TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2025 11:23 A.M.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE HOUSE WILL

COME TO ORDER.

GOOD MORNING, COLLEAGUES. HAPPY TUESDAY.

(APPLAUSE)

IN THE ABSENCE OF CLERGY, LET US PAUSE FOR A MOMENT OF

SILENCE.

(WHEREUPON, A MOMENT OF SILENCE WAS OBSERVED.)

VISITORS ARE INVITED TO JOIN 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, JUNE 16TH.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, I MOVE

TO DISPENSE WITH THE FURTHER READING OF THE JOURNAL OF MONDAY, JUNE

THE 16TH AND THAT THE SAME STAND APPROVED.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WITHOUT OBJECTION,

SO ORDERED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES

AND GUESTS THAT ARE IN THE CHAMBERS, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THIS IS THE

LAST SESSION. BUT I WANT TO SHARE ONE LAST QUOTE WITH YOU. THIS ONE IS

FROM DOROTHY HEIGHT. SHE IS [SIC] A CIVIL RIGHTS AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS

ACTIVIST -- SHE WAS, I SHOULD SAY. SHE FOCUSED ON ISSUES OF AFRICAN-

AMERICAN WOMEN INCLUDING UNEMPLOYMENT, LITERACY AND VOTER

AWARENESS. HER WORDS FOR US TODAY: "PROGRESS COMES FROM CARING

MORE ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE THAN ABOUT WHO GETS THE CREDIT."

AGAIN, THESE WORDS FROM THE LATE DOROTHY HEIGHT.

MADAM SPEAKER, MEMBERS HAVE ON THEIR DESK A MAIN

CALENDAR AND A DEBATE LIST. AFTER YOU HAVE DONE ANY INTRODUCTIONS OR

HOUSEKEEPING, WE'RE GONNA BEGIN OUR FLOOR WORK BY TAKING UP SOME

BILLS ON CONSENT: CALENDAR NO. 123 BY MS. KELLES, CALENDAR NO. --

RULES REPORT NO. 377 BY MS. RAJKUMAR, RULES REPORT NO. 606 BY MR.

BRONSON, AND RULES REPORT NO. 739 BY MS. WOERNER.

WE'RE GONNA BE CALLING FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET OFF THE

FLOOR: WAYS AND MEANS FOLLOWED BY RULES. THESE COMMITTEES ARE

GOING TO PRODUCE AN A-CALENDAR OF WHICH WE WILL ABSOLUTELY TAKE UP

TODAY. WE'RE ALSO GONNA TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING BILLS ON DEBATE: RULES

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

REPORT NO. 686 BY MS. GALLAGHER, RULES REPORT NO. 740 BY MR.

MAGNARELLI, RULES REPORT NO. 701 BY MS. ROSENTHAL, RULES REPORT

NO. 715 BY MS. GLICK, RULES REPORT NO. 717 BY MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES,

AND RULES REPORT NO. 734 BY MS. WOERNER. THERE POSSIBLY WILL BE

SOME ADDITIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MADE REGARDING FLOOR ACTIVITY.

MADAM SPEAKER, IF THAT IS THE CASE WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ADVISE.

HOWEVER, THAT'S THE GENERAL OUTLINE OF WHERE WE'RE

GOING TODAY, WHAT WE WILL BE DOING. SO IF YOU COULD BEGIN BY TAKING

ANY INTRODUCTIONS OR HOUSEKEEPING.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: YES. HAPPY

TUESDAY AGAIN.

WE HAVE NO HOUSEKEEPING, NO INTRODUCTIONS.

(APPLAUSE)

PAGE 25, CALENDAR NO. 123, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A01029-B, CALENDAR

NO. 123, KELLES, SEAWRIGHT, SAYEGH, SIMON, STECK, PAULIN, GALLAGHER,

VANEL, OTIS, GONZ LEZ-ROJAS, EPSTEIN, CRUZ, GLICK, LEVENBERG,

BURDICK, SHIMSKY, LAVINE, SHRESTHA, MAMDANI, REYES, HUNTER,

BICHOTTE HERMELYN, FORREST, STERN, DINOWITZ, R. CARROLL, GIBBS,

SIMONE, DAIS, CUNNINGHAM, WALKER, WEPRIN, ANDERSON, TAPIA,

TAYLOR, MEEKS, HEVESI, ROMERO, BORES, ROSENTHAL, KASSAY, KIM,

CLARK, MITAYNES, SCHIAVONI, COLTON, O'PHARROW, HOOKS, ZACCARO,

MAHER. AN ACT TO AMEND PENAL LAW, IN RELATION TO INDIVIDUALS

ENGAGED IN PROSTITUTION WHO ARE VICTIMS OF OR WITNESSES TO A CRIME.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION MS.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 60TH

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MS. KELLES TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. KELLES: THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER.

THIS LEGISLATION WOULD ALLOW SURVIVORS OF TRAFFICKING AND CONSENSUAL

ADULT SEX WORKERS TO REPORT CRIME THEY EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED,

ALLOWING THEM TO SEEK THE JUSTICE AND CARE THEY DESERVE WHILE

PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO

INVESTIGATE SERIOUS CRIMES SUCH AS SEXUAL ASSAULT, HUMAN TRAFFICKING

AND MURDER. CURRENTLY, THESE VICTIMS DO NOT FEEL SAFE TO REPORT CRIME

DUE TO FEAR OF ARREST, ALLOWING VIOLENT INDIVIDUALS TO COMMIT CRIMES

WITH IMPUNITY. ONE OF THE MOST INFAMOUS SERIAL KILLER CASES IN RECENT

HISTORY HAPPENED HERE IN NEW YORK. THE LONG ISLAND SERIAL KILLER

INTENTIONALLY PREYED ON SEX WORKERS, AND HIS CASE WENT UNSOLVED FOR

OVER A DECADE WHILE HE CONTINUED HIS VIOLENCE. IT IS LIKELY THAT HE

WOULD HAVE BEEN APPREHENDED MUCH SOONER IF SEX WORKERS FELT THAT

THEY COULD COME FORWARD WITH THE INFORMATION WITHOUT BEING ARRESTED.

I WANTED TO STOP FOR A MOMENT AND THANK EVERYONE

ACROSS THE AISLE, BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. THIS WAS A BIPARTISAN EFFORT.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE FINAL LANGUAGE WAS BIPARTISAN. I WORKED WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS

ACROSS THE AISLE, AND I WANT TO EXPLICITLY THANK YOU ALL BECAUSE THE BILL

IS ACTUALLY BETTER AND STRONGER FOR THE JOINT EFFORT. WE HAVE OCCASIONS

WHERE THAT HAPPENS, AND I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

THIS BILL WILL PROTECT NOT ONLY THE SEX WORKERS, IT WILL

PROTECT THEIR FAMILIES. AND IT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY

DAS, AND BY SHERIFFS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE BECAUSE THIS WILL HELP

THEM DO INVESTIGATIONS AND CATCH PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING VIOLENT CRIMES.

SO I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE AGAIN FOR ALL THE SUPPORT,

AND I OBVIOUSLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. KELLES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. MOLITOR TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. MOLITOR: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I'D

LIKE TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY GOOD

IDEA. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL FOR ENGAGING

OUR SIDE IN CONVERSATION ABOUT STRENGTHENING THIS BILL, MAKING IT A

BETTER BILL. YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY -- THIS IS WHY, YOU KNOW, I WANTED

TO BECOME A LEGISLATURE -- A LEGISLATOR; TO -- TO PUT GOOD LEGISLATION

TOGETHER SO THAT IT WOULD BENEFIT ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW

YORK. AND THIS BILL WILL PROTECT THOSE IN THE MOST VULNERABLE

SITUATIONS; THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID TO COME TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING VICTIMIZED, BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING ABUSED,

BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING TRAFFICKED. AND I'M VERY, VERY PROUD TO VOTE FOR

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THIS BILL. I KNOW IT PASSED THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT

MIGHT PASS THE SENATE [SIC] UNANIMOUSLY AS WELL. I'D LIKE TO THANK

EVERYBODY FOR THAT, ESPECIALLY THE SPONSOR.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. MOLITOR IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. MAHER TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. MAHER: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I RISE

TODAY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I AGAIN WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR

WORKING WITH BOTH PARTIES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THE BEST PRODUCT

POSSIBLE. THIS BILL HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT TRYING TO HELP VICTIMS

TRAFFICKING AND A LOT OF OTHER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. WHEN WE TALK

ABOUT SOMEBODY IN A POSITION LIKE THOSE THAT ARE VICTIMS OF HUMAN

TRAFFICKING, YOU REALLY CAN'T PUT IT IN WORDS. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE

CAN SAY OR DO TO GIVE JUSTICE TO THE REALITY AND THE HORROR OF WHAT GOES

ON IN THEIR DAILY LIVES. SO TO BE ABLE WORK WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT IN A

WAY THAT HELPED MAKE THIS BILL A LITTLE BETTER AND REALLY ALSO BE ABLE TO

HELP THOSE THAT ARE IN SOME OF THOSE MOST VULNERABLE, DANGEROUS

POSITIONS IS SOMETHING WE'RE QUITE PROUD OF. AND IT WAS PART OF OUR

RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN OUR MINORITY HUMAN TRAFFICKING TASK

FORCE THAT WE DID OVER THE LAST YEAR-AND-A-HALF, TRAVELING THE STATE,

MEETING WITH OVER 200 LAKE -- LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS. WE WANTED TO COME

TO ALBANY THIS SESSION, HAVE SOME RESULTS, AND WE ARE TRULY PLEASED TO

SEE THIS REPORT CREATE SOME BIPARTISAN RESULTS AND WORK WITH THE OTHER

SIDE OF THE AISLE.

MY FINAL THING IS WE HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO DO WHEN

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IT COMES TO GETTING FOLKS OF OUT THESE SITUATIONS IN A SUSTAINABLE WAY,

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE SPONSOR AND MANY COLLEAGUES

ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE TO GET THAT DONE IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE

SESSION.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. MAHER IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 7, RULES REPORT NO. 377, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02237, RULES REPORT

NO. 377, RAJKUMAR, ALVAREZ, LEMONDES, K. BROWN, STERN, OTIS. AN

ACT TO AMEND THE STATE FINANCE LAW AND THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW,

IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNOLOGY THAT POSES

SECURITY THREATS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 730TH

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. LEMONDES TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO BOTH SPONSORS ON THIS

BILL, AND ALSO TO HIGHLIGHT ITS IMPORTANCE.

ELECTRONIC ANYTHING IS CHINA'S NUMBER ONE ESPIONAGE

GOAL AGAINST US, AND THIS IS -- THIS BILL WILL HELP MITIGATE THAT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT ANYTHING IS -- ANYTHING IS WORTHWHILE. ANYTHING ELECTRONIC, THEY

ARE AFTER. THIS BILL WILL PREEMPT SOME DATA GOING RIGHT BACK TO THE

CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY UNWITTINGLY BY PEOPLE THAT BUY AND USE THIS

TECHNOLOGY.

WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE AS A NATION AND AS

A STATE TO DENY THEM THE CAPABILITIES OF ELECTRONIC ESPIONAGE BECAUSE

THEY'RE UNDERMINING EVERY ASPECT OF OUR DEFENSE AND ECONOMIC

LIVELIHOODS.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. LEMONDES IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 12, RULES REPORT NO. 606, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02747-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 606, BRONSON, TAYLOR, ROZIC, CRUZ, GLICK, ROSENTHAL,

SIMONE, BORES, GONZ LEZ-ROJAS, SEAWRIGHT, BENEDETTO, REYES,

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WEPRIN, BRABENEC, RAGA, SLATER, BRAUNSTEIN, DINOWITZ, DURSO, STECK,

RA, EPSTEIN, RAJKUMAR, GIBBS, TAPIA, HYNDMAN, BERGER, LEE,

BURDICK, JACOBSON, K. BROWN, BENDETT, REILLY, MCDONOUGH, PHEFFER

AMATO, MIKULIN, SANTABARBARA, STERN, OTIS, GRIFFIN, COLTON, KAY,

WILLIAMS, MEEKS, SHRESTHA, LUNSFORD, CLARK, BURROUGHS, SHIMSKY,

LUPARDO, SAYEGH, HOOKS. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LABOR LAW, IN RELATION

TO INCLUSION OF CERTAIN OFF-SITE CUSTOM FABRICATION AS PUBLIC WORK FOR

THE PURPOSES OF PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

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. TAGUE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. TAGUE: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ALTHOUGH A WELL-INTENTIONED BILL -- WE TOOK THIS UP LAST YEAR AS WELL --

UNFORTUNATELY, ALL THIS BILL DOES IS INCREASE COSTS, ESPECIALLY FOR LOCAL

TAXPAYERS AND I CANNOT SUPPORT IT. IT'S JUST GOING WAY, WAY TOO FAR.

SO I WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. TAGUE IN THE

NEGATIVE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. GIGLIO TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. GIGLIO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. AND I'D

LIKE TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR THIS BILL, AND FOR ALSO MEETING WITH ONE OF

MY CONSTITUENTS IN MY DISTRICT WHO EMPLOYS 600 PEOPLE, HAS A HALF-A-

MILLION SQUARE FEET OF MANUFACTURING SPACE, DOES A LOT OF CUSTOM

FABRICATION, AND IS HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME COMPETING WITH OTHER

COMPANIES OF OTHER STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE BRINGING

MATERIALS IN. AND PAYING PREVAILING WAGE FOR THE WAGES THAT ARE ON

THE DESTINATION OF THESE MATERIALS THAT ARE FABRICATED OFFSITE IS GOING TO

CREATE AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD FOR EVERYONE THAT IS DOING PUBLIC WORKS

PROJECTS AND PROJECTS THAT ARE FUNDED BY THE STATE TO MAKE SURE THAT

PREVAILING WAGE IS PAID, PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS ARE IN PLACE, AND THAT

IT'S -- IT'S A COMPETITIVE MARKET.

SO AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR, AND NOT ONLY

FOR MAKING CHANGES TO THE BILL, BUT FOR ALSO MEETING WITH MY

CONSTITUENT AND I THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. GIGLIO IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. WALSH TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM

SPEAKER. SO, LAST YEAR I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL, AND THEN I HAD A

VERY, VERY LONG DISCUSSION WITH ONE OF MY LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS. I

TALKED TO HER FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS ABOUT WHAT THIS -- WHAT THIS BILL AND

WHAT THIS LEGISLATION WOULD MEAN TO HER AND TO HER OPERATION IN TERMS

OF TRYING TO DO APPROPRIATE RECORDKEEPING. AND SHE'S A RELATIVELY SMALL

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BUSINESS, AND SHE SAID THAT IT WAS GONNA REALLY BE A BIG PROBLEM FOR

HER.

SO FOR THAT REASON AND FOR OTHER BUSINESSES LIKE HERS,

I'M GOING TO BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE THIS YEAR. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WALSH IN THE

NEGATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 16, RULES REPORT NO. 739, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S06351-B, RULES REPORT

NO. 739, SENATOR ADDABBO (A07475-B, WOERNER, BUTTENSCHON, KAY,

SAYEGH, SANTABARBARA, KASSAY, LUPARDO). AN ACT TO AMEND THE

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IN RELATION TO ELECTRONIC BELL JAR GAMES.

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.)

MS. WOERNER TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. WOERNER: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THIS

BILL MODERNIZES THE BELL JAR CHARITABLE GAMING MACHINE THAT IS OFTEN

INSTALLED IN AMERICAN LEGION AND VFW POSTS ACROSS NEW YORK.

THESE MACHINES -- THE ELECTRONIC MACHINES SIMPLIFY THE ADMINISTRATION

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OF THE GAME, REDUCE LEAKAGE AND IMPROVE THE ACCURACY AND TIMELESS --

TIMELINESS OF REQUIRED REPORTING TO THE STATE. WE HAVE NARROWLY

TAILORED THE BILL TO ELIMINATE THE GAMIFICATION ATTRIBUTES THAT ENCOURAGE

OVERPLAYING, INCLUDING SLOWING DOWN THE SPEED OF THE GAME AND

PROHIBITING INTERFACE DESIGN THAT MIMICS SLOT MACHINES.

WE'VE ALSO PLACED STRICT LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF

MACHINES PER FACILITY BASED ON THE SIZE OF ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP AND

GEOGRAPHIC ADJACENCY TO LICENSED CASINOS, BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO

ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF MINI GAMING PARLORS.

I WANT TO THANK THE SPEAKER, THE STAFF, AND MY

COLLEAGUES ON THE RACING AND WAGERING [SIC] COMMITTEE AND ALL OF THE

AMERICAN LEGION AND VFW MEMBERS WHO HAVE ADVOCATED FOR THIS

BILL. AND WITH THAT, I CAST MY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WOERNER IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 13, RULES REPORT NO. 686, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08432, RULES REPORT NO.

686, SENATOR HOYLMAN-SIGAL (A08662-A, GALLAGHER). AN ACT TO

AMEND THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW, IN RELATION TO THE SCOPE OF

CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANIES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. GALLAGHER.

MS. GALLAGHER: THANK YOU. THIS BILL CHANGES

THE DEFINITION OF BENEFICIAL OWNER, REPORTING COMPANY AND EXEMPT

COMPANY IN SECTION 1106 OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW TO

REMOVE CROSS-REFERENCES FROM THE FEDERAL CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY

ACT, AND PROVIDE DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO NEW YORK STATE LAW. THIS

BILL IS ONLY DELINEATING THE PREVIOUSLY-CITED DEFINITIONS FROM FEDERAL

LAW. WE ARE NOT ADDING OR CHANGING ANY OF THE DISCLOSURE PROCESSES OR

WHO IS OR IS NOT EXEMPT. WE ARE ONLY EXPRESSLY WRITING OUT THE

CITATIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. LEMONDES.

MR. LEMONDES: MADAM SPEAKER, WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. GALLAGHER: IT WOULD BE MY PLEASURE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU, MS. GALLAGHER.

THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION OF THE BILL. COULD YOU COMMENT,

PLEASE, ON WHAT THE BILL'S ACTUAL INTENT IS BEYOND THE EXPLANATION THAT

YOU JUST PROVIDED?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE BILL IS MOVING THE FEDERAL

CITATIONS INTO PRINT AND PRINTING THE DEFINITION INTO STATUTE.

MR. LEMONDES: SO LET ME ASK THE QUESTION

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DIFFERENTLY. WILL THIS BILL INCREASE THE COST TO THE STATE, TO NEW YORK

STATE, IN ANY WAY OR TO SMALL BUSINESSES WITHIN NEW YORK STATE THAT

ARE ORGANIZED AS LLCS?

MS. GALLAGHER: NO.

MR. LEMONDES: HOW SO? COULD YOU -- COULD YOU

DESCRIBE THAT, PLEASE, HOW IT WOULD NOT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL IS MOVING THE FEDERAL

CITATION INTO PRINT AND PRINTING THE DEFINITION INTO STATUTE.

