING NO STILL.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MR. ANGELINO IN THE NEGATIVE.

                                 MS. LUNSFORD TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

                                 MS. LUNSFORD:  I THINK THIS BILL IS YET ANOTHER

                    EXAMPLE OF A TIME WHEN CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT THE CONSTITUTION,

                    NOT THE BILL-IN-CHIEF.  BECAUSE, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EXIST, WHETHER WE

                    LIKE THEM OR NOT; WHETHER THEY STAND IN THE WAY OF JUSTICE OR NOT,

                                         131



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    WHICH SOMETIMES, THEY DO.  THE CONSTITUTION EXISTS IF YOU'RE A MINOR,

                    IT EXISTS IF YOU ARE AN UNDOCUMENTED PERSON, IT EXISTS IN RURAL

                    COMMUNITIES, IN CITIES, WHETHER THERE'S CELL PHONE SERVICE OR NOT.

                    NOTHING IN THIS BILL CONFERS NEW RIGHTS.  IT SIMPLY ENSURES THAT A MINOR,

                    WHO CANNOT CONSENT TO VIRTUALLY ANYTHING IN A LEGAL CONTEXT, IS AWARE

                    OF WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  AND THAT'S GONNA SLOW

                    THINGS DOWN, BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD BE SLOWING THINGS DOWN.  BECAUSE

                    I THINK IF ANY ONE OF US HAD OUR KID QUESTIONED BY THE POLICE, WE'D

                    WANT THEM TO CALL US FIRST.  I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I DON'T THINK MY

                    SON WOULD DO WELL IN THAT SCENARIO.  I HAVE PRACTICED IN YOUTH COURT,

                    I'VE PRACTICED WITH OUR TEEN COURTS.  TEENS AREN'T THE BEST ADVOCATES FOR

                    THEMSELVES ALL THE TIME, AND I'D HATE TO SEE A KID HAVE THEIR LIFE RUINED

                    SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEIR RIGHTS WERE.  SO, I

                    COMMEND THE SPONSOR.  I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 MS. LUNSFORD 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:  MADAM SPEAKER, IF WE

                    COULD NOW GO TO PAGE 3 AND TAKE UP OUR RESOLUTIONS.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  RESOLUTIONS, PAGE

                    3, THE CLERK WILL READ.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 584, MR.

                                         132



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    SAYEGH.

                                 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

                    KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM MAY 25, 2025, AS JORDANIAN-AMERICAN

                    HERITAGE DAY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 79TH

                    ANNIVERSARY OF THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN'S INDEPENDENCE.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.  MR.

                    SAYEGH ON THE BILL.  CAN WE HAVE QUIET, PLEASE?

                                 MR. SAYEGH:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM

                    SPEAKER.

                                 I RISE TODAY TO PRESENT A RESOLUTION HONORING THE

                    PROFOUND CONTRIBUTIONS OF JORDANIAN-AMERICANS TO OUR GREAT STATE OF

                    NEW YORK.  AND TO RECOGNIZE MAY 25, 2025 AS JORDANIAN-AMERICAN

                    HERITAGE DAY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 79TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE

                    HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN'S INDEPENDENCE.

                                 JORDAN IS A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY UNDER HIS

                    MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH II AND QUEEN NOOR RANIA, AND JORDAN IS A

                    NATION OF REMARKABLE GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE.  IN THE HEART OF THE MIDDLE

                    EAST, IT IS NOT ONLY VITAL, STRATEGIC AND AN ECONOMIC PARTNER OF THE

                    UNITED STATES, BUT ALSO LAND RICH WITH ANCIENT HISTORY AND A CULTURAL

                    HERITAGE.  JORDANIAN-AMERICANS BASICALLY ARRIVED IN THE USA IN THE

                    1930'S, AND I MYSELF, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF YONKERS, NEW YORK,

                    WITNESSED THE FIRST WAVE OF JORDANIAN-AMERICANS IN THE MID-1950'S.  I

                    CAME AS AN IMMIGRANT TO YONKERS IN 1957 FROM JORDAN AS A YOUNG

                    CHILD AND REALLY CAME ALONG WITH MY FAMILY, ACHIEVING THE AMERICAN

                    DREAM.  AND JORDANIANS HAVE BEEN VERY INSTRUMENTAL AND ACTIVE IN ALL

                                         133



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    FIELDS OF SOCIETY AND BRINGING -- BRINGING ABOUT REMARKABLE RESULTS.