MR. LEMONDES: SO WITH THAT, I -- I WANNA

DISAGREE. AND I'M DISAGREEING BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN

THE OPPOSITION LETTERS BY THE BUSINESS COUNCIL AND NFIB. IF -- IF THIS IS

AN INVASION OF PRIVACY, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT MIGHT IMPACT BUSINESS

OWNERS IN NEW YORK STATE IF THEY VIEW WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO DO AS AN

INVASION OF PRIVACY?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT IS

ALREADY LAW. THIS BILL IS ONLY DELINEATING THE PREVIOUSLY-CITED

DEFINITIONS FROM FEDERAL LAW. WE ARE NOT ADDING OR CHANGING ANY OF

THE PROCESSES OR WHO IS OR IS NOT EXEMPT.

MR. LEMONDES: NONETHELESS, IT IS STILL --

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION OF BUSINESSES IS STILL CONSIDERED PRIVATE

INFORMATION.

MS. GALLAGHER: THE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT IS

ALREADY LAW. THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE LAW.

MR. LEMONDES: SO, LET ME ASK THE QUESTION

DIFFERENTLY, THEN. PERHAPS AS A BENEFICIAL OWNER YOU DESCRIBED IN THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BILL AS 25 PERCENT OR GREATER OWNERSHIP, LET'S SAY AN ANGEL INVESTOR

WANTS TO INVEST IN A WOMEN- OR MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESS AT 26 PERCENT

OR MORE, AND THEY DON'T WANT THEIR NAME DISCLOSED BECAUSE IT COULD

HURT THAT MINORITY- OR WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS. NOW WHAT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT'S NOT GERMANE TO THIS BILL.

MR. LEMONDES: IT ABSOLUTELY IS GERMAN TO THE

BILL.

MS. GALLAGHER: IT'S NOT. THIS BILL IS JUST MOVING

CITATIONS INTO DEFINITIONS AND IN PREVIOUSLY EXISTING LAW.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU. WE DISAGREE.

SO, IS IT PUNITIVE IN ANY WAY?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL IS MOVING DEFINITIONS

INTO A BILL THAT WAS ALREADY CITED IN A PREVIOUS BILL. IT'S JUST MOVING THE

DEFINITIONS, IT'S NOT CHANGING THE LAW.

MR. LEMONDES: SO LET ME ASK THE QUESTION

DIFFERENTLY AGAIN. IF PRIVATE INFORMATION IS DISCLOSED THAT PEOPLE MAY

NOT WANT DISCLOSED, AS A RESULT OF THIS BILL, DO YOU THINK THAT WILL

IMPACT NEW YORK'S ECONOMY FAVORABLY OR UNFAVORABLY?

MS. GALLAGHER: A.8662-A IS SIMPLY MOVING THE

FEDERAL CITATION INTO PRINT AND PRINTING THE DEFINITION INTO STATUTE.

MR. LEMONDES: YES. THANK YOU. I'VE HEARD THAT

SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY. SO WITH THAT, ON THAT POINT, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH

THE FEDERAL CTA FOR DOMESTIC BUSINESSES, I THINK YOU REALIZE THAT

ADDING MORE RULES, REGULATIONS, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, THE SIMPLE

FACT IS MORE REGULATION IS BEING ADDED THAT THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NEW YORK BUSINESSES. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT OR NO?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL DOES NOT ADD ANYTHING

EXCEPT FEDERAL CITATION INTO PRINT AND PRINTING THE DEFINITION INTO

STATUTE.

MR. LEMONDES: YES, I'VE HEARD THAT LINE BEFORE.

HOWEVER, I WOULD AGAIN REFERENCE THE BUSINESS COUNCIL AND NFIB'S

OPPOSITION BASED ON SEVERAL -- SEVERAL POINTS.

DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE RULE

CHANGES WOULD IMPART INCREASED COSTS?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL SIMPLY MOVES THE

FEDERAL CITATION INTO PRINT AND PRINTS THE DEFINITION INTO STATUTE.

MR. LEMONDES: SO WHO REGULATES IT, THEN? WHO

ENFORCES IT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL SIMPLY MOVES THE

FEDERAL CITATION INTO PRINT AND PRINTS IT INTO STATUTE.

MR. LEMONDES: EXCELLENT. I'VE HEARD THAT POINT

SEVERAL TIMES.

MS. GALLAGHER: THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING

MORE QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T ABOUT THE CITATIONS?

MR. LEMONDES: I'M GONNA CONTINUE TO ASK MORE

QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

MS. GALLAGHER: WELL, YOU CAN DO THAT BUT I'M

GONNA KEEP GIVING YOU THE SAME ANSWER.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU. WHY ARE --

MS. GALLAGHER: (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK)

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: COLLEAGUES. WE --

THIS IS OUR FIRST DEBATE. WE WILL NOT START OUR DAY LIKE THIS. WE WILL ASK

A QUESTION --

MS. GALLAGHER: I'M HAVING A NICE TIME.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: -- AND ANSWER THE

QUESTION.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

MADAM SPONSOR, WHY ARE LARGE ENTITIES CARVED OUT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL DOES NOT ADD OR CHANGE

ANY OF THE DISCLOSURE PROCESSES OR WHO IS OR WHO IS NOT EXEMPT.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU. I -- I APPRECIATE THAT

RESPONSE. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE ON -- WE'RE ON A -- ON A WHEEL HERE. I'M

GONNA KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS.

SO ON THAT NOTE, I BELIEVE, AND PEOPLE THAT LOOK AFTER

SMALL BUSINESSES IN NEW YORK STATE BELIEVE THAT IT WILL INCREASE COSTS

FOR SURE. SO WHY -- AGAIN, WHY ARE LARGE ENTITIES CARVED OUT?

MS. GALLAGHER: WE ARE NOT ADDING OR CHANGING

ANY OF WHO IS OR ISN'T EXEMPT IN THIS BILL. THAT IS ALREADY LAW.

MR. LEMONDES: AND WHAT ABOUT LEGAL EXPOSURE

TO SMALL BUSINESSES THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT? WOULD IT INCREASE LEGAL

EXPOSURE? WOULD IT INCREASE ACCOUNTING BURDEN?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH

THAT.

MR. LEMONDES: THIS BILL HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THAT.

ANY -- ANY TIME YOU ADD REGULATIONS IT INCREASES COSTS AND IT INCREASES

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

-- AND GENERALLY WILL INCREASE LEGAL EXPOSURE. SO THAT'S THE IMPACT --

THAT'S -- THAT'S CITED IN THE OPPOSITION LETTERS AS WELL.

DO YOU THINK THIS COULD IMPACT OUT-MIGRATION IN NEW

YORK STATE?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT AND

ITS REGULATIONS ARE ALREADY LAW.

MR. LEMONDES: WHY IS THE BURDEN PLACED ON

SMALL, FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESSES AND WHY ARE LARGE BUSINESSES CARVED

OUT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS IS ONLY RELATED TO LLCS,

NOT NON -- NOT NON-FOR-PROFITS.

MR. LEMONDES: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT --

MS. GALLAGHER: NOT CORPORATIONS.

MR. LEMONDES: -- A NOT-FOR-PROFIT. I'M TALKING

ABOUT LARGE ENTITY LL -- LARGE ENTITY CORPORATIONS THAT ARE -- THAT ARE

CARVED OUT.

MADAM SPEAKER, I'LL ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION. DOES

THE BILL HELP IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY IN ANY WAY?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL SIMPLY MOVES FEDERAL

CITATION INTO PRINT AND PRINTS THE DEFINITION INTO STATUTE. IT'S NOT

GERMANE TO THIS BILL, YOUR QUESTION.

MR. LEMONDES: IT IS ABSOLUTELY GERMANE WHEN

YOU'RE REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION. THAT'S WHAT

THE LAST BILL WAS ABOUT, THE -- THE UNINTENDED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

TO THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY. DIFFERENT BILL; NOT GERMANE, BUT

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SAME CONCEPT.

I'LL ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION. WE'LL KEEP MOVING. DO

NEW YORK STATE BUSINESSES, LLC BUSINESSES STILL HAVE TO FILE WITH

FINCEN?

MS. GALLAGHER: IT'S THE -- THE NORMAL PROCESS

THAT LLCS FOLLOW. THEY ALREADY -- THEY ALREADY -- PARDON?

(CONFERENCING)

THEY DO NOT HAVE TO FILE WITH FINCEN.

MR. LEMONDES: WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.

WOULD THIS, IF ADOPTED, ADD OR DECREASE CYBER SECURITY

RISKS TO OUR BUSINESSES? ADD TO OR DECREASE?

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT'S NOT GERMANE TO THE BILL.

MR. LEMONDES: IT IS ABSOLUTELY GERMANE TO THIS

BILL BECAUSE YOU'RE REQUIRING THE --

MS. GALLAGHER: CYBER IS NOT.

MR. LEMONDES: -- THE DISCLOSURE ELECTRONICALLY

AND ADDING A NEW DATABASE THAT CAN BE HACKED. AND I CAN TELL YOU

RIGHT NOW, AS -- AS A GUY WHOSE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER WAS -- WAS

COMPROMISED THREE TIMES IN MY MILITARY SERVICE BECAUSE OF HACKS INTO

GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, ANYTHING THAT'S ELECTRONIC CAN BE

HACKED. SO THE ANSWER IS YES, IT DOES INCREASE CYBER SECURITY RISKS TO

OUR DATABASES WHERE THIS INFORMATION IS HOUSED, AS WELL AS TO THE

BUSINESSES WHO ARE REQUIRED TO THEN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH

FOR YOUR -- FOR YOUR --

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. GALLAGHER: YOU'RE WELCOME.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. LEMONDES: THANK YOU. AS -- AS IT IS KNOWN,

SEVERAL REASONS TO NOT VOTE FOR THIS: ONE, THIS BUSINESS -- THIS BILL

WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR BUSINESSES IN NEW YORK TO -- TO

OPERATE. AND ESPECIALLY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, THOSE THAT -- THOSE THAT IT

REQUIRES THE -- THE -- THE DISCLOSURES FOR. SIXTY-SEVEN CENTS OF EACH

DOLLAR SPENT ON A SMALL BUSINESS IS REINVEST -- GENERALLY REINVESTED IN

THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THAT MONEY WAS -- WAS -- WAS SPENT. WE HAVE

500,000 SMALL BUSINESSES IN NEW YORK STATE WITH --

(CELL PHONE PLAYING MUSIC)

IT'S OKAY, BILL. WE'RE GOOD. FORTY PERCENT OF PRIVATE

SECTOR INVESTMENTS -- PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES, AMOUNTING TO ABOUT

THREE MILLION ARE EMPLOYED BY THESE BUSINESSES THAT WOULD HAVE TO

HAVE THESE ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. THE EXPECTED COST TO

NEW YORK STATE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WOULD HAVE TO -- HAVE TO COMPLY

WITH THIS IS IN THE RANGE OF $5 BILLION. YOU DON'T IMPORT -- IMPLY TO

ANY BUSINESS A NEW REQUIREMENT AND THEN GET AWAY SAYING IT WON'T COST

ANYTHING. EVERY TIME A BUSINESSOWNER, AN EMPLOYEE DOES ANYTHING,

THERE IS COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE TASK IS;

WHETHER IT'S WITH ANOTHER ACCOUNTANT, WITH ANOTHER ATTORNEY, IN COURT,

OUT OF COURT, TRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS. THERE'S COSTS ASSOCIATED

WITH IT. AND WE ALL KNOW WE'RE THE HIGHEST OUT MIGRATING STATE IN THE

COUNTRY. THE LAST THING WE NEED IS MORE REASON TO FORCE MORE

BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS AND OUT-OF-STATE. THE GREATEST RISK THAT THIS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WILL DO, IT WILL PUT SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE POSITION OF NONCOMPLIANCE;

HAVING TO MAKE THAT DECISION, WILL I COMPLY OR NOT? AND IF NOT, WHAT'S

THE RISK TO ME FOR DOING SO? WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO, FINE THEM OUT OF

EXISTENCE?

THE FEDERAL -- ADDITIONALLY, THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK

THAT THIS IS BASED UPON IS COLLAPSING AS WE SPEAK, ACCORDING TO THE

BUSINESS COUNCIL. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ABANDONED THIS, BUT

NEW YORK IS DOUBLING DOWN ON IT, MAKING IT HARDER FOR OUR SMALL

BUSINESSES, THE ENGINE OF OUR ECONOMY, TO FUNCTION, FLOURISH AND

PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO ITS PEOPLE. AGAIN, EXACERBATING OUT-MIGRATION.

BUT I GUESS WE DON'T CARE ABOUT OUT-MIGRATION IN THIS -- IN THIS STATE.

WE DON'T CARE THAT WE'RE THE HIGHEST OUT-MIGRATING STATE IN THE COUNTRY

FOUR YEARS IN A ROW, RANKED DEAD LAST WITH BUSINESS CLIMATE, NUMBER 50

OUT OF 50. WHAT A GREAT -- WHAT A GREAT PLACE WE'VE GOTTEN THERE. FIFTY

OUT OF 50 12 CONSECUTIVE YEARS IN A ROW. DING, DING, DING. I HOPE THAT

MATTERS TO SOMEBODY, BECAUSE WE ARE CREATING THE CONDITIONS TO FORCE

PEOPLE TO LEAVE.

AND THE RISK TO THE DATABASE IS EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE OR NASS. YOU PUT

SOMETHING IN A DATABASE, IT'S AT RISK. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. AND NOW

YOU'RE PUTTING AT RISK SENSITIVE OWNERSHIP INFORMATION. THERE ARE A LOT

OF REASONS THAT PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT PUBLIC THE BUSINESSES THAT

THEY ARE INVOLVED WITH. IT COULD BE RELIGIOUS. IT COULD BE PURELY

BUSINESS. IT COULD BE SOCIAL. IT COULD BE FAMILIAL. THERE A LOT OF

REASONS THAT PEOPLE CHOOSE TO NOT DISCLOSE WHAT BUSINESSES THEY OWN

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OR PORTIONS THEREOF. YET WE'RE GONNA COMPEL THAT HERE FOR OUR SMALL

BUSINESSES, OUR GREATEST ECONOMIC ENGINE. THIS WILL RESORT IN ANOTHER

ARROW IN THE SIDE OF OUR SMALL BUSINESSES, CREATE MORE REGULATION AND

HIGHER AND HASTEN OUT-MIGRATION.

MADAM SPEAKER, THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. LEMONDES: I VOTE NO AND -- AND ASK EVERYONE

ELSE TO.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. BLUMENCRANZ.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THANK YOU. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD, PLEASE?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. GALLAGHER: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: YOU'VE REPEATEDLY REFERRED

TO THE FEDERAL CITATION THAT YOU ARE PUTTING INTO PRINT. WHAT IS THAT

FEDERAL CITATION?

MS. GALLAGHER: ON JANUARY 1, 2021 U.S.

CONGRESS PASSED THE FIRST CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT, WHICH REQUIRES

ALL BUSINESS ENTITIES FORMED OR REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE U.S. TO

REPORT BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TO FINCEN. WHEN THE

ORIGINAL BILL WAS PASSED, THE INTENT WAS FOR LLCS ORGANIZED IN NEW

YORK STATE TO SUBMIT THE SAME INFORMATION THEY WERE ALREADY

SUBMITTING --

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SORRY. LET'S -- LET'S --

MS. GALLAGHER: -- TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT --

HOLD ON, I'M GONNA GET TO YOUR ANSWER -- TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

UNLIKE THE FEDERAL LAW WHICH COVERED ALL BUSINESS ENTITIES, THIS BILL

ADDRESSES ONLY LLCS AND INCORPORATES STATUTORY DEFINITIONS FOR -- FROM

THE FEDERAL LAW IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY AND DEFINITIONS FOR LLCS

IN NEW YORK STATE, REDUCING CONFUSION DURING THE CHANGES IN FEDERAL

REGULATION.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. CAN YOU PLEASE

EXPLAIN YOUR RELIANCE ON SECTION 5336 OF TITLE 31 OF THE U.S. CODE

REGARDING BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: THE PREVIOUS CITATION FOR THAT

FEDERAL LLC IS IN --

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: I'M SORRY, FOR THE PREVIOUS

CITATION?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE PREVIOUS CITATION THAT WE

USE IN THE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT WAS THE 31 U.S. CODE 5336, AND THAT

IS NOW -- WE'VE TAKEN THE -- THE TEXT OF THAT AND WE'VE PUT IT INTO THE

NEW YORK STATE BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO WHY ARE YOU MOVING THE

FEDERAL CITATION INTO PRINT?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S

CLEAR WHO IS AND ISN'T APPLICABLE TO THIS LAW AND WHO IS AND IS NOT

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

EXEMPT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF

YOUR BILL WAS UNCLEAR?

MS. GALLAGHER: IT WAS USING A CITATION TO THE

FEDERAL LAW. THE FEDERAL LAW WAS WHERE IT WAS ALL LISTED. WE'VE

TAKEN THAT AND WE'VE MOVED IT INTO OUR STATE LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: BUT WHY?

MS. GALLAGHER: AS I SAID, THE -- THE FEDERAL

CORPORATE -- CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT --

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: DID IT CHANGE?

MS. GALLAGHER: IT DID CHANGE IN MARCH OF 2025.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO WHY DO YOU FEEL

COMPELLED TO REVERT BACK TO THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU LIKED AFTER THE COURTS

AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD ESSENTIALLY GUTTED AND REMOVED THE

TEETH FROM THE CTA?

MS. GALLAGHER: BECAUSE THE STATE LAW IS

DIFFERENT THAN THE FEDERAL LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE

DIFFERENT. MY QUESTION IS, WHY DO YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO USE LANGUAGE

THE COURTS HAD DETERMINED WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON A FEDERAL LEVEL AND

THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAID THEY WOULD NO LONGER ENFORCE? WHY

ARE YOU CHOOSING TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE IN YOUR ORIGINAL BILL NOW,

RIGHT, TO WHAT YOU SEEK TO SEE FROM THE ORIGINAL VERSION?

MS. GALLAGHER: WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE

STATE LAW IS CLEAR TO ALL OF THE NEW YORK STATE LLCS THAT ARE

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PARTICIPATING IN THE STATE LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: CLEAR THAT YOU WANT

LANGUAGE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER ASKING INDIVIDUALS

TO COMPLY WITH.

MS. GALLAGHER: THE STATE LAW IS STILL USING THAT

LANGUAGE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOU HOPE

TO DO HERE IS CHANGE THE STATE -- THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE BILL BECAUSE IT

RELIED ON -- WHEN WE DEBATED THIS THE ORIGINAL TIME, YOU CONSISTENTLY

ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS WITH "THIS IS BRINGING STATE LAW IN LINE WITH

FEDERAL LAW." NOW YOU ARE BRINGING STATE LAW OUT OF LINE WITH FEDERAL

LAW. SO TWO DIFFERENT COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS.

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS -- THIS BILL IS STILL IMPORTANT

FOR TRANSPARENCY. THIS BILL IS -- YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION

HAS A RELAXED POSTURE TOWARDS CORPORATE CORRUPTION AND WHITE-COLLAR

CRIME. NEW YORK STATE DOES NOT. SO THIS BILL INCORPORATES STATUTORY

DEFINITIONS FROM THE FEDERAL LAW IN ORDER TO INOCULATE THE LLC

TRANSPARENCY ACT FROM SHIFTING FEDERAL GUIDELINES BY PROVIDING

CERTAINTY AND DEFINITIONS, AND REDUCING CONFUSION DURING THE CHANGES

THAT ARE HAPPENING IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO WHEN THE CTA HAD

MADE ITS CHANGES, IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT -- THAT 32 MILLION BUSINESSES

THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED WOULD BE WHITTLED DOWN TO 12,000. UNDER YOU

REVERTING BACK TO THAT LANGUAGE, HOW MANY NEW YORK STATE BUSINESSES

DO YOU BELIEVE WILL BE AFFECTED UNDER THIS ITERATION OF THE LAW?

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT HASN'T CHANGED FROM THE

ORIGINAL LAW FOR NEW YORK STATE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHAT HASN'T CHANGED?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: IT STILL APPLIES TO ALL LLCS IN THE

STATE. DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT

WAS IN THE CTA?

MS. GALLAGHER: AND IT'S CURRENTLY IN NEW YORK

STATE LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO YOU MODELED THIS BILL

AFTER THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT. BUT JUST THREE MONTHS AGO THE

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK -- THE VERY AGENCY TASKED WITH

ENFORCING THIS ON A FEDERAL LEVEL -- RESCINDED THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP

INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENT THAT THE U.S. COMPANIES AND U.S.

PERSONS WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, GUTTING THE CTA'S SCOPE. SO WHY

DO YOU STILL FEEL LIKE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE STATE VERSION OF THIS IS

SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO DO?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS STILL

DEDICATED TO UPHOLDING THE -- THE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT BECAUSE WE

BELIEVE THAT WHITE-COLLAR CRIME AND CORRUPTION IS A -- A PROBLEM. AND

WE ARE WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT HAD ONCE BEEN CITED IS NOW

WRITTEN OUT IN CLEAR LANGUAGE SO THAT PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER LOOKING AT A

DEAD CITATION. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT WAS IN THE FEDERAL BILL AND IN THE

STATE BILL. WE'RE STILL USING THE STATE BILL, SO THAT LANGUAGE IS NOW IN

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE STATE BILL. IT'S PURELY TECHNICAL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. BUT FOUR FEDERAL

COURTS HAVE ALREADY SPLIT ON WHETHER THE CTA IS EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL,

AND THE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION BLOCKED ITS ENFORCEMENT. WHAT SPECIFIC

ANALYSIS HAVE YOU RELIED ON TO ENSURE THAT YOUR BILL, WHICH IS

SUBSTANTIVELY MODELED AFTER THAT ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS RULED

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS LEGALLY SOUND AND WON'T FACE SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL

QUESTIONS?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: WE ARE JUST MAKING A TECHNICAL

CHANGE TO ALLOW NEW YORK STATE TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROCESS THAT IT

SET INTO LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. SO PLEASE EXPLAIN

COMPREHENSIVELY THE FEDERAL CITATION AND ITS REACH FOR THE PURPOSES OF

THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD FOR ME.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: OKAY. THERE ARE 30 -- THE

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION IN

THIS SECTION, ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT. THE TERM

"ACCEPTABLE" -- WHAT? CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FEDERAL

CITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. PLEASE

HOLD.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(CONFERENCING)

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: DOES THIS COUNT TOWARDS MY

TIME?

(PAUSE)

MS. GALLAGHER: OKAY, HERE'S THE CITATION.

BENEFICIAL SHALL -- OWNER SHALL MEAN WITH ANY RESPECT -- WITH RESPECT

TO ANY ENTITY OR INDIVIDUAL WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THROUGH ANY

CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, UNDERSTANDING, RELATIONSHIP OR OTHERWISE, ONE,

EXERCISES SUBSTANTIAL CONTROL OVER THE ENTITY, OR TWO, OWNS OR CONTROLS

NOT LESS THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF THE ENTITY.

REPORTING COMPANY SHALL MEAN A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THAT IS

CREATING -- CREATED BY THE FILING OF A DOCUMENT WITH THE SECRETARY OF

STATE OR AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 8 OF

THE CHAPTER, AND NOT TO MEAN OR INCLUDE -- AND THEN WE GET INTO THE

EXEMPTIONS.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: HOW MANY EXEMPTIONS ARE

THERE?

MS. GALLAGHER: THERE ARE....

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: I'LL GIVE YOU THE

SPARKNOTES. THERE'S 25.

MS. GALLAGHER: THANK YOU. THERE'S 25.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO GIVEN THE LACK OF

ENFORCEMENT FUNDING AND THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS WILL DETER

CRIME AND THE LACK OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THIS DATA, WHAT MEASURABLE

OUTCOME ARE WE PROMISING NEW YORKERS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE BURDENS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THAT WE SEE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NO LONGER AND THE COURTS NO

LONGER FELT WAS RELEVANT HERE?

MS. GALLAGHER: WELL, IN THIS BILL THE -- WHAT

WE'RE GUARANTEEING NEW YORKERS IS THAT THE FEDERAL CITATION WILL BE

MOVED INTO PRINT AND THE -- AND WE ARE PRINTING THE DEFINITION INTO

STATUTE. THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. WHAT I'M -- I'M

HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING IS THE LACK OF RESPONSE WHEN WE

QUESTION WHY YOU'RE DOING THIS. WHY -- WHY DO WE FEEL COMPELLED? IS

THERE ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO DETER

CRIME, EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT -- THROUGHOUT THE COURT PROCEEDINGS ON THE

FEDERAL CASE THEY FOUND THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO COMPELLING REASON FOR

DOING THIS BECAUSE THE BANKS WERE PROVIDING THAT DATA UNDER CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATION.

MS. GALLAGHER: THE -- I WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY

TO ANSWER ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS DURING THE ORIGINAL DEBATE FOR THE

LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT WHICH WE PASSED INTO LAW. THAT IS STILL LAW. IT

TAKES EFFECT IN JANUARY, 2026 SO WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT THE STATE LAW

IS READY TO GO, AS WITH THE LANGUAGE, AND IT IS PURELY A TECHNICAL FIX. SO

I WILL NOT BE DEBATING ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINAL LLC

TRANSPARENCY ACT, AS IT'S ALREADY LAW AND IT IS NOT THIS LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: YOU'VE NOW DECOUPLED

NEW YORK FROM FEDERAL DEFINITIONS FOR A REPORTING COMPANY IF THIS IS

PASSED, CORRECT?

MS. GALLAGHER: CORRECT.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO DOES THIS MEAN THAT

BUSINESSES WILL NEED TO TRACK TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS; A STATE AND

A FEDERAL, AND CREATE -- AND MAY CREATE CONFUSION AND COSTS WITHOUT

ANY ADDED SECURITY BENEFIT?

MS. GALLAGHER: NO. BECAUSE IF THE FEDS KEEP IT

IN PLACE THE DEFINITIONS ARE ALIGNED -- ALIGNED, AND IF THEY DON'T --

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK).

MS. GALLAGHER: -- THEN THE STATE LAW IS PERFECTLY

FINE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IF THE FEDS KEEP WHAT IN

PLACE?

MS. GALLAGHER: IF THEY KEEP THE DEFINITION IN

PLACE FOR -- IN THE -- IN THE WHAT?

(CONFERENCING)

IN THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE

WON'T BE TWO DIFFERENT REPORTING METRICS CONSIDERING THAT THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT SAYS MANY OF THE ENTITIES COVERED UNDER HERE WILL NO

LONGER NEED TO REPORT IN THE SAME WAY HOW YOU'RE REQUIRING THERE?

THERE WON'T BE TWO DIFFERENT REPORTING METRICS FOR LLCS?

MS. GALLAGHER: NO.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: HOW SO?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: BECAUSE THE DEFINITIONS ARE THE

SAME.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. BUT YOU'RE

DECOUPLING (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) -- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT --

MS. GALLAGHER: IT'S JUST SPELLED OUT IN -- IT'S JUST

SPELLED OUT NOW IN -- IN FULL LANGUAGE IN THE BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NO

LONGER THE LANGUAGE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS RELYING ON FOR

ENFORCEMENT.

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS BILL IS ABOUT THE NEW YORK

STATE LAW, AND WE PUT THESE DEFINITIONS INTO THE NEW YORK STATE LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: YOU UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU

COUPLE AND DECOUPLE LANGUAGE WITH FEDERAL LAW, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT

NEW YORK STATE LAW ANYMORE? IT IS ABOUT HOW THE LANGUAGE AFFECTS

NEW YORKERS. I BELIEVE THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE WAY WE ARE

REPRESENTING WHAT IS AND IS NOT A QUALIFIED ENTITY VERSUS THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT.

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT'S YOUR OPINION.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THAT'S MY OPINION? OKAY.

SO WILL -- WHAT -- THE BILL RETAINS EXEMPTIONS AS THEY

STOOD IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION. SO INSTITUTIONS, PUBLICLY-TRADED

COMPANIES, PROXIES, DIFFERENT AND VARIOUS ENTITIES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO

LLCS ARE STILL NOT INCLUDED IN -- IN THESE NEW DEFINITIONS THAT YOU ARE

NOW ENUMERATING?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE SAME -- THE SAME

EXEMPTIONS ARE -- IT'S -- WE HAVE CHANGED NOTHING IN THE LAW EXCEPT

ADDING THE -- THE WRITTEN LANGUAGE OF THE CITATION INTO THE STATE LAW.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED,

AND YOU'RE NOT DECOUPLING IT FROM WHAT ARE NOW THE FEDERAL

GUIDELINES, RIGHT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE FEDERAL -- THIS -- FOR THE

STATE LAW WE ARE USING THE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE IN THE CORPORATE

TRANSPARENCY ACT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THE PREVIOUS -- THE

PREVIOUS OPERATIVE DEFINITIONS THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING ENFORCED.

MS. GALLAGHER: AND WE HAVE TAKEN THAT

LANGUAGE AND WE HAVE PUT IT INTO THIS BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. BUT THIS IS NOT A

TECHNICAL FIX. THIS IS A BILL, AND THIS LAW RELIES ON -- ON NEW FACTS,

CORRECT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT IS YOUR OPINION.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IS THIS A TECHNICAL FIX OR IS

THIS A NEW PIECE OF LEGISLATION?

MS. GALLAGHER: IT'S JUST A TECHNICAL FIX.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY.

LET'S GO BACK TO SOME OF THE EXEMPTIONS, JUST TO

UNDERSTAND AND HAVE CLARITY FOR WHAT IS AND IS NOT NOW -- WHAT WAS

ORIGINALLY COUPLED WITH THE FEDERAL LAW.

MS. GALLAGHER: I CAN SAVE YOU SOME TIME IF

YOU'D LIKE. THE EXEMPTIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: BUT THEY'RE NO LONGER BEING

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ENFORCED ON A FEDERAL LEVEL.

MS. GALLAGHER: THEY'RE -- IN THE NEW YORK

STATE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT, THE EXEMPTIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO IF NOTHING HAS CHANGED,

WHAT'S THE NEED --

MS. GALLAGHER: NOTHING HAS CHANGED --

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHAT'S THE NEED FOR --

MS. GALLAGHER: -- EXCEPT WE HAVE ADDED THE

LANGUAGE INTO THE BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO YOU HAD REFERRED TO

FEDERAL LANGUAGE.

MS. GALLAGHER: YUP.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: AND NOW YOU ARE NO LONGER

REFERRING TO FEDERAL LANGUAGE?

MS. GALLAGHER: YUP.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHY?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: THE POINT OF THE BILL IS TO CODIFY

THE LANGUAGE IN THE LAW IN CASE THERE IS A CHANGE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IN CASE THERE IS A CHANGE?

IS THIS TRADITIONALLY WHAT WE DO?

MS. GALLAGHER: YES. WE DO DEFINITIONS ALL THE

TIME.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IS -- IS THAT BECAUSE YOU

DON'T THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS RELYING ON WHAT WAS THEIR

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT WAS DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS -- THIS IS SIMPLY A

CODIFICATION OF THE TERMS IN THE -- IN THE BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO WHY WAS THE FEDERAL

LANGUAGE OKAY BEFORE AND NOW WE NO LONGER FEEL COMPELLED TO RELY ON

IT?

MS. GALLAGHER: WE -- WE DECIDED TO MAKE IT

MORE CLEAR BY PUTTING THE DISTINCT LANGUAGE INTO THE BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHY WASN'T THAT CLARITY

NECESSARY THE FIRST TIME YOU DID THIS?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE

IN POLICY MINDSET AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO IS THIS A POLITICAL STUNT,

OR IS THIS SIMPLY --

MS. GALLAGHER: NO, THIS IS A TECHNICAL CHANGE TO

A BILL TO ENSURE THAT THE POLICY IN NEW YORK IS NOT AFFECTED BY FEDERAL

CHANGES.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO THE INTERIM FINAL RULE

FROM FINCEN, WHICH ON A FEDERAL LEVEL WAS THE ONES WHO HAD -- HAD

TO DEAL WITH THIS, NOW EXEMPTS ALL DOMESTIC REPORTING COMPANIES.

WHY IS NEW YORK STEPPING IN TO ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT -- WITH BROADER RESOURCES, LEGAL AUTONOMY -- HAS DECIDED

NOT THAT IT'S JUST NOT UNNECESSARY BUT IT'S LIKELY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL?

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT IS NOT GERMANE TO THIS BILL.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THAT IS ABOUT THE FEDERAL -- OR SORRY, THE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT,

WHICH IS NOT THE BILL I'M DEBATING RIGHT NOW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: YOU'RE DEBATING CHANGES TO

THE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT; ARE YOU NOT?

MS. GALLAGHER: I'M -- I'M DEBATING BILL

A8662-A, WHICH IS A DEFINITION BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS

NOT A GERMANE QUESTION TO THE BILL?

MS. GALLAGHER: IT'S NOT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. I DON'T -- I DON'T

THINK YOU CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GERMANE THAT NEW YORK IS

STEPPING IN TO ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO

LONGER DECIDED TO ENFORCE. I BELIEVE THAT'S UP TO THE SPEAKER TO DECIDE

THE GERMANENESS OF THE BILL. BUT I'D LOVE SOME INSIGHTS AS TO WHY YOU

THINK NEW YORK CAN DO SOMETHING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS

DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT'S YOUR OPINION AND I DON'T

NEED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THAT'S NOT MY OPINION, IT'S

HOUSE RULES. SO, I MEAN, WE CAN ASK THE SPEAKER IF IT'S GERMANE, OR

I'D LOVE YOUR OPINION AS TO WHY YOU THINK NEW YORK STATE --

MS. GALLAGHER: YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK THE

SPEAKER IF YOU'D LIKE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: MADAM SPEAKER, I'D LIKE

CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER OR NOT MY QUESTION IS GERMANE TO THE BILL.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(PAUSE)

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WE ARE CURRENTLY ON

DEBATE FOR THIS BILL, BUT WE'LL KEEP TRACK OF YOUR QUESTIONS TO ASCERTAIN

IF IT REMAINS GERMANE OR NOT. SO WE'RE DEBATING THIS BILL HERE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. I -- I AM ASKING A

QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, WHICH IS AN

AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUS PIECE OF LEGISLATION AND BOTH ARE AFFECTED BY

MY QUESTION. THE SPONSOR HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT IN TRYING TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS RELATED TO ANYTHING BESIDES THE PHYSICAL CHANGE, BUT THERE

ARE ACTUAL CHANGES TO THE LAW. SO I -- I'D ASK FOR CLARITY ON WHETHER OR

NOT THE QUESTION IS GERMANE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MY ANSWER REMAINS

THE SAME, THAT WE'RE DEBATING THIS BILL. YOU CAN'T MAKE HER CHANGE HER

ANSWERS.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WELL, SHE'S STATING THAT THE

QUESTION IS NOT GERMANE TO THE BILL, I BELIEVE.

MS. WALSH: MADAM SPEAKER, IF I MAY. PERHAPS

THE SPONSOR COULD ASK YOU TO MAKE A RULING AS TO GERMANENESS. THAT

MIGHT BE A WAY TO UNSTICK US HERE. JUST A SUGGESTION.

THANK YOU.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO

REITERATE THE QUESTION?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: YES, PLEASE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THE INTERIM FINAL RULE FROM

FINCEN NOW ACCEPTS ALL DOMESTIC REPORTING COMPANIES. WHY IS NEW

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YORK STEPPING IN TO ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

WITH BROADER RESOURCES AND LEGAL AUTHORITY, HAS DECIDED IS NOT

NECESSARY AND LIKELY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL?

(PAUSE)

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THIS QUESTION IS NOT

GERMANE BECAUSE IT'S NOT CHANGING ANY POLICY IMPLICATIONS FROM THE

FIRST BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. UM --

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, I -- I

WONDER IF -- IS THE GENTLEMAN INTERESTED IN US TAKING A VOTE TO HONOR

YOUR OPINION THAT HIS QUESTIONS ARE NOT GERMANE SO WE CAN MOVE ON?

IF THAT'S HOW YOU WANT TO USE THE TIME, IS THAT WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE

HAPPEN?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: YOU CAN APPEAL THE

RULING AND WE WOULD TAKE A VOTE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SURE. I'LL APPEAL THE RULING.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AND THE RULING'S

BEEN APPEALED.

(PAUSE)

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE IS DOES THE RULING OF

THE CHAIR STAND.

A PARTY VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. IN AN

EFFORT TO MOVE THIS DEBATE FORWARD, WE ASK THAT MEMBERS RECOGNIZE ON

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE IT'LL BE A PARTY VOTE IN... WHICH WAY? I'M CONFUSED

NOW.

(LAUGHTER)

AGAINST THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. SO IT WOULD BE A VOTE

IN THE NEGATIVE, I SUPPOSE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, THE

MAJORITY CONFERENCE BELIEVES THAT STATES HAVE RIGHTS, AND SO WE WILL BE

VOTING AGAINST THEIR DESIRE TO CHALLENGE YOUR RULING.

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 RULING OF THE CHAIR STANDS.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THANK YOU. WILL THE

SPONSOR CONTINUE TO YIELD FOR QUESTIONS?

(PAUSE)

MS. GALLAGHER: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THE BILL APPEARS TO BE BASED

ON A FEDERAL LAW THAT IS NO LONGER APPLIED HERE. SO IT'S DIRECTED AT A

PROBLEM THAT DISPROPORTIONATELY EXISTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF YOUR BILL

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AND IS ADVANCED UNDER THE PRETENSES OF TRANSPARENCY, YET NOT OFFERING

VERY MUCH TRANSPARENCY AT ALL. SO I ASK AGAIN, WHAT DOES THIS BILL DO?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: IT ENSURES THAT THESE DEFINITIONS

ARE CODIFIED IN STATE LAW REGARDLESS OF FEDERAL DEFINITIONS.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHY DO YOU FEEL THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NO LONGER FELT COMPELLED TO ENFORCE THE

COMPLIANCE MECHANISM THAT YOU SEEK TO CODIFY HERE TODAY?