                    AND I PRAISE JORDAN'S ROLE AS THE ONLY STABLE ENTITY THAT HAS BEEN A SAFE

                    HAVEN FOR MANY IN THE MIDDLE EAST THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTIONAL

                    PROTECTIONS.  SO, TODAY I'M VERY PROUD AS A JORDANIAN-AMERICAN TO

                    RECOGNIZE AND HONOR JORDAN INDEPENDENCE.  THANK YOU.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  THANK YOU.

                                 ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING

                    AYE; OPPOSED, NO.  THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 585, MR.

                    JONES.

                                 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

                    KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM MAY 25, 2025, AS MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY IN

                    THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE RESOLUTION,

                    ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO.  THE RESOLUTION IS

                    ADOPTED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 586, MS.

                    LUNSFORD.

                                 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

                    KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM MAY 2025, AS MELANOMA AWARENESS MONTH

                    IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE RESOLUTION,

                    ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO.  THE RESOLUTION IS

                    ADOPTED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 587, MS.

                                         134



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                    LUPARDO.

                                 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

                    KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM JUNE 2025, AS DAIRY MONTH IN THE STATE OF

                    NEW YORK.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE RESOLUTION,

                    ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO.  THE RESOLUTION IS

                    ADOPTED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 588, MR. P.

                    CARROLL.

                                 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

                    KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM AUGUST 16, 2025, AS MODEL AVIATION DAY IN

                    THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE RESOLUTION,

                    ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO.  THE RESOLUTION IS

                    ADOPTED.


                                 THE CLERK:  ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 589, MS.

                    ROSENTHAL.

                                 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

                    KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM OCTOBER 25-31, 2025, AS EPIDERMOLYSIS

                    BULLOSA AWARENESS WEEK IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, MORE COMMONLY

                    KNOWN AS BUTTERFLY CHILDREN AWARENESS WEEK.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON THE RESOLUTION,

                    ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO.  THE RESOLUTION IS

                    ADOPTED.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                         135



                    NYS ASSEMBLY                                                          MAY 27, 2025

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, DO YOU

                    HAVE ANY FURTHER HOUSEKEEPING OR RESOLUTIONS?

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  WE DO HAVE A PIECE

                    OF HOUSEKEEPING.

                                 ON A MOTION BY MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES, PAGE 10,

                    CALENDAR NO. 21, BILL NO. A03682.  THE AMENDMENTS ARE RECEIVED AND

                    ADOPTED.

                                 WE HAVE A NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS BEFORE THE HOUSE.

                    WITHOUT OBJECTION, THESE RESOLUTIONS WILL BE TAKEN UP TOGETHER.

                                 ON THE RESOLUTIONS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING

                    AYE; OPPOSED, NO.  THE RESOLUTIONS ARE ADOPTED.

                                 (WHEREUPON, ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS NOS. 591-599

                    WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.)

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

                                 MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES:  MADAM SPEAKER, I NOW

                    MOVE THAT THE ASSEMBLY STAND ADJOURNED AND THAT WE RECONVENE AT

                    11:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY THE 28TH, TOMORROW BEING A SESSION DAY.

                                 ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER:  ON MOTION BY MRS.

                    PEOPLES-STOKES, THE HOUSE STANDS ADJOURNED.

                                 (WHEREUPON, AT 6:02 P.M., THE HOUSE STOOD ADJOURNED

                    UNTIL WEDNESDAY, MAY THE 28TH AT 11:00 A.M., THAT BEING A SESSION

                    DAY.)







                                         136