MS. GALLAGHER: I HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THAT

QUESTION.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE

IMPLICATIONS ARE FOR COMPANIES IN NEW YORK WHO WILL HAVE TWO

DIFFERENT COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS?

MS. GALLAGHER: THIS -- THIS IS A TECHNICAL BILL

THAT'S CHANGING THE LANGUAGE INTO THE STATE LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL, PLEASE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: I THINK ALL OF US HAVE SEEN

TODAY AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST FEW DEBATES ON THIS PIECE OF

LEGISLATION THAT IS NOT ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. THIS PROVIDED LOOPHOLES.

THIS PROVIDED THE ALLOWANCE FOR PROXIES FOR ANY COMPANY THAT HAS OVER

25 EMPLOYEES FOR SHELL COMPANIES TO ALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE BILL. IT

ALLOWS FOR DORMANT COMPANIES TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE BILL. IT HAS

PROVIDED A LACKLUSTER ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. SO MUCH SO THAT EVEN

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IN THE FEDERAL VERSION IT WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT WAS RULED VERY

INFEASIBLE FROM THE ENFORCEMENT ARM ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, AND IT HAS

CONTINUED TO CREATE AND WREAK HAVOC ON OUR SMALL BUSINESSES WHO

SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SPONSOR MIGHT NOT. THIS BILL EXEMPTS THE

VERY PEOPLE, THE VERY INDIVIDUALS, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, THAT IT SEEKS TO

PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY FOR. AND IT CREATES A LAYER OF RED TAPE, A LAYER OF

DUAL-REPORTING, A LAYER OF CONSTANTLY CHANGING LAW AS THE COURTS HAVE

CONTINUED TO DEFANG THE FEDERAL VERSION AND CONTINUE TO QUESTION THE

VALIDITY OF EVEN DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS. IT CONTINUES TO SHOW HOW

ONCE A GOOD IDEA POTENTIALLY HAS BEEN WHITTLED DOWN INTO A LACKLUSTER

VERSION OR UGLY STEP-SIBLING OF WHAT IT ONCE WAS. AND IT IS SAD TO SEE

THIS BODY CONTINUE TO TRY AND ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT WILL -- I THINK WE

WILL ONE DAY SEE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO AFTER THEY TRY AND ENFORCE

SOMETHING LIKE THIS WITH LITTLE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS INVOLVED.

WE'RE CREATING A DUPLICATIVE REGIME WITH NO FUNDING,

NO METRICS, NO SUCCESS AND NO CLEAR BENEFIT. JUST MORE PAPERWORK,

MORE CONFUSION AND MORE LIABILITY. BUT WORST OF ALL, THIS BILL PUTS REAL

PEOPLE AT RISK; PEOPLE WHO ARE HIDING, WHETHER IT'S MWBES, WHETHER

AS ANTI-SEMITISM IS ON THE RISE, JEWISH INDIVIDUALS SEEK TO HIDE THEIR

BUSINESS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP IN A TIME WHERE BUSINESSES THAT ARE

OWNED BY JEWISH INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UNDER ATTACK. THERE SO MANY

DIFFERENT WAYS AND REASONS WHY LLCS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP IS

TYPICALLY HIDDEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IF THIS BILL ACTUALLY DID TACKLE SOME OF THE ISSUES

AMONG PROXY VOTERS, AMONG ANY OF THE 25 EXEMPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ENUMERATED IN THE NEW VERSION OF THE BILL, MAYBE I'D SAY THIS WAS A

LAUDABLE IDEA. BUT AS IT STANDS, THE ONLY THING THAT IS TRANSPARENT ABOUT

THIS BILL IS ITS INTENTIONS.

SO I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE AND I THINK MY

COLLEAGUES SHOULD AS WELL. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. BRAUNSTEIN.

MR. BRAUNSTEIN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A QUICK QUESTION?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. GALLAGHER: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. BRAUNSTEIN: UNDER THE FEDERAL CORPORATE

TRANSPARENCY ACT, CO-OPS AND CONDO BOARDS WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE

DISCLOSURES. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS NEW LANGUAGE DOES NOT

APPLY TO THEM; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. BRAUNSTEIN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MS. GALLAGHER: YOU'RE WELCOME.

MR. BRAUNSTEIN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. FITZPATRICK.

MR. FITZPATRICK: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD?

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. GALLAGHER: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. FITZPATRICK: THANK YOU.

MS. GALLAGHER, WITH THE -- JUDGING FROM THE DEBATE SO

FAR THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF CONFUSION AROUND THIS LEGISLATION. WHAT

-- WHAT CON -- HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THE CONFUSION THAT SOME OF

THESE SMALL BUSINESSOWNERS ARE GOING TO FEEL WITH THIS REQUIREMENT?

AND HOW DO YOU PLAN TO MAKE THEM AWARE OF THIS REQUIREMENT

(INDISCERNIBLE/PROBLEM WITH MIC)?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS

DOING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THEY ARE ALREADY WORKING ON THAT

BASED ON WHO IS COVERED.

MR. FITZPATRICK: AND WHAT ARE THE FINES OR THE

PENALTIES FOR --

MS. GALLAGHER: IN THIS BILL THERE ARE NO FINES OR

FEES. THIS BILL IS A TECHNICAL CHANGE TO LANGUAGE.

MR. FITZPATRICK: TECHNICAL CHANGE. OKAY.

WHAT IS THE ROLE -- WHAT WILL BE THE ROLE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL IN -- IN ALL OF THIS?

MS. GALLAGHER: I -- I HAVE A FEELING YOU'RE

ASKING ABOUT THE BILL THAT -- THAT THIS ATTACHED TO BUT IS NOT THIS BILL. SO

THIS BILL DOES NOT HAVE ANY ROLE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT IS SIMPLY A

LANGUAGE CHANGE THAT MOVES THE FEDERAL CITATIONS INTO PRINT AND PRINTS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE DEF -- DEFINITIONS INTO STATUTE.

MR. FITZPATRICK: WELL, IF THERE'S ANY

NONCOMPLIANCE, WHO WOULD PURSUE A REMEDY FOR THAT?

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT -- THAT'S SOMETHING FOR THE

LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT, WHICH IS NOT THE BILL I'M DEBATING TODAY.

MR. FITZPATRICK: BUT YOU'RE -- THIS BILL IS

ATTACHED TO THAT BILL. IT RELATES TO THAT BILL, SO IT'S A RELEVANT QUESTION.

MS. GALLAGHER: BUT THIS BILL IS NOT THAT BILL.

MR. FITZPATRICK: IT RELATES TO A BILL THAT WAS

PASSED HERE THAT YOU'RE SAYING I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT. IT HAS YET TO

BE ENACTED, YET IT MODIFIES YOUR ORIGINAL BILL. HOW CAN IT NOT BE

RELATED? IT'S -- I'M ASKING A SERIOUS QUESTION HERE.

MS. GALLAGHER: YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT ASPECTS

THAT ARE UNDERLYING THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS BILL.

MR. FITZPATRICK: SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA ANSWER

THE QUESTION.

MS. GALLAGHER: RIGHT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: OKAY.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

THANK YOU, MS. GALLAGHER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. FITZPATRICK: THIS IS -- THIS IS VERY

INTERESTING. THE -- THERE IS CLEARLY AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE BEHIND THIS

LEGISLATION. THAT IS OBVIOUS, UNSPOKEN AND UNMENTIONED AS IT MAY BE.

WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE IS YOU'RE GOING TO, AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MENTIONED, CREATE REAL VULNERABILITY HERE. THERE IS A RISK OF THIS

INFORMATION BEING HACKED, LEAKED, ET CETERA, WHICH IS A SERIOUS

CONCERN. IT WILL INCENTIVIZE BUSINESSES TO LOCATE ELSEWHERE. IT WILL

FURTHER DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY FROM NEW YORK, ESPECIALLY BUSINESS

INVESTMENT. IT'S VERY CONCERNING. AND I'LL TELL YOU, GIVEN THE -- GIVEN

WHAT HAS GONE ON SO FAR IN THIS DEBATE, IT REMINDS ME OF A QUOTE BY THE

AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST FRIEDRICH HAYEK, AND HE ONCE SAID THAT, "IF

SOCIALISTS UNDERSTOOD ECONOMICS THEY WOULDN'T BE SOCIALISTS."

I URGE A NO VOTE ON THIS BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK -- THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. GALLAGHER: BUT OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. RA: SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME -- BECAUSE I

KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS HERE -- THE EXEMPTION XVI. IT'S

LINE 40 ON I BELIEVE PAGE FOUR. I NEVER -- WHEN I'M LOOKING AT IT ON THE

TABLET I NEVER IF KNOW THE -- IF THE PAGE NUMBER IS AT THE BOTTOM OR THE

TOP. BUT IT -- IT'S EXEMPTION XVI. IT SAYS A LIMITED -- ANY LIMITED

LIABILITY THAT, AND THEN IT GOES THROUGH A, B, C AND D, AND I'M JUST

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHO THAT WILL COVER. I MEAN, SOME OF THE -- SOME

OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS -- OBVIOUSLY -- IT'S OBVIOUS WHAT A UNITED STATES

RESIDENCE IS -- RESIDENT IS -- BUT, A, OPERATES EXCLUSIVELY TO PROVIDE

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO OR HOLD GOVERNANCE RIGHTS OVER ANY ENTITY

DESCRIBED IN A PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH. AND THEN IT'S BENEFICIALLY -- C IS

BENEFICIALLY-OWNED OR CONTROLLED EXCLUSIVELY BY ONE OR MORE UNITED

STATES RESIDENTS THAT ARE UNITED STATES CITIZENS OR LAWFULLY ADMITTED FOR

PERMANENT RESIDENCE. AGAIN, OBVIOUS. BUT THEN D ALSO SAYS DERIVES AT

LEAST A MAJORITY OF ITS FUNDING FROM ONE OR MORE UNITED STATES

RESIDENTS THAT ARE UNITED STATES CITIZENS OR LAWFULLY ADMITTED

PERMANENT RESIDENT. SO CAN YOU DESCRIBE OR EXPLAIN WHAT TYPE OF

ENTITY THAT EXEMPTION IS DESIGNED TO COVER?

MS. GALLAGHER: CAN YOU REPEAT THE LINE NUMBER

THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT?

MR. RA: I'M LOOKING AT LINE 40.

MS. GALLAGHER: OF WHAT PAGE?

MR. RA: IT IS PAGE -- I THINK IT'S PAGE 5. SORRY, YES,

MS. GALLAGHER: ONE MOMENT.

(PAUSE/CONFERENCING)

CAN YOU REPEAT THE CITATION? WE DON'T HAVE THE -- THE

PAGE NUMBERS AREN'T ALIGNED.

MR. RA: IT'S UNDER THE EXEMPTIONS. IT'S XVI. AND THE

-- AND THE DESCRIPTION STARTS ON LINE 40 OF -- AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE, BUT

LOOKING AT IT ON A TABLET THE PAGE NUMBERS THERE. BUT I'M LOOKING AT A

TABLET AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY --

MS. GALLAGHER: SO POOL INVESTMENT -- I'M SORRY

TO INTERRUPT. I DIDN'T MEAN TO.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. RA: IT'S XVI. ANY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

THAT... AND THEN IT GOES INTO A COUPLE POINTS, THE FIRST ONE BEING, A,

OPERATES EXCLUSIVELY TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO, OR HOLD

GOVERNANCE RIGHTS OVER, ANY ENTITY DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH XVI.

MS. GALLAGHER: OKAY. I BELIEVE YOU'RE ASKING

ABOUT POOLED INVESTMENT VEHICLES USED BY AN EXEMPT BANKING

ORGANIZATION, SECURITIES EXCHANGE, ENTITY OR COMMODITY EXCHANGE

REGISTERED ENTITY.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO CAN YOU -- I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH

WHAT THAT TYPE OF ENTITY DOES. WHAT DOES THAT -- WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: SO IT'S AN -- AN EXEMPT BANKING

ORGANIZATION, SECURITIES ENTITY OR COMMODITY EXCHANGE REGISTERED

ENTITY.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND THEN IT'S -- IT'S REFERENCING BACK

TO ONE OF THE PREVIOUS EXEMPTIONS, CORRECT?

MS. GALLAGHER: CORRECT.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MS. GALLAGHER: THANK YOU.

MR. RA: AND -- AND THEN THERE IS -- THE OTHER

EXEMPTION REGARDING -- I'M TRYING TO FIND WHERE IT IS -- I BELIEVE IT'S IN

THE NEXT ONE, XVII, EMPLOYS MORE THAN 20 EMPLOYEES ON A FULL-TIME

BASIS IN THE UNITED STATES. AND THEN IT HAS A -- I GUESS A THRESHOLD OF

$5 MILLION IN GROSS RECEIPTS. SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, WHY WE

HAVE THAT EXEMPTION? WHY 20 EMPLOYEES? WHY ARE WE EXEMPTING

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

REALLY THE LARGER PLAYERS IN THIS SPACE BUT KEEPING THESE REQUIREMENTS

ON SMALLER EMPLOYERS?

MS. GALLAGHER: SO, ALL OF THE EXEMPTIONS ARE

THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS LAW THAT'S ALREADY IN -- IN STATUTE. SO THIS --

THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE EXEMPTIONS, SO THERE ARE NO NEW

EXEMPTIONS IN THIS BILL.

MR. RA: OKAY. BUT, I MEAN, THIS IS -- THIS IS TEXT IN

THIS BILL. THIS IS NOT -- REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S IN EXISTING LAW, I'M ASKING

YOU ABOUT TEXT IN THIS BILL.

MS. GALLAGHER: THE TEXT IN THIS BILL DOES NOT

CHANGE WHO IS EXEMPT IN THE LAW. IT'S JUST PUTTING THE ACTUAL WORDS

INTO THE BILL RATHER THAN THE CITATION.

MR. RA: WELL, THE CITATION DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

MS. GALLAGHER: RIGHT. THAT'S WHY WE PUT THE

ACTUAL LANGUAGE INTO THE BILL. BUT WE ARE NOT DEFINING IN THIS BILL WHO

IS EXEMPT. WE ALREADY DID THOSE EXEMPTIONS; THAT'S IN THE LLC

TRANSPARENCY ACT WHICH WAS PASSED IN 2023.

MR. RA: OKAY. WHO -- I WILL -- I WILL TAKE YOUR --

YOUR STATEMENT ON ITS FACE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THESE ENTITIES ARE

CURRENTLY EXEMPT?

MS. GALLAGHER: IN -- IN THIS BILL THEY ARE

CURRENTLY -- IN -- IN THE LLC TRANSPARENCY ACT THEY ARE CURRENTLY

EXEMPT.

MR. RA: BY -- BY VIRTUE OF WHAT DEFINITION?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE FEDERAL DEFINITION.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. RA: WHICH DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUTTING THIS

DEFINITION INTO IT. THAT'S WHY IT'S A TECHNICAL FIX.

MR. RA: BUT THE DEFINITION DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE.

SO IN CURRENT LAW THERE'S A DEFINITION, A REFERENCE TO A FEDERAL

DEFINITION THAT IS NO LONGER IN STATUTE. SO FUNCTIONALLY, RIGHT NOW NEW

YORK STATE LAW DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITION. YOU ARE PUTTING THE

DEFINITION INTO STATE LAW. SO WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE SAYING

YOU'RE JUST CODIFYING WHAT WAS IN THAT PREVIOUS DEFINITION, IT IS

REFERRING TO A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT NO LONGER EXISTS. SO YOU ARE PUTTING

THIS LANGUAGE INTO NEW YORK STATE LAW. SO AGAIN, I ASK, WHY IS THERE

AN EXEMPTION FOR 20 EMPLOYEES?

MS. GALLAGHER: IT'S NOT REFERRING TO IT. IT IS

FILLING THE HOLE THAT WAS TORN INTO THE LAW BY THE REMOVAL OF THE FEDERAL

LAW.

MR. RA: YES, THE FEDERAL STATUTE HAD EXEMPT --

THESE EXEMPTIONS IN IT. BUT THE FEDERAL STATUTE NO LONGER EXISTS.

MS. GALLAGHER: BUT THE STATE LAW DOES.

MR. RA: THE STATE LAW DOES, BUT IT LACKS A

DEFINITION, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BILL.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: ONCE THE FEDERAL LAW WAS

REPEALED IT CREATED A HOLE IN THE STATE STATUTE, AND WE ARE REPAIRING THE

HOLE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE.

MR. RA: THAT -- THAT I AGREE WITH AND UNDERSTAND.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BUT THIS LANGUAGE WAS ONLY PART OF THE PREVIOUS LAW BY REFERENCE.

THAT REFERENCE NO LONGER IS VALID BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT EXIST AT THE

FEDERAL LEVEL. SO WE ARE FOR THE FIRST TIME PUTTING EXPLICITLY IN NEW

YORK STATE LAW THESE DEFINITIONS. SO I'M GOING TO ASK AGAIN. WHY IS

THERE AN EXEMPTION -- WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR 20 OR FEWER EMPLOYEES

TO BE INCLUDED, AND OVER THAT TO BE EXEMPT?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: THE RATIONALE FOR ANY OF THESE

EXEMPTIONS WAS PART OF THE INITIAL BILL AND ITS DEBATE.

MR. RA: PERHAPS. BUT AGAIN, WE WERE REFERENCING A

FEDERAL STATUTE THAT DOESN'T EXIST. YOU ARE PUTTING THESE INTO STATE LAW

FOR THE FIRST TIME EXPLICITLY. RIGHT NOW -- LET'S -- LET'S BE CLEAR AS TO

WHAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE AN EXISTING LAW THAT

REFERENCES A DEFINITION IN A FEDERAL STATUTE. THAT FEDERAL STATUTE

DOESN'T EXIST. SO -- SO RIGHT -- LET ME -- LET ME BACK UP A SECOND. RIGHT

NOW IF NEW YORK STATE WANTED TO ENFORCE THIS LAW OR UTILIZE THIS LAW TO

GET AT THE CONDUCT THAT THE ORIGINAL STATE STATUTE WAS TRYING TO GET AT,

HOW -- HOW COULD NEW YORK STATE DO THAT?

MS. GALLAGHER: WELL, THE LAW DOES NOT BECOME

ENACTED UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2026, SO THERE IS NO NEED TO DO ANY OF THAT

UNTIL THE LAW'S ENACTED, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE MAKING A TECHNICAL FIX NOW

TO STITCH UP THAT HOLE.

MR. RA: OKAY. SUPPOSE -- OKAY, SO LET'S -- LET'S SAY

WE DID NOT PASS THIS BILL. NEW YORK STATE COULD NOT -- REALLY, THIS LAW

WOULD BE NOT FUNCTIONAL BECAUSE THE DEFINITION HAS -- DOES -- DOESN'T

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

EXIST.

MS. GALLAGHER: THAT'S WHY I --

MR. RA: AM I CORRECT?

MS. GALLAGHER: -- BROUGHT THE BILL FORWARD TO

THE SPEAKER AND THE SPEAKER HAS BROUGHT THE BILL FORWARD TO THE HOUSE.

MR. RA: SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT PUTTING THESE

EXEMPTIONS IN NEW YORK STATE LAW. I -- I COMPLETELY DISAGREE THAT IT'S

NOT FAIR TO ASK ABOUT THE EXEMPTIONS. WHEN -- WHEN I LOOK AT BILL TEXT,

THERE ARE -- THERE'S WORDS -- AND -- AND WE'VE ALL LOOKED AT BILLS, RIGHT?

THERE ARE WORDS THAT ARE IN EXISTING LAW AND THERE ARE WORDS THAT ARE

CLEARLY PART OF A STATUTE THAT WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD -- OR A -- A BILL

THAT WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD THAT'S A PROPOSED LAW. THIS IS LANGUAGE

THAT'S IN THIS PROPOSED LAW. SO WHY IS THERE AN EXEMPTION FOR

BUSINESSES OVER 20 EMPLOYEES?

MS. GALLAGHER: THE CITATION FROM THE PREVIOUS

LAW, THE FEDERAL LAW, IS THE SAME LANGUAGE AS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE

HAVE PUT IN HERE. SO THAT MEANS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED ALL OF

THIS IN THE ORIGINAL BILL.

MR. RA: DID ANY OF US VOTE ON THE FEDERAL LAW?

MS. GALLAGHER: NO, BUT YOU VOTED ON THE LLC

TRANSPARENCY ACT, WHICH IS THE STATE LAW --

MR. RA: I -- I'M AWARE OF THAT, BUT --

MS. GALLAGHER: -- WHICH INCLUDED THAT

LANGUAGE.

MR. RA: WELL, IT DIDN'T INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE, IT

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INCLUDED IT BY REFERENCE, WHICH, BY THE WAY --

MS. GALLAGHER: WHICH IS FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME.

MR. RA: I WOULD POINT OUT TO MY COLLEAGUES WHICH

IS WHY THAT IS USUALLY NOT A GOOD WAY TO DRAFT LEGISLATION, BECAUSE THAT

STUFF CAN CHANGE, AND -- AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE NOW. SO CAN YOU

EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THESE BUSINESSES NEED TO REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT

OF STATE WHEN THIS DOES BECOME EFFECTIVE?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: I WILL ANSWER THAT. THAT IS THE

INFORMATION ABOUT THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE LLC TO THE DEPARTMENT

OF STATE.

MR. RA: AND AT WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL? LIKE, WHAT --

WHAT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EACH OF THOSE OWNERS?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: ONE, FULL LEGAL NAME; TWO, DATE

OF BIRTH; THREE, CURRENT BUSINESS ADDRESS; AND FOUR, A UNIQUE IDENTIFYING

NUMBER FROM AN ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT DEFINED IN 31

U.S.C. SECTION 5336.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND I -- I BELIEVE THAT COULD BE A

PASSPORT NUMBER, A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. SOMETHING OF -- OF THAT

NATURE.

MS. GALLAGHER: CORRECT.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND IF THERE IS A BUSINESS THAT

DOESN'T COMPLY, WHAT'S THE PENALTY FOR -- FOR NON-COMPLIANCE?

(CONFERENCING)

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. GALLAGHER: THE PENALTY IS NOT BEING

IMPACTED BY THIS BILL.

MR. RA: OKAY. DO -- DO THE -- DO THE EXEMPTED

BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOW GOING TO BE LISTED IN NEW YORK STATE STATUTE, IS

THERE ANYTHING THEY NEED TO FILE WITH NEW YORK STATE PURSUANT TO THIS

LAW?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL

CORPORATIONS LAW, YES.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND -- AND HOW DOES THAT

INFORMATION DIFFER FROM WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING UNDER THE CORPORATE

TRANSPARENCY ACT?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GALLAGHER: THE GENERAL LLC LAW DOES NOT

INCLUDE THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS THAT THIS LAW INCLUDES.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. RA: SO, I -- I WANT TO JUST REITERATE. WE HAVE AN

UNDERLYING STATUTE THAT REFERENCED THE FEDERAL DEFINITION. THAT FEDERAL

DEF -- DEFINITION IS GONE. I -- I THINK IT IS ENTIRELY FAIR AND LEGITIMATE TO

ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE EXEMPTIONS THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY

WERE A PART OF FEDERAL LAW I'LL -- I'LL NOTE A COUPLE OF THINGS: NUMBER

ONE, WE'RE THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY. WE'RE NOT THE U.S. HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES. WE DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT LANGUAGE. SO I DON'T KNOW

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HOW IN THE -- IN THE WEEDS WE WERE. I DON'T SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER THAT

FLOOR DEBATE, BUT AT THAT TIME I -- I THINK IT -- IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LIKELY

TO GET AN ANSWER OF, OH, WELL, WE'RE JUST REFERENCING THE FEDERAL

DEFINITION. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW IN THE WEEDS WE GOT WE WITH REGARD

TO THOSE EXEMPTIONS. BUT -- BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, LOOK AT THE BILL TEXT.

THESE DEFINITIONS ARE BEING PUT INTO NEW YORK STATE LAW EXPLICITLY FOR

THE FIRST TIME. IF WE WERE TO NOT PASS THIS BILL, THIS STATUTE WOULD BE

RENDERED MEANINGLESS, IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE NO

DEFINITION. SO I THINK IT IS ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE TO -- TO ASK THESE

QUESTIONS.

I DON'T THINK THIS BILL IS REALLY NECESSARY IN TERMS OF

THE LAW. I -- WE SHOULD BE VOTING ON A BILL, I THINK, PROBABLY TO JUST

REPEAL THIS LAW. BUT IN PARTICULAR, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IF WE'RE

TRYING TO DEAL WITH MAJOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND SITUATIONS, THE FACT

THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING AFTER THE SMALL ONES IN THIS DEFINITION GIVES ME

GREAT PAUSE AND I'M GONNA BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, IF YOU

COULD PLEASE CALL THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S

CONFERENCE ROOM.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WAYS AND MEANS TO

THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM. PLEASE MEET CHAIR PRETLOW IN THE

SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM FOR WAYS AND MEANS.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MS. WALSH: I THOUGHT THAT AFTER THE DEBATE WE'VE

HAD SO FAR, MAYBE WE WOULD GIVE THE SPONSOR A BIT OF A REST. I KIND OF

FEEL LIKE I CAN PROBABLY GET MY THOUGHTS OUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER JUST BY

GOING ON THE BILL RATHER THAN ENGAGING IN A QUESTION AND ANSWER.

WITH REGARD TO WHAT THE PREVIOUS DEBATER WAS TALKING

ABOUT AS FAR AS POOR DRAFTING BY JUST REFERENCING THE FEDERAL STATUTE, IT'S

NOT JUST POOR DRAFTING, IT'S ACTUALLY AGAINST THE NEW YORK STATE

CONSTITUTION. AND WE -- WE DISCUSSED THIS THE OTHER DAY. BUT THAT'S

WHY ARTICLE III, SECTION 16 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS

INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL LAW BY REFERENCE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT GETS US

INTO ALL OF THIS PROBLEM.

I'M NOT GONNA EVEN TOUCH THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT

GERMANENESS OR NOT GERMANENESS. I FELT LIKE I WAS LISTENING TO

SOMETHING OUT OF ABBOTT AND COSTELLO, HONESTLY. BUT I -- WHAT I WOULD

LIKE TO DO WITH THE TIME THAT I HAVE IS I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS THE VERY

REAL CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL

ACTUALLY BE IMPACTED BY THIS BILL, AND THAT WOULD BE OUR BUSINESS

COMMUNITY.

SO THE BUSINESS COUNCIL STRONGLY OPPOSES THIS BILL.

AND, YOU KNOW, LET ME JUST SAY PARENTHETICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE GET A LOT

OF OPPOSITION, MEMOS OF CONCERN, MEMOS OF SUPPORT WHEN IT COMES TO

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

VARIOUS LEGISLATION. SOMETIMES IT'S WRITTEN DOWN, SOMETIMES IT'S JUST

SIMPLY A PHONE CALL GETS MADE AND SOMEBODY SAYS YES, WE HAVE

CONCERNS BECAUSE OF THIS, THIS, THIS. THIS IS A, I THINK, A VERY WELL-

WORDED, WELL-THOUGHT-OUT WRITTEN MEMORANDUM OF OPPOSITION AND

THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO SHARE IT WITH YOU. "THIS BILL IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF

REGULATORY OVERREACH THAT ADDS COSTLY, CONFUSING AND PUNITIVE

REQUIREMENTS ON BUSINESSES AT A TIME WHEN NEW YORK'S ECONOMIC

COMPETITIVENESS IS ALREADY UNDER SERIOUS STRAIN. IF ENACTED, THIS

LEGISLATION WILL FURTHER ACCELERATE THE STEADY EXODUS OF BUSINESSES FROM

NEW YORK. THIS BILL WOULD ENSHRINE INTO STATE LAW A COMPLEX

REPORTING REGIME BASED ON THE NOW-RECEDING FEDERAL CORPORATE

TRANSPARENCY ACT, THE CTA. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS EFFECTIVELY

WALKED BACK IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CTA FOR DOMESTIC BUSINESSES,

RECOGNIZING THAT THE RULES WERE POORLY CONSTRUCTED AND BURDENSOME.

RATHER THAN FOLLOW SUIT, NEW YORK IS ATTEMPTING TO GO IT ALONE,

CODIFYING DEFINITIONS AND MANDATES THAT NO LONGER APPLY AT THE FEDERAL

LEVEL, AND APPLYING THEM IN WAYS THAT WILL UNIQUELY AND UNFAIRLY

PUNISH NEW YORK COMPANIES. THIS IS NOT A FIX OR A CLARIFICATION. THIS

IS A SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OF THE STATE'S POWER TO DEMAND SENSITIVE

OWNER -- OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FROM THOUSANDS OF LEGITIMATE LLCS,

MANY OF THEM SMALL, LOCAL, FAMILY-RUN OR ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESSES.

THE NEW DEFINITIONS OF BENEFICIAL OWNER AND REPORTING COMPANY ARE

BROAD AND MURKY, SWEEPING IN BUSINESSES THAT WERE NEVER INTENDED TO

BE SUBJECT TO THIS LAW AND OFFERING LITTLE GUIDANCE ON HOW TO COMPLY.

THE BILL EMPOWERS THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO REWRITE AND ENFORCE

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THESE RULES THROUGH UNCHECKED REGULATORY AUTHORITY, CREATING A MOVING

TARGET FOR BUSINESSES THAT COULD CHANGE AT THE DROP OF A DIME. AND LET'S

BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING. THE LARGEST, MOST POWERFUL

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS BANKS, BROKER-DEALERS, PUBLIC UTILITIES,

INSURANCE FIRMS AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES ARE CARVED OUT. THE SMALL

AND MID-SIZED LLCS THAT MAKE UP THE BACKBONE OF NEW YORK'S

ECONOMY, THEY'RE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY BUSINESSES

ARE LEAVING NEW YORK OR CHOOSING NOT TO COME HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THE STATE HAS BECOME NOTORIOUS FOR LAYERING REGULATION ON TOP OF

REGULATION, CREATING ENDLESS RED TAPE AND OFFERING LITTLE CERTAINTY OR

RELIEF. BUSINESS OWNERS ARE TIRED OF BEING TREATED LIKE A PROBLEM TO

SOLVE INSTEAD OF A PARTNER IN ECONOMIC GROWTH. THEY ARE TIRED OF

WATCHING THE RULES CHANGE MID-GAME. THEY ARE TIRED OF FOOTING THE

BILL FOR ALBANY'S MANDATES WHILE BEING TOLD IT'S ALL IN THE NAME OF

TRANSPARENCY. WHAT THIS BILL ACTUALLY DELIVERS IS MORE COMPLIANCE

COSTS, MORE LEGAL EXPOSURE, MORE TIME SPENT ON PAPERWORK, AND MORE

REASONS TO MOVE JOBS AND INVESTMENT ELSEWHERE. AND LET'S NOT PRETEND

THAT THIS IS COST-FREE. ACCOUNTANTS, LAWYERS AND COMPLIANCE OFFICERS

WILL BE NEEDED TO NAVIGATE THIS MAZE. THAT MEANS REAL DOLLARS OUT THE

DOOR FOR BUSINESSES THAT ALREADY OPERATE ON TIGHTS MARGINS. AND FOR

WHAT? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER ENFORCING THESE RULES.

OTHER STATES AREN'T ADOPTING THEM. THIS BILL DOES NOTHING TO IMPROVE

PUBLIC SAFETY OR ECONOMIC INTEGRITY. IT SIMPLY MAKES IT HARDER TO

OPERATE A BUSINESS IN NEW YORK. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE JUSTIFICATION FOR

THE LEGISLATION. THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK IT'S BASED ON IS COLLAPSING.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATED BENEFIT TO STATE DUPLICATION. AND THERE'S NO

PLAN TO ENSURE DATA SECURITY OR PROTECT BUSINESSES FROM MISUSE OF THEIR

SENSITIVE INFORMATION. WHAT THIS BILL OFFERS IS MORE REGULATION FOR

REGULATIONS' SAKE."

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT CAN GET ANY MORE CLEAR

THAN THAT ABOUT WHY THE BUSINESS COUNCIL STRONGLY OPPOSES THIS

LEGISLATION. AND I WOULD JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, SINCE WHEN DID BUSINESS

BECOME THE ENEMY HERE IN THIS STATE? SINCE WHEN? WHY IS IT ONLY IN

BILLS LIKE THIS THAT WE CAN GET THE MAJORITY TO ACTUALLY GET TOUGH ON

ANYBODY? IT JUST SEEMS TO BE JUST TOUGH ON OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

AND THEY ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE REAL IMPACTS ARE ON THEM, ON

THEIR BUSINESSES, WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST THEM, THE UNCERTAINTY. AND IT

JUST TALKS ABOUT -- AS A PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, IT REALLY TALKS ABOUT AND

UNDERLINES WHY NEW YORK STATE HAS BEEN 50TH, THE WORST IN THE NATION,

IN BUSINESS CLIMATE. IT -- THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE ABSOLUTELY METAPHOR,

THIS BILL, AS TO WHY NEW YORK RANKS DEAD LAST IN BUSINESS CLIMATE.

WE HAVE A CHOICE TO STOP LAYERING REGULATION UPON

REGULATION UPON REGULATION. BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM THAT THE MAJORITY

HAS AN APPETITE FOR TRYING TO MAKE THE BUSINESS CLIMATE AROUND HERE

ANY BETTER.

I WILL OBVIOUSLY BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. I

ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VOTE IN THE SAME WAY. AND I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS

A VERY UNFORTUNATE EXAMPLE OF ONE MORE -- ONE MORE THING THAT WE

DON'T NEED, AND THE WRONG DIRECTION THAT WE CONTINUE TO FOLLOW IN THIS

STATE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS BILL. IF ANYONE

WISHES TO VOTE YES, YOU MAY DO SO NOW AT YOUR SEATS.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. THE MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS PIECE

OF LEGISLATION. THERE COULD 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.)

MS. GALLAGHER TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. GALLAGHER: THANK YOU. STATES HAVE THE

RIGHT TO CODIFY POLICIES AND LANGUAGE IN STATE LAW THAT REMAIN IN EFFECT,

INDEPENDENT OF FEDERAL LAW AND POLICY DECISION. THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL

IS DOING, AND NOTHING ELSE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

I'D LIKE TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR SUPPORT, AND

I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE SPEAKER AND THE STAFF FOR HELPING ME PUT THIS

TOGETHER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL BE VOTING YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. GALLAGHER IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. BOLOGNA TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. BOLOGNA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I

TAKE THIS JOB VERY SERIOUSLY. THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE GREATEST HONORS

OF MY LIFE TO -- TO HAVE THIS JOB. AND AS I SAID YESTERDAY IN A DEBATE, AS

WE TALK ABOUT THESE BILLS I DRIVE THROUGH MY DISTRICT IN MY HEAD AND I

TRY TO REMEMBER CERTAIN CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH -- WITH PEOPLE,

WITH RESIDENTS. AND HONESTLY, AS I WAS SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT THIS

BILL, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH A -- WITH A CONSTITUENT ON

GEORGIA AVENUE IN THE -- IN THE CITY OF LOCKPORT. AND KIND OF JUST

TALKING ABOUT CHILD CARE, AFFORDABILITY AND SOME OF -- SOME OF THOSE

THINGS, AND HOW THIS BILL DOES NOT GET US ANY CLOSER TO SOLVING ANY OF

THE ISSUES THAT ARE JUST FACING NORMAL EVERYDAY PEOPLE. AND WE HAVE A

CERTAIN EXPECTATION HERE TO REMAIN PROFESSIONAL, WORK HARD, AND

UNDERSTAND -- HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND

WHAT'S GOING ON AND ASKING QUESTIONS. WHETHER YOU LIVE IN A

PENTHOUSE IN MANHATTAN OR ARE HOMELESS AND -- AND ON ELM STREET IN

THE CITY OF BUFFALO, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE SAME REPRESENTATION AND YOU

SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ASKING QUESTIONS ON YOUR BEHALF. SO THE

DISMISSIVE NATURE IN WHICH SOME OF THE QUESTIONS TODAY WAS -- WAS

VERY DISAPPOINTING.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SO, PURELY BASED ON THAT FACT ALONE, I MEAN, THIS IS --

I'LL BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL. BUT AGAIN, TO ECHO MY COLLEAGUE'S

COMMENTS ON THE BUSINESS CLIMATE IN NEW YORK STATE AND HOW THIS

DOESN'T GET US ANY FURTHER TO REALLY DISCUSSING ANY ISSUES THAT ARE

MEANINGFUL TO PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING, AFFORDABILITY, CHILD CARE,

ENERGY CHOICE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. BOLOGNA IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MR. STECK TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. STECK: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I DON'T

WANT TO ENGAGE IN THE BROAD DISCUSSION OF ECONOMICS. I KNOW SOME OF

MY COLLEAGUES ACT AS IF JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES NEVER WALKED THE FACE

OF THE EARTH AND WE'RE BACK IN THE 17TH CENTURY. LEAVING THAT ASIDE,

WHEN IT COMES TO CORPORATIONS AND LLCS, PEOPLE FORGET THAT THEY ARE

CREATURES OF GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE CREATED BY GOVERNMENT TO GIVE

BUSINESS PEOPLE LIMITED LIABILITY. IF THERE WERE NO CORPORATIONS AND NO

LLCS, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO DO BUSINESS IN THEIR OWN NAME. THEY

WOULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE, AND THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT AND

MORE RISKY FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE INVESTMENTS. SO BY THE SAME TOKEN,

WITH RESPECT TO CORPORATIONS AND LLCS, THE GOVERNMENT CAN SET RULES.

CONFIDENTIALITY IS NOT PART OF IT, AND THIS BILL IS A PERFECTLY REASONABLE

ACT TO MAKE SURE THAT LLCS ARE NOT USED TO HIDE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. STECK IN THE

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. GALLAHAN TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. GALLAHAN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

SPEAKING FROM A FAMILY THAT HAS AN LLC, I SIT IN THIS CHAMBER FOR THE

LAST FIVE YEARS AND I SEE BILL AFTER BILL AFTER BILL THAT NOT ONLY COSTS ME

AND MY WIFE, THE LLC, ADDITIONAL FUNDS AND REACHES INTO MY POCKET, IT

TAKES AWAY MY PROFITABILITY.

WITH THE SITUATION THE LAST FEW YEARS WITH OUR

ECONOMY, PRICES HAVE ESCALATED. TRYING TO COMPLY WITH ALL THESE RULES

AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE THROWN UPON US SMALL BUSINESS FOLKS IN NEW

YORK STATE ARE BECOMING A REAL PROBLEM. I'VE GOT A SIX-FOOT WINDOW IN

MY FOOD TRAILER. I'VE GOT MORE STICKERS ON THAT WINDOW TELLING PEOPLE

WATCH OUT FOR THIS, WATCH OUT FOR THAT. ASK ME IF YOU HAVE A FOOD

ALLERGY. YOU CAN DO THIS, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. IF I PUT TWO MORE STICKERS

ON MY WINDOW, I'M GONNA BE TAKING ORDERS OUT THE BACK DOOR. IT'S

GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S NOT EVEN WORTH HAVING A BUSINESS IN THIS

STATE BECAUSE OF ALL THE RED TAPE THAT WE HAVE TO RUN THROUGH EVERY

SINGLE YEAR. AND WHERE DOES THAT FALL? WE DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR AN

ACCOUNTANT AND AN ATTORNEY. WE'RE A SMALL BUSINESS. MY WIFE AND I DO

IT ALL. IT'S GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP UP. IT'S

CREEPING INTO OUR PROFITS. WE TRY TO DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS FOR THE

COMMUNITY. WE CAN'T DO THOSE ANYMORE. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO

DO THOSE ANYMORE. SO IT'S AFFECTING THE LIVES OF ALL THE CITIZENS IN -- IN

NEW YORK STATE, BUT PARTICULARLY IN MY CASE, IN MY COMMUNITY.

WE PURCHASED A HOME LAST YEAR, A VACATION HOME IN

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FLORIDA. WE'RE HAVING SERIOUS TALKS ABOUT MOVING OUR FOOD TRAILER TO

FLORIDA, WHERE I DON'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ALL THIS.

SO I AM CERTAINLY IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS BILL, AND I

KNOW I'M SPEAKING TO -- MY COLLEAGUES ARE ALL IN THE NEGATIVE. BUT I --

I JUST THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS BILL IS GONNA PASS. WE ALL KNOW IT'S

GONNA PASS. I HOPE THE GOVERNOR HAS THE COMMON SENSE TO VETO THIS

BILL BECAUSE I WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU. MR.

GALLAHAN IN THE NEGATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: PAGE 16, RULES

REPORT NO. 740, THE CLERK READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S06997-A, RULES REPORT

NO. 740, SENATOR RYAN C (A07544-A, MAGNARELLI, O'PHARROW,

SCHIAVONI, RAMOS, BARRETT, JACOBSON, STERN, KASSAY, TORRES, GRIFFIN,

SHRESTHA, BURDICK, GALLAGHER, OTIS, COLTON, LUNSFORD, EACHUS, KAY,

DAVILA, MCMAHON, SHIMSKY, DINOWITZ, TAYLOR, ROZIC, HEVESI, CLARK,

SEAWRIGHT, SIMONE, REYES, ROSENTHAL, LEVENBERG, CONRAD, BENEDETTO,

SIMON). AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW AND THE GENERAL

MUNICIPAL LAW, IN RELATION TO ENFORCEMENT OF POLE ATTACHMENT SAFETY

AND QUALITY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. MAGNARELLI.

MR. MAGNARELLI: YES, MADAM SPEAKER. THIS

BILL ALLOWS FOR THE PSC TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF UTILITY AND

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON DEPLOYING

BROADBAND. IT MAKES CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW TO ESTABLISH

MECHANISMS FOR ATTACHERS TO IDENTIFY THEIR POLE ATTACHMENTS AND

CORRESPONDING CONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK RELATING TO THEIR

ATTACHMENTS. IT CREATES AN ONLINE COMPLAINT FORM TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC

AND RELEVANT WORKERS TO REPORT ON ALLEGED SAFETY RELATED VIOLATIONS, IT

ESTABLISHES THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE PSC OVERSEES THE REMEDY TO

SAFETY VIOLATIONS AND ESTEMBLISH -- EXCUSE ME, ESTABLISHES FINES FOR THE

SAFETY RELATED AND WHAT ONE TOUCH MAKE READY VIOLATIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. PALMESANO.

MR. PALMESANO: YES, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. MAGNARELLI: I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I

APPRECIATE THAT, MR. MAGNARELLI. MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU IS: I KNOW

THIS IS AN A PRINT. I THINK I KNOW WHAT SOME OF THE CHANGES WERE FROM

THE INITIAL PRINT FROM THE A PRINT. MIGHT YOU BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO

ME? OR, I CAN ASK IF YOU THINK THAT'S THE BETTER WAY?

MR. MAGNARELLI: I GUESS, FOR THE MOST PART, IT

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HAD HIGHER PENALTIES.

MR. PALMESANO: RIGHT, BECAUSE I THINK -- I THINK

ONE THING THAT I CAUGHT FROM THE INITIAL PRINT WAS, THERE'S THREE PENAL --

AFTER THREE PENALTIES IN THE A PRINT, IT WOULD BE AN APPLICANTS, OR

INDIVIDUALS, OR COMPANIES, WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE GRANTS, FOR

STATE LOANS. I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WAS IN YOUR INITIAL PLAN; IS THAT

CORRECT? IS THAT ACCURATE?

MR. MAGNARELLI: I MEAN, IT'S ALL GONE. IT'S TAKEN

OUT.

MR. PALMESANO: ALL RIGHT. SO, THERE ARE I KNOW,

I THINK ON PAGE 2 OF THE BILL, YOU TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS. WHAT

ARE THE -- THE PENALTIES FOR EACH VIOLATION? I -- I THINK IT'S UP TO THREE?

MR. MAGNARELLI: THE FIRST VIOLATION IS UP TO

$20,000 FINE. UPON A SECOND VIOLATION, THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY MAY BE

SUBJECT AND I -- I WANT TO USE THE WORDS MAY BE, OKAY?

MR. PALMESANO: I UNDERSTAND.

MR. MAGNARELLI: SUBJECT TO $50,000 FINE AND

UPON A THIRD VIOLATION, THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO A STOP

WORK ORDER IN THE COUNTY WHERE ANY OF THE VIOLATIONS WERE MADE --

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.

MR. MAGNARELLI: -- AND I WANT TO, YOU KNOW,

POINT OUT THAT IT SAYS "UP TO". SO IT DOESN'T MEAN THOSE ARE THE FINES, IT

COULD BE LESS.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY, FAIR ENOUGH. I KNOW IN

YOUR SPONSOR'S MEMO WHEN IT SAYS COSTS FOR FISCAL IMPLICATIONS, IT SAYS,

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

"TO BE DETERMINED". HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT COSTS

WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS LEGISLATION?

MR. MAGNARELLI: I'M NOT SURE THERE WILL BE ANY

TO THE STATE IN THE SENSE THAT THE PSC ALREADY HAS A MECHANISM TO TAKE

A LOOK AT THIS. IT HAS INVESTIGATORS IN THE FIELD THAT COULD TAKE A LOOK AT

THIS. SO, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE DON'T KNOW.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. SO, TECHNICALLY THEN

YOU'RE -- I THINK YOU'RE -- IF I'M HEARING YOUR ANSWER RIGHT, THE PSC HAS

AN INITIAL OPERATING BUDGET THAT YOU BELIEVE THEY CAN WORK -- WORK

WITHIN THEIR EXISTING BUDGET WITH -- WITH THEIR EXISTING STAFF TO MEET THE

DEMANDS AND OPERATIONS OF THIS?

MR. MAGNARELLI: AT THIS POINT, YES.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU TALK TO THE

PSC ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION? ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL DEMANDS AND ARE

THEY EQUIP TO HANDLE THE -- THE THINGS YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO DO?

MR. MAGNARELLI: I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH

YOU, I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY DONE THAT.

MR. PALMESANO: THAT'S -- THAT'S FINE. HOW

ABOUT, DID YOU TALK TO ANY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS LIKE WHETHER IT'S THE

UTILITIES, OR THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, OR THE POLE HOLD -- THE POLE

OWNERS? DID YOU TALK TO ANY OF THEM ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION?

MR. MAGNARELLI: YES. YEP.

MR. PALMESANO: AND HOW DID -- WHAT -- WHAT

WAS THEIR RESPONSE WITH THAT DISCUSSION IF --

MR. MAGNARELLI: WELL, THE PEOPLE I'M TALKING

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TO, OR HAVE TALKED ME ABOUT THIS, THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO, ARE THE PEOPLE

WHO WORK ON THE POLES --

MR. PALMESANO: SURE.

MR. MAGNARELLI: -- AND THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED

ABOUT THE SAFETY AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE ATTACHMENTS AND WHO'S

WORKING ON THEM AND HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MORE THINGS WE PUT ON

THE POLES AND WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED, ARE GOING TO BE DONE PROPERLY AND

IN THE PROPER ORDER. AND SO THAT'S BEEN THE FOCUS OF MY TALKS WITH

THEM AND THE FOCUS OF THIS BILL, I MIGHT SAY.

MR. PALMESANO: SURE, AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT,

MR. MAGNARELLI. CERTAINLY THESE (INDISCERNIBLE) SHOULD BE PARAMOUNT.

NOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND I'M SURE YOU'RE

PROBABLY AWARE, THE PSC ALREADY HAS PUT IN PLACE A STATEWIDE PROCESS

OF POST-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION TO ENSURE POLE WORK COMPLIES WITH ALL

THE LEGAL AND SAFETY STANDARDS AND THIS WAS DEVELOPED AFTER EXTENSIVE

STAKEHOLDER INPUT TO MAKE SURE IT HAS AN EFFECTIVE REGULATORY

BACKGROUND. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS -- THERE'S A PROCESS IN PLACE THAT

THIS -- THE PSC IS WORKING ON?

MR. MAGNARELLI: YES, I -- I AM AWARE THAT THERE

IS A PROCESS IN THE PREVIOUS LEGISLATION. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO WAY OF

IMPLEMENTING THAT OR ENFORCING THAT PROCESS AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL

ATTEMPTS TO DO.

MR. PALMESANO: SO, UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS,

THE PSC DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE PENALTIES IF -- IF A

COMPANY IS VIOLATING SAFETY FACTORS OR THAT?

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. MAGNARELLI: THERE WEREN'T ANY PENALTIES AT

ALL.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.

MR. MAGNARELLI: SO, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS

SPELLING OUT, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THERE WILL BE PENALTIES, THAT THERE WILL

BE ENFORCEMENT AND WE'RE ALLOWING NOT ONLY WORKERS, BUT THE PUBLIC TO

INITIATE THOSE PLACES WHERE ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE AT LEAST LOOKED AT.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. SO, WITH THIS NEW

PROCESS, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW THAT IT'S NOT WORKING, OR

LACKING AND REALLY SHOULDN'T BE GIVEN TIME TO BE IMPLEMENTED BEFORE

WE MAKE ANY SUGGESTED CHANGES? OR -- OR YOUR BASIC ARGUMENT, WE

NEED THAT PENALTIES TO GO ALONG WITH --

MR. MAGNARELLI: NO, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE

BEEN TALKING TO ME WHO SAY THAT THERE ARE VIOLATIONS AND THERE ARE

THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED AND LOOKED AT AND THAT IT DOES AFFECT THE

SAFETY OF THE WORKERS ON THE POLES.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. AS FAR AS THE TIMELINES

OF THE BILLS, IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT 14 DAYS TO

INSPECT THE COMPLAINT -- THE PSC WOULD HAVE 14 DAYS TO INSPECT THE

COMPLAINT THAT'S ISSUED.

MR. MAGNARELLI: YUP.

MR. PALMESANO: AND THEN IS IT MY

UNDERSTANDING THAT SEVEN DAYS AFTER THAT TO FIX THE COMPLAINT -- THE

VIOLATION, IS ACCURATE OR NO?

(CONFERENCING)

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. MAGNARELLI: YOU'RE CORRECT, BUT THE PSC

ALSO HAS THE ABILITY TO LESSEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME OR INCREASE THE

AMOUNT OF TIME TO CORRECT.

MR. PALMESANO: ALL RIGHT. SO, THIS COMPLAINT

MECHA -- HOW IS THIS COMPLAINT MECHANISM GOING TO WORK? IT'S GOING

TO BE AN ONLINE COMPLAINT OR SOMEWHERE TO FILE A COMPLAINT? IS THAT

HOW IT WORKS?

MR. MAGNARELLI: RIGHT. THERE WOULD BE FILING

OF A COMPLAINT BY EITHER A COMPANY, A WORKER OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC

WHO SEES A -- A WIRE DANGLING FROM A POLE.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. IS THERE ANY FILTERS OR

ANY VERIFICATION MECHANISMS SO -- TO MAKE SURE THE COMPLAINTS ARE

LEGITIMATE OR, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIATED OR UNSUBSTANTIATED? IT SEEMS TO

ME LIKE THERE'S NO CLARIFICATION IN THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL. IT DOESN'T

DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SUBSTANTIATED OR UNSUBSTANTIATED, AS FAR AS FILTERS

OR VERIFICATION MECHANISMS AND COULDN'T THAT POSSIBLY LEAD TO FALSE

CLAIMS, YOU KNOW, THINGS BEING REPORTED INCORRECTLY OR NO?

MR. MAGNARELLI: WELL, I -- I THINK THERE COULD

ALWAYS BE THE POSSIBILITY OF A FALSE CLAIM OR THINGS BEING INCORRECTLY

REPORTED. I THINK THE PSC, THOUGH, IS THE ONE THAT WILL INVESTIGATE THOSE

CLAIMS AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'LL VALID.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. WHAT TYPE OF VIOLATIONS

WOULD REALLY ACTUALLY TRIGGER THE PENALTIES -- TRIGGER PENALTIES IN AN --

IN AN ACTUAL STOP WORK ORDER OUTLINED IN THIS BILL? ARE THERE CERTAIN

TYPES OF VIOLATIONS THAT -- ARE THERE REPETITIVE VIOLATIONS? I KNOW YOU

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SAID THE THIRD VIOLATION GIVES THE STOP ORDERS. ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR

THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN TO TRIGGER THAT?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. MAGNARELLI: THE PENALTIES WILL BE TRIGGERED

ONCE THERE -- THERE HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS AT LEAST THREE TIMES.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. AND I THINK I TOUCHED

ON THIS, BUT I'LL JUST ASK IT. DID YOU HAVE ANY CONSIDERATION DELAYING

THE IMPLEMENTATION OR ADVANCEMENT OF THIS BILL UNTIL THE PSC WAS ABLE

TO FINISH THEIR CURRENT PROCESS AND EVALUATE IT TO SEE IF ANY OTHER

CHANGES ARE NEEDED TO BE MADE? OR IS THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS

NECESSARY, THAT THESE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO BE MADE?

MR. MAGNARELLI: I THINK THEY'RE NECESSARY TO BE

MADE NOW, BUT WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN TO LISTENING TO THE PSC IF THERE'S

ANYTHING THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED OR TWEAKED GOING FORWARD.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. AND REAL QUICKLY, JUST

GOING BACK TO THE FISCAL IMPACT AGAIN, I KNOW I'M BOUNCING AROUND, I

APOLOGIZE TO YOU ABOUT THAT, MR. MAGNARELLI. OFTEN THE GOVERNOR WILL

VETO BILLS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE SPECIFIC FUNDING REQUESTS, YOU KNOW,

HOW MUCH WORK THIS MAY TAKE, BUT, AGAIN, IF I HEARD OUR EARLIER

CONVERSATION, YOU SAID THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A LINE ITEM IN THIS BILL

OR A FUNDING REQUEST IN THIS BILL, BECAUSE IT'S YOUR BELIEF AND THE

MAJORITY'S BELIEF THAT THIS CAN BE FUNDED IN -- IN THE EXISTING PSC

OPERATION. IS THAT ACCURATE THEN?

MR. MAGNARELLI: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT RELATIVE TO I

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BELIEVE THERE'S SOME DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACTOR DISCLOSURE

REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS PRIVATE -- ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS RELATIVE TO

PRIVACY, SAFETY OR COMPETITIVE CONCERNS? ARE THEY REALLY NECESSARY IN

THIS BILL TO REALLY ACHIEVE THE BILL'S GOALS?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. MAGNARELLI: THAT INFORMATION IS NOT

SUPPOSED TO BE MADE PUBLIC, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ONLY FOR THE PSC.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. IS THERE ANY CONCERN ON

YOUR PART GIVEN THERE COULD BE WORK STOPPAGES OR DELAYS, ADDITIONAL

COSTS THAT WOULD BE PUT ON THE POLE OWNER FOR WORK AND EVERYTHING,

COULDN'T THAT ALSO -- IS THERE ANY CONCERNS ON YOUR PART THAT THIS COULD

DISINCENTIVIZE COMPANIES TO MAKING THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTMENTS TO BRING ONLINE ACCESS, BROADBAND ACCESS TO UNDERSERVED

AND UNSERVED COMMUNITIES? IS THERE A WORRY ABOUT THAT CAN SLOW UP

THE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT, WHICH YOU KNOW IS CRITICAL, ESPECIALLY IN

OUR UPSTATE RURAL COMMUNITIES? IS THERE ANY CONCERN --

MR. MAGNARELLI: IT IS CRITICAL AND -- AND WE

WANT TO SEE IT HAPPEN, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE

THAT IT'S DONE IN THE PROPER WAY AND WITH THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

ADHERED TO. I THINK TAKING CARE OF OUR WORKERS AND MAKING SURE IT'S

DONE RIGHT IS PARAMOUNT.

MR. PALMESANO: SURE. OKAY. MR. MAGNARELLI,

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME --

MR. MAGNARELLI: THANK YOU.

MR. PALMESANO: -- AND QUESTIONS.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. PALMESANO: I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION

WITH THE SPONSOR. LET ME ENSURE MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE

AISLE, SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SAFETY IS

ALWAYS THERE. BUT WE HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE. THE PSC HAS ALREADY

PUT A PROCESS IN PLACE, A STATEWIDE PROCESS THAT DEALS WITH POST-

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION TO ENSURE POLE WORK COMPLIES WITH ALL THE LEGAL

AND SAFETY STANDARDS. THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S DUPLICATIVE AND UNNECESSARY.

AGAIN, THERE'S NO DOLLARS ASSOCIATED FOR THIS IN THE -- YOU KNOW, WHICH

WE THINK WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE ALLOCATED, ALTHOUGH I KNOW

THE SPONSOR SAYS IT COULD BE WORKED OUT OF OTHER EXISTING OPERATIONS.

THAT PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE WAS ACTUALLY DEVELOPED AFTER EXTENSIVE

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT, WHICH IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

THIS HELPS PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE REGULATORY BACKSTOP. AS I MENTIONED, I

THINK THIS BILL DUPLICATES THE PSC'S INSPECTION PROCESS AND JUST

OVERLAPS WITH MORE COSTLY AND BURDENSOME MANDATES. AND THERE'S NO

INDICATION THAT THE NEW PROCESS IS LACKING OR NOT WORKING, SO WE

SHOULD BE GOING -- GIVING MORE TIME -- WE SHOULD BE GIVING MORE TIME

TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED BEFORE FURTHER CHANGES ARE MADE. YOU KNOW,

THERE'S EXCESSIVE -- THERE'S EXCESSIVE PENALTIES IN THIS. I KNOW YOU SAID

"UP TO", BUT THERE'S STILL EXCESSIVE PENALTIES IN THIS. THE SPONSOR

MENTIONED THERE WAS REALLY NO CONSULTATION AS FAR AS WITH THE PSC TO

THEY COULD HANDLE THIS OTHER BURDEN THAT'S GONNA BE PLACED ON THEM.

AND IT DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SUBSTANTIAL AND UNSUBSTANTIATED

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CLAIMS. I THINK THERE'S SOME ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT THE UNVETTED PUBLIC

COMMENT PERIOD COMPLAINT FORM. SO THERE'S NO CLEAR VETTING AND

FILTERING OF -- OF COMMENTS, WHICH COULD BE -- LEAD TO MISUSE, FALSE

REPORTS AND SYSTEM OVERWHELMING. AND ALSO, AS FAR AS THE DUE PROCESS

AND -- AND ADJUDICARY [SIC] PROCESS WITH THESE PROCESS WHEN YOU STOP

-- DO STOP WORKERS BECAUSE THERE'S NO CLEAR GUIDANCE IN THAT PROCESS.

BUT IT ALSO COULD LEAD TO UNNECESSARY INSPECTIONS; MORE IMPORTANTLY,

PROJECT DELAYS WHICH COULD DISINCENTIVIZE AND HURT INVESTMENT IN

BROADBAND AND THE BROADBAND BUILD-OUT, SLOW IT DOWN BECAUSE OF

EXCESSIVE DOCUMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE WHICH WOULD DELAY THE

NEEDED UPGRADES.

SO WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I -- I WOULD ASK THAT --

I'M -- I'M GONNA BE VOTING NEGATIVE ON THIS BILL. I APPRECIATE THE

SPONSOR'S COMMENTS ON IT AND I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT. I VOTE -- I'M GONNA

BE VOTING NO.

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.

MR. GANDOLFO.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL BE GENERALLY OPPOSED TO THIS

LEGISLATION; HOWEVER, ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO VOTE YES MAY DO SO AT

THEIR DESKS RIGHT NOW.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. THE MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS PIECE

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

DIFFERENTLY AND THEY CAN FEEL FREE TODAY SO AT THEIR SEAT.

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.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, IF WE

COULD NOW CALL UP RULES REPORT NO. 748. IT'S BY MS. DAVILA.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: PAGE 17, RULES

REPORT NO. 748, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08197, RULES REPORT NO.

748, SENATOR BRISPORT (A08271, DAVILA). AN ACT TO AMEND THE FAMILY

COURT ACT, IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN PROCEEDINGS REGARDING

VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS OF CHILD SUPPORT AND TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY OR

PARENTAGE IN THE FAMILY COURT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. DAVILA.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. DAVILA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THIS

BILL WOULD ENHANCE ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY ENSURING THAT BOTH SIDES, NOT

SIMPLY ONE SIDE, IN CERTAIN FAMILY COURT CASES HAVE A RIGHT TO APPOINTED

COUNSEL IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, AND IF A CHILD IS A PARTY, THAT

AN ATTORNEY BE APPOINTED FOR THE CHILD.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WALSH.

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

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. DAVILA: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO FIRST LET'S

TAKE A LOOK AT THE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS THAT

ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED BY THIS LEGISLATION. AM I CORRECT THAT THEY

WOULD INCLUDE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, A PARENTAGE OR PATERNITY

PROCEEDING INCLUDING INTERVENING PARTIES, AND THREE, A CHILD COURT

COLLECTION PROCEEDING; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. DAVILA: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO CURRENTLY, UNDER CURRENT LAW

IN A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, IS THERE ANY ASSIGNED COUNSEL AVAILABLE

THROUGH 18-B FOR THOSE PARTIES UNDER CURRENT LAW?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: JUST THE RESPONDENT.

MS. WALSH: RIGHT. OKAY. WOULD THAT INCLUDE A

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION IN FAMILY COURT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S THE

CASE IN THAT AS WELL.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: YES.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO, THIS -- SO THIS BILL WOULD

SAY BOTH SIDES WOULD GET 18-B COUNSEL IF THEY FINANCIALLY QUALIFY,

CORRECT?

MS. DAVILA: THAT IS CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: YEAH. AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT,

BECAUSE I ACTUALLY HAD A FAMILY COURT ATTORNEY -- A FAMILY COURT JUDGE,

IN PARTICULAR, REACH OUT TO ME AND SAY, YOU KNOW, IT IS ALWAYS SO VERY

AWKWARD TO HIM TO ONLY HAVE ONE PARTY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, GET COUNSEL

AND THE OTHER SIDE NOT. SO, I'M WITH YOU SO FAR ON THAT WITH THIS BILL.

SO THE SECOND ONE IS PARENTAGE OR PATERNITY

PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING INTERVENING PARTIES. UNDER CURRENT LAW, DOES

ANYBODY IN THAT SCENARIO GET 18-B COUNSEL RIGHT NOW?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: ONLY THE RESPONDENT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO AGAIN, PARITY. YOU'RE GONNA

HAVE BOTH SIDES BEING ABLE TO GET 18-B IF THEY FINANCIALLY QUALIFY. I'M

STILL WITH YOU. OKAY.

NOW, IN -- IN -- THIS IS -- AND THIS IS REALLY -- THE LAST

ONE IS WHERE I REALLY WANT TO SPEND MOST OF OUR TIME; CHILD SUPPORT

COLLECTION PROCEEDINGS. RIGHT NOW, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT -- AND -- I -- I SAW

THIS, I MIGHT NOT HAVE MY DATA NOT EXACTLY RIGHT. I THOUGHT ANOTHER ONE

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAS A BILL HAVING TO DO WITH CHILD SUPPORT AND SHE

CITED A STATISTIC SAYING ROUGHLY 85 PERCENT OF PEOPLE CURRENTLY

APPEARING BEFORE A SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DO SO PRO SE, OR UNREPRESENTED.

DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT TO YOU?

MS. DAVILA: THAT IS CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO ABOUT 15 PERCENT OR SO CAN

HIRE THEIR OWN ATTORNEY, AND THEN -- OR CHOOSE TO HIRE THEIR OWN

ATTORNEY. BUT ABOUT 85 PERCENT RIGHT NOW GO IT ALONE.

MS. DAVILA: THAT IS CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT THIS BILL

THEN WOULD DO -- AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A HUGE -- IT'S A VERY, VERY

BUSY BUSINESS IN CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT AND THE -- IN FRONT OF

SUPPORT MAGISTRATES THROUGHOUT THE STATE. I DON'T -- I DON'T HAVE DATA --

MAYBE -- YOU PROBABLY DO -- BUT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CASES THAT THERE

ARE EACH YEAR. BUT IT'S -- IT'S A VERY BUSY SITUATION, RIGHT?

MS. DAVILA: TO -- TO BE A LITTLE EXACT --

MS. WALSH: YES.

MS. DAVILA: -- IT'S ABOUT 7,200 CASES A YEAR.

MS. WALSH: YEAH. I -- TO ME, THAT EVEN SEEMS

LOW. DOES THAT -- IS THAT, LIKE, JUST PER FAMILY UNIT? THAT ISN'T THE

NUMBER OF APPEARANCES. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMEBODY COMING IN;

THEY NEED TO GET THEIR CASE RESOLVED WITH ONE OR TWO APPEARANCES. BUT

SOME OF THEM GO ON AND ON. THEY GO TO FULL HEARING AND, YOU KNOW,

ON AND ON, CORRECT? SO THIS -- THAT 7,000 MIGHT BE THE NUMBER OF

UNIQUE FAMILIES, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE COMING IN FRONT OF THE SUPPORT

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

COURT, BUT NOT THE NUMBER OF APPEARANCES, RIGHT?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: IT'S NOT THE NUMBERS [SIC] OF

PROCEEDINGS, IT'S THE NUMBERS [SIC] OF CASES, SO...

MS. WALSH: CORRECT. THAT -- I -- THAT'S

INARTICULATELY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET ACROSS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO -- OKAY. NOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION

PROCEEDINGS, DOES THAT INCLUDE ALL THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF FLAVORS? IN

OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE GONNA GET SOME PROCEEDINGS WHERE PEOPLE ARE

GONNA COME IN AND SAY, I NEED TO HAVE CHILD SUPPORT ESTABLISHED AS TO

MY CHILDREN. THERE MAY BE A PARENT, AN OBLIGOR PARENT WHO IS GONNA

SAY, I HAD A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER OF X DOLLARS. I LOST MY JOB. I WANNA

GET A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MY APPLICATION. THEN YOU COULD HAVE

A -- A PARENT WHO HAS A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WHO WANTS TO GET AN

UPWARD MODIFICATION BECAUSE THEY FIND OUT THAT THERE'S MORE INCOME

ON THE -- THE OTHER PARENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THIS BILL WOULD

COVER, LIKE, ALL THOSE TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS. IS THAT CORRECT OR AM I

MISTAKEN?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: NO. THIS -- THIS ONLY COVERS FOR CASES

THAT ARE DELINQUENT. IT DOESN'T COVER EVERYTHING.

MS. WALSH: THEY'RE ONLY FOR DELINQUENT CASES.

MS. DAVILA: YES.

MS. WALSH: OH, SO THEY'RE ENFORCEMENT

PROCEEDINGS. THAT'S IT?

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. DAVILA: YES.

MS. WALSH: NOT FOR THE -- OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO

THAT'S NOT FOR THE EST -- THAT'S NOT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT,

BUT IT'S IF THE PARENT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO PAY HAS FALLEN BEHIND OR HASN'T

DONE THEIR -- THEIR PAYMENT AND NOW IT'S AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING

THAT'S BEING BROUGHT.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN THAT --

THOSE NUMBERS THAT YOU GAVE THEN START TO MAKE MORE SENSE TO ME.

BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, FORTUNATELY, ESPECIALLY WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF

THE CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION UNITS IN MANY COUNTIES THAT TAKE OVER THE

AUTOMATIC WITHDRAWAL, THE GARNISHMENT OF -- OF, YOU KNOW, CHILD

SUPPORT, FORTUNATELY THERE AREN'T AS MANY CASES WHERE YOU'RE COMING

IN. OKAY. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

SO WHO IS -- WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE COUNSEL THAT'S

GONNA BE PROVIDED TO BOTH PARTIES IN THESE TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS?

MS. DAVILA: WELL, THE COST FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS

-- THAT WE ARE PROPOSING AT THIS POINT IS 9.4 MILLION. CURRENTLY, THE

STATE IS SPENDING $100 MILLION A YEAR ON THESE PROCEEDINGS. AND THE

CITY IS ALSO ADDING ANOTHER 50 MILLION.

(CONFERENCING)

SO THE 9 -- 9.4 MILLION IS A -- IT'S REIMBURSABLE. SO THE

COUNTIES ARE NOT GOING TO BE PUTTING MONEY IN TO THAT.

MS. WALSH: SO THEY'RE GONNA OUTLAY THE MONEY

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INITIALLY AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA ASK FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE STATE

TO PAY THEM BACK FOR THAT?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: NOT FOR THE WHOLE COST, BUT FOR MOST

OF THE COST.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO -- SO WHAT -- WHAT DO WE

ESTIMATE WILL BE THE -- THE UNREIMBURSED COST TO COUNTIES FOR THIS

PROPOSAL?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: WE DO NOT AT THIS POINT HAVE AN

ESTIMATE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. AND THAT, OF COURSE, IS BASED

ON CURRENT NUMBERS IN TERMS OF HOW MANY, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY CASES

THERE ARE RIGHT NOW VERSUS WHAT THERE MAY BE IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD

ASSUME.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: THESE NUMBERS CAME FROM OCA.

MS. WALSH: YES. YES. I KNOW THAT THEY DID. I

KNOW THAT THEY CAME FROM OCA. BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING -- AND I

DON'T MEAN TO BELABOR IT -- BUT THEY'RE BASING THEIR PROJECTED COSTS ON

THE CASELOAD THAT THEY'RE RECOGNIZING RIGHT NOW THAT THEY'RE ESTIMATING

ACROSS THE STATE. THAT COULD GO UP, THAT COULD GO DOWN. BUT RIGHT NOW

THIS IS THEIR BEST GUESS BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.

MS. DAVILA: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: VERY GOOD. OKAY.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SO, YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE MEANS

TESTED IN SOME WAY. SO RICH PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO HAVE 18-B COUNSEL

ASSIGNED TO THEM. IT'S ONLY GONNA BE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD THEIR OWN

ATTORNEY?

MS. DAVILA: I -- I BELIEVE IT'S AT -- AT THE DISCRETION

OF THE JUDGE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: ONLY IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD COUNSEL.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. BUT, I MEAN, IS IT BASED ON

ANY -- SO IT'S NOT ON A SLIDING SCALE, IT'S GONNA BE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE BASED UPON SOME KIND OF TESTIMONY. THE JUDGE

WILL TAKE A LOOK AT OR THE HEARING OFFICER WILL TAKE A LOOK AT PAY STUBS

AND FIGURE OUT WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY AND WHO DOESN'T?

MS. DAVILA: WELL, CURRENTLY, I BELIEVE IN ORDER TO

GET THESE TYPE OF SERVICES YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL TO

QUALIFY.

MS. WALSH: WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S HOW IT WORKS FOR

PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES, AND 18-B IS REALLY KIND OF LIKE AN EXTENSION

OF THAT IN SOME INSTANCES, SO... OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE

THRESHOLDS ARE, BUT I JUST -- IT -- I JUST WANTED TO ESTABLISH THAT IT'S NOT

FOR EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT'S COMING IN FRONT OF THE COURT. IT'S ONLY FOR

THOSE WHERE PEOPLE JUST CANNOT PAY FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY AND THAT'S

APPROVED OR VERIFIED BY THE HEARING OFFICER OR THE JUDGE THAT'S HANDLING

THE CASE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. DAVILA: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. AND THEN ALSO, ONE THING -- IN

YOUR EXPLANATION YOU TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLY AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD

ALSO GETTING APPOINTED; IS THAT CORRECT? I JUST WANNA KNOW WHICH CASES

THAT WOULD BE. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW -- I'VE DONE A LOT OF ATTORNEY FOR THE

CHILD WORK AND WE DON'T EVER GET APPOINTED TO GO INTO CHILD SUPPORT

PROCEEDINGS AT ALL. WE JUST -- WE HAVE NO ROLE IN THAT AT ALL.

MS. DAVILA: OKAY.

MS. WALSH: IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE?

MS. DAVILA: SO, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

MINORS ARE RARELY PARTIES IN FAMILY COURT ACTIONS CONCERNING

THEMSELVES. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL TO INCLUDE

MINOR PARTIES IS EXTENDED FOR RARE CASES OF TEEN PARENTS --

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MS. DAVILA: YEAH. SO...

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO, YEAH. IF YOU HAVE -- IF YOU

HAVE A MINOR WHO IS ALSO A PARENT IN ONE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, THAT --

THOSE ARE THE MINORS THAT ARE GONNA BE GETTING AN ATTORNEY FOR THE

CHILD, BUT IT'S REALLY COUNSEL.

MS. DAVILA: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT YOU.

NOW, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT, I THINK WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF

YEARS, THE 18-B RATE AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD RATE, TOO, WAS

ESSENTIALLY DOUBLED. IT WENT -- IT WAS REALLY LOW. IT WAS LIKE $75 AN

HOUR, AND I BELIEVE THAT NOW THE RATE IS $158 AN HOUR, CORRECT?

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: THE 18-B HAS -- I BELIEVE IT'S UNDER --

(CONFERENCING)

IT IS $500 PER CASE. YES.

MS. WALSH: PER CASE?

MS. DAVILA: PER CASE.

MS. WALSH: NOT PER HOUR?

MS. DAVILA: PER HOUR, I'M SORRY.

MS. WALSH: $500 PER HOUR?

MS. DAVILA: CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: FOR 18-B?

MS. DAVILA: FOR THESE TYPES OF CASES.

MS. WALSH: OH, WOW. I -- I'M GONNA HAVE TO

CHECK OUT MY OUTSIDE INCOME LIMITS. THAT'S FANTASTIC. THAT'S MORE

THAN AN AVERAGE MATRIMONIAL ATTORNEY WOULD MAKE PER HOUR UP IN MY

NECK OF THE WOODS. OKAY.

SO, LET ME JUST DOUBLE-CHECK MY NOTES HERE AND SEE IF

I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

MS. DAVILA: I'M SORRY, CORRECTION. IT IS $500 PER

CASE, NOT PER HOUR.

MS. WALSH: SO IT'S CAPPED.

MS. DAVILA: YES.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT BASED ON AN

HOURLY RATE, IT'S LIKE A -- IT'S A FLAT FEE?

(CONFERENCING)

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. DAVILA: IT'S JUST AN AVERAGE.

MS. WALSH: OH. I'M -- OKAY. I'M ASKING -- I'M

SORRY, I APOLOGIZE IF I -- I WASN'T CLEAR. BUT WHAT'S THE -- WHAT'S THE

HOURLY RATE THAT'S GONNA BE APPLIED TO THESE CASES FOR 18-B COUNSEL? I

WAS LOOKING AT IT AS AN HOURLY RATE RATHER THAN AN AVERAGE COST PER CASE.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. DAVILA: WE DO NOT HAVE THAT ANSWER AT THIS

MOMENT.

MS. WALSH: OH, YOU DON'T KNOW THE HOURLY RATE?

OKAY. OH. ALL RIGHT. I -- I THOUGHT FOR SURE IT WOULD BE $158 AN HOUR,

BUT THAT -- THAT'S OKAY. I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S FINE. OKAY.

AND THIS BILL IS A UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM PROGRAM BILL,

RIGHT?

MS. DAVILA: CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE?

MS. WALSH: THIS BILL THAT YOU'RE CARRYING TODAY IS

A UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM PROGRAM BILL? THEY ASKED FOR THIS BILL?

MS. DAVILA: YES.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU

VERY MUCH FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

AT THIS POINT I'LL GO ON THE BILL, PLEASE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. SO, I

THINK THAT THERE -- THERE ARE -- THERE ARE SOME GOOD ASPECTS TO THIS BILL,

AS I TRIED TO MENTION DURING DEBATE. I DO LIKE THE FACT THAT IN CONTEMPT

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OR FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDINGS YOU'RE GONNA HAVE BOTH PARTIES

REPRESENTED. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT IT WAS AWKWARD THAT -- AND SO DID

THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES THAT I SPOKE WITH -- THAT ONLY THE RESPONDENT

WAS GETTING COUNSEL WHERE THE -- THE OTHER PARTY WASN'T. EVEN IN

PATERNITY PROCEEDINGS I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULD WANT PARITY AND

HAVE BOTH SIDES REPRESENTED.

WHERE I WAS REALLY CONCERNED AND WHERE I THINK THE

DEBATE WAS ACTUALLY VERY HELPFUL TO ME WAS THAT THE SPONSOR CONFIRMED

THAT IT'S NOT GONNA TO BE EVERY SINGLE CHILD SUPPORT CASE THAT'S GONNA

HAVE COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES APPOINTED. BECAUSE I -- I COULD SEE THAT

NUMBER JUST BEING A HUGE NUMBER. AND RIGHT NOW THE CURRENT STATE OF

AFFAIRS IS THAT WE HAVE ON AVERAGE MAYBE 85 PERCENT OF THESE CASES,

PEOPLE ARE PRO SE. AND THE -- THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATES THAT HANDLE THESE

CASES ARE VERY ACCUSTOMED TO DEALING WITH PRO SE PARTIES. YOU KNOW, I

-- I'M THINKING FONDLY OF THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATES THAT WE HAVE IN THE

COUNTY WHERE I PRIMARILY PRACTICE. THEY'RE VERY -- THEY'RE VERY

ACCUSTOMED TO DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, VERY

ACCUSTOMED TO BEING IN COURT AND THEY WALK THEM THROUGH IT. THEY

FIGURE IT OUT AND THEY HELP THEM OUT. SO I FELT ORIGINALLY THAT THE IDEA

OF HAVING THEM ALL IMMEDIATELY, IF THEY MET THE NEEDS TEST, RECEIVE

COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL WOULD -- WOULD BE A BIT OF A -- OF AN OVERKILL,

IN MY VIEW. BUT THIS -- I -- I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE ON, IF I COULD. THANK

YOU. JUST TO FINISH UP. BUT THE SPONSOR CLARIFIED THAT THIS IS ONLY GONNA

APPLY TO CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION PROCEEDINGS. SO IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE

IN CASES WHERE ONE PARTY IS NOT MEETING THEIR OBLIGATION, AND I CAN

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD HAVE COUNSEL POSSIBLY THERE.

MY CONCERNS WITH THE BILL OVERALL ARE JUST THESE. THE

COUNTIES ARE ALREADY PAYING A PORTION OF WHAT THIS -- THIS COSTS. AND

CHILD SUPPORT AND PATERNITY CASES FOR LAST YEAR IN THE COUNTY -- MY

COUNTY WERE -- WAS $163,000. AND I MEAN FOR -- FOR -- I MEAN, FOR AN

UPSTATE COUNTY, EVEN A -- YOU KNOW, THAT -- THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. YOU

KNOW, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A GOOD INVESTMENT

SO THAT PEOPLE ARE WELL-REPRESENTED. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S A

CONSIDERATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'VE GOT -- WHEN YOU'VE JUST RECENTLY

DOUBLED THE HOURLY RATE THAT THESE ATTORNEYS WILL BE PAID.

I THINK ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I'VE GOT, THOUGH, IS THAT --

IT'S -- WE HAVE A VERY HARD TIME IN MY COUNTY -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S

LIKE IN THE REST OF THE STATE, BUT I HAVE TO ASSUME IT WOULD BE KIND OF

SIMILAR IN MOST PARTS. IT'S REALLY HARD TO FIND 18-B COUNSEL TO EVEN TAKE

ANY CASES. IF YOU'RE, SAY -- SAY YOU'RE A SOLO PRACTITIONER, AS I WAS FOR A

PERIOD OF TIME, THE APPEAL TO DOING 18-B CASES IS THAT YOU JUST GET A

PHONE CALL. THEY SAY, HEY, WE'VE GOT A CASE FOR YOU. GO PICK IT UP.

YOUR -- YOUR -- YOU KNOW, YOUR FIRST APPEARANCE IS ON THIS DATE. YOU

PICK IT UP. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADVERTISE FOR IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO

ANY MARKETING. YOU JUST GET THE -- YOU GET THE WORK, YOU GO AND DO

THE WORK. THE DOWNSIDE IS YOU DON'T REALLY GET PAID VERY MUCH

MONEY, SO IT'S -- IN COMPARISON TO WHAT YOU WOULD MAKE IN A PRIVATE

PRACTICE CASE. SO LIKE I SAID, YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, A MATRIMONIAL

ATTORNEY, IN MY COUNTY YOU COULD BE MAKING $400 AN HOUR, $450 AN

HOUR, SOMEWHERE IN THERE, FOR YOUR WORK VERSUS MAKING $158 AN HOUR.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SO IT'S FOUR TIMES MORE APPEALING TO TAKE OTHER KINDS OF WORK OVER

18-B, AND SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET THEM TO JOIN THE PANEL AND TAKE

THESE CASES. SO I DO THINK THAT IF THIS IS GOING TO BE EXPANDING THE

NEED FOR 18-B, YOU KNOW -- YES, WE DID INCREASE THE RATE FROM A REALLY

RIDICULOUSLY LOW $75, BUT IT'S STILL, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, KIND OF A LOW

RATE. IT'S GONNA BE KIND OF HARD TO GET PEOPLE TO GET ON THE PANEL TO DO

THIS WORK.

I ALSO THINK THAT THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID THAT --

AND GOD BLESS US LAWYERS, THIS IS JUST HOW IT WORKS. BUT WHEN YOU

HAVE PAID ATTORNEYS BEING ABLE TO COME IN IN CASES, IT'S GOING TO EN --

ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO BRING CASES BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE

TO HAVE ANY FINANCIAL SKIN IN THE GAME. SO I THINK THAT YOU'RE GONNA

HAVE MORE PEOPLE COMING IN WHICH, DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW,

COULD BE A GOOD THING OR MAYBE A NOT SO GOOD THING, ALLEGING THAT THERE

HAVEN'T -- THAT THE OTHER PARTY, THE OTHER PARENT, HASN'T BEEN MEETING

THEIR OBLIGATION TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE

COLLECTION PROCEEDINGS BEING BROUGHT.

SO I THINK THAT THE NUMBERS THAT ARE BEING GIVEN BY

THE -- THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, BY OCA, OF $9.4 MILLION PER YEAR

DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT MUCH, BUT I THINK THAT THAT NUMBER PROBABLY IS

GONNA INCREASE BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GONNA GET MORE CASES BY

PROVIDING COUNSEL, NOT FEWER. I PREFER A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THIS ONE,

AT LEAST AS IT RELATES TO THE CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION PROCEEDINGS.

THERE'S ANOTHER BILL THAT WE MAY BE TAKING UP AS EARLY

AS TODAY, BROUGHT BY ANOTHER COLLEAGUE, THAT ENCOURAGES ALTERNATIVE

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN A -- IN A PILOT PROGRAM FOR THESE CHILD SUPPORT

CASES AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY A GOOD IDEA. THAT'S ALSO A UNIFIED COURT

SYSTEM PROGRAM BILL AND I LIKE THAT IDEA A LOT. BUT I KNOW WE HAVE TO

BE GERMANE AND TALK ABOUT THE BILL THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, SO LET ME DO

THAT.

I THINK THAT I'M -- YOU KNOW, MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS IF

THE STATE WANTS TO MAKE THIS INVESTMENT, THEN ALL THE POWER TO THE STATE

FOR DOING IT. I THINK IN THE -- IN THE SCOPE OF A $254 BILLION STATE

BUDGET, THE -- A FEW MILLION TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED WHO

DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO GET THEIR OWN COUNSEL SEEMS LIKE A GOOD

INVESTMENT TO ME. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT THE COUNTIES

THAT ARE GONNA BE HOLDING THE BAG HERE. I THINK THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE

ENOUGH UNFUNDED MANDATES THAT ARE PLACED ON THEM, AND IT'S FOR THAT

REASON I REALLY WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS BILL AND TO -- AND TO ASK A FEW

QUESTIONS OF THE SPONSOR AND I DO APPRECIATE HER TIME ANSWERING MY

QUESTIONS.

SO I'M GONNA THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO

SUPPORT THIS BILL. BUT I DO APPRECIATE THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE LIMITED

THAN I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: READ THE LAST

SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 90TH

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MS. DAVILA TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. DAVILA: YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM

CHAIR.

WE LIVE IN A WORLD THAT WE HAVE THE HAVE AND THE

HAVE-NOTS, AND OFTENTIMES THE HAVES ALWAYS WIN. THIS IS JUST AN EXTRA

MECHANISM, AN EXTRA BIT OF MONEY IN THE STATE BUDGET THAT'S GOING TO

HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE COURT SYSTEM, AND ALSO TO BE DEFENDED IN --

IN A PLACE THAT CAN BE EXTREMELY SCARY.

SO WITH THAT SAID, I'M VERY PROUD TO CARRY THIS BILL, AND

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. DAVILA IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. WALSH TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. VERY

BRIEFLY. SO UPON -- REFLECTING A LITTLE BIT UPON THE DEBATE -- AND I HAVE

TO SAY, THIS IS WHY WE HAVE DEBATES. THIS IS A GOOD DEBATE BECAUSE IT

HELPED ME TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE BILL REALLY WAS

BECAUSE I WAS UNCLEAR. BASED ON THE -- THE ANSWERS GIVEN DURING THE

DEBATE AND THE NARROWER SCOPE AND WHAT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT IS

SUPPOSED TO BE AND WHO IT IS MOST LIKELY TO FALL ON, WHICH IS NOT THE

COUNTIES, BUT ON THE STATE ITSELF THROUGH A REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS, I -- I

WILL SUPPORT THIS BILL. I DO AGREE WITH THE SPONSOR THAT THE WHOLE

FAMILY COURT SYSTEM AND THE CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS, PATERNITY

PROCEEDINGS, CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, IT -- IT IS SCARY. AND IT IS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SOMETHING WHERE I THINK THAT HAVING COUNSEL FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT

AFFORD TO HIRE COUNSEL ON THEIR OWN WHEN THE PRICE TAG LOOKS LIKE IT IS

THIS, I WILL SUPPORT IT AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE

SAME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. WALSH 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 WANNA COMMEND

THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL FOR PUTTING IT IN. AND ACTUALLY, I WANT TO

COMMEND THE PROCESS OF THE DEBATE BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WAS VERY

INFORMATIVE.

I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I CAN RECALL AS A COUNTY LEGISLATOR

SOME YEARS AGO WHEN THE FAMILY COURT WAS THE FASTEST-GROWING COURT IN

OUR STATE. DEFINITELY IN OUR COUNTY THAT I REPRESENTED IN ERIE. AND IT

SEEMS LIKE IT NECESSARILY HAS NOT SLOWN [SIC] DOWN. AND SO EVERYBODY

NEEDS TO BE REPRESENTED WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT. AND SO PUTTING

SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT ENSURES THAT, I THINK IS A -- IS A HUGE LEAP

FORWARD. AND PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT COUNSEL, THEIR

FAMILIES WILL BE RESTRUCTURED IN A WAY THAT WON'T LAND THEM TO BE STILL

DYSFUNCTIONAL, AND PERHAPS THE NEXT GENERATION OF THIS FAMILY WILL NOT

NEED THE SERVICES OF FAMILY COURT.

SO THANK YOU, AGAIN, TO THE SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION.

I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MRS. PEOPLES-

STOKES 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, WOULD

YOU PLEASE CALL THE RULES COMMITTEE TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE

ROOM?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: RULES COMMITTEE

MEMBERS TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM. RULES COMMITTEE

MEMBERS, PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY QUIETLY TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE

ROOM.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. IF WE CAN NOW BRING OUR ATTENTION TO RULES REPORT NO. 717

BY MYSELF, PEOPLES-STOKES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: PAGE 15, RULES

REPORT NO. 717, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S03294-A, RULES REPORT

NO. 717, SENATOR COONEY (A04795-A, PEOPLES-STOKES). AN ACT TO

AMEND THE CANNABIS LAW, IN RELATION TO MEDICAL USE CANNABIS; AND TO

REPEAL ARTICLE 33-A OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW RELATING TO THE

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH ACT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BEEN REQUESTED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES. THIS BILL, 7 -- 4759

[SIC] ACTUALLY IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH PROTECT AND TO REVITALIZE NEW

YORK'S MEDICAL -- MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAM. MEDICAL CANNABIS WAS

LEGALIZED IN 2014, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, SINCE THEN ADULT-USE CANNABIS

HAS BEEN LEGALIZED AS WELL. BUT THE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAM IS -- IS

SORT OF KIND OF STRUGGLING. PATIENTS' ACCESS IS SHRINKING, PRICES ARE

RISING AND DISPENSARIES ARE CLOSING AND/OR CONSOLIDATED INTO ADULT-USE

SPACE. THIS BILL ATTEMPTS TO LONG -- TO ENACT THE LONG OVERDUE REFORM

THAT PUTS PATIENTS FIRST AND ENSURES THAT THE PROGRAM SURVIVES.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE MOST VALUABLE PIECE OF

THE CANNABINOID -- CANNABIS PLANT IS ITS MEDICINAL BENEFITS, AND SO WE

WANT TO BRING THAT BACK INTO REALITY. SO THERE ARE 30 MEDICAL

DISPENSARIES NOW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THAT USED TO BE 40. AND AS

A MATTER OF FACT, ONE OF THEM IN MY DISTRICT WAS ACTUALLY CLOSED. AND

THE CANNABIS LAW THAT WAS ENACTED IN '21 PERMITS AT LEAST 80 TO BE

OPERATIONAL. SO, MEDICAL ACCESS IS GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION; WHEN IT

SHOULD BE GOING UP IT'S ACTUALLY GOING DOWN. OUR ROLLS UNDER THE

CURRENT LAW HAVE UP TO EIGHT MEDICAL DISPENSARIES. AS OF '21, ONLY

THREE OF THOSE CAN HAVE ADULT-USE PRODUCTS COLOCATED. THERE ARE A TOTAL

OF 30 MEDICAL STORES OPEN NOW, WITH 12 OF THOSE BEING COLOCATED.

THE OTHER PIECE THAT THIS ONE DOES IS IT ALLOWS OUR

MEDICAL CARDS TO BE TRANSFERRABLE BETWEEN STATES. MANY STATES ALREADY

DO THIS. IF YOU ARE VISITING THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND YOU HAVE ACCESS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TO MEDICAL CANNABIS IN THE STATE WHERE YOU LIVE, YOUR CARD SHOULD BE

ACCEPTED HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS WELL. SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR

THAT RECIPROCITY. AND IT ALSO STREAMLINES THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS,

WHICH I THINK WAS COMPLICATED IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE BECAUSE PEOPLE

DIDN'T REALLY WANT NECESSARILY THE PLANT TO BE USED MEDICALLY. SO THE

MANDATORY CONSULTATIONS AND THE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING, NOT THAT IT

WILL BE ELIMINATED, BUT IT WILL NOT BE STRESSED AS TIGHTLY AS IT IS RIGHT

NOW. SO AS OPPOSED TO NEEDING TO HAVE A NEW LICENSE EVERY YEAR, YOU

NEED TO HAVE A LICENSE EVERY TWO YEARS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. GANDOLFO.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WILL THE SPONSOR PLEASE YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES, OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MAJORITY LEADER. SO

FIRST, I KNOW THIS BILL MAKES A NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT YOU JUST KIND OF

WALKED THROUGH THERE. ONE OF THEM WOULD ALLOW HEALTHCARE

PRACTITIONERS TO GIVE CERTIFICATION FOR MEDICINAL-USE CANNABIS TO EITHER

THE CERTIFIED PATIENT OR THE DESIGNATED CAREGIVER OF THE CERTIFIED PATIENT.

SO THE NEW ADDITION IS THE DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, CORRECT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: IT COULD BE THE CAREGIVER

OR IT COULD BE A PERSON WHO IS CERTIFIED TO PROVIDE -- PROVIDE THAT SORT

OF LICENSING.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR

THIS CHANGE TO THE LAW TO ALLOW THE CERTIFICATION OF THE DESIGNATED

CAREGIVER?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WELL, THE REASON IS YOU

WANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE -- REMOVE THE BARRIERS FOR PEOPLE GETTING ACCESS

TO A LICENSE. IF THERE'S ONLY, I WOULD SAY, MAYBE 20 PEOPLE IN YOUR

TOWN THAT CAN PROVIDE ACCESS, THEN YOUR TIME TO WAIT TO GET ACCESS

WOULD BE LONGER AND PERHAPS DELAYING YOUR PROCESS TO GET ACCESS. OR

PERHAPS YOU'D HAVE TO TRAVEL FARTHER TO FIND SOMEONE WHO HAS THE

ABILITY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT CERTIFICATION. SO IT'S STREAMLINING THE

SYSTEM SO THAT IT'S EASIER FOR PATIENTS TO GET ACCESS TO THE PRODUCT THAT

THEY NEED.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. AND NOW THIS WOULD ALSO

CHANGE THE DESIGNATED CAREGIVER AGE FROM -- TO SOMEONE -- SOMEONE

COULD BE 18 TO BE A CERTIFIED DESIGNATED CAREGIVER INSTEAD OF 21?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SAY THAT AGAIN.

MR. GANDOLFO: THE -- SO NOW A CERTIFIED

CAREGIVER WHO -- WHO CAN BE CERTIFIED FOR MEDICINAL-USE CANNABIS, THEY

CAN NOW BE 18 INSTEAD OF 21? THAT AGE WAS LOWERED?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES. THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. AND IS THAT ALSO JUST TO TRY

TO EXPAND ACCESS?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: NO, THAT'S TO EXPAND

ACCESS TO THE NEED. SO IF PEOPLE HAVE THE NEED -- AS A MATTER OF FACT

THERE'S SOME CHILDREN WHO GET MEDICAL CANNABIS WHO ARE MUCH

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YOUNGER THAN 18. SO IF YOU NEED TO BE CERTIFIED AND YOU'RE 18 AND YOU

HAVE A HEALTH CONDITION, YOU COULD BE CONSIDERED AS OPPOSED TO NOW

YOU CAN'T. YOU HAVE TO BE 21.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. NOW, CURRENTLY THERE'S A

REQUIREMENT THAT PRACTITIONERS REVIEW PATIENT'S CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

HISTORIES BEFORE MAKING OR ISSUING CERTIFICATIONS. DOES THIS REMOVE

THAT REQUIREMENT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S

STILL REQUIRED, YES.

MR. GANDOLFO: SO THAT STILL WOULD BE REQUIRED

THAT THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE HISTORIES WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED?

(CONFERENCING)

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO SAY

THAT QUESTION ONE MORE TIME, BECAUSE --

MR. GANDOLFO: SURE.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: -- (INDISCERNIBLE) NOT

NECESSARILY WHAT YOU ASKED.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. CURRENTLY -- THERE'S A

REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY -- THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING -- THAT PRACTITIONERS

HAVE TO REVIEW A PATIENT'S CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE HISTORY BEFORE

PRESCRIBING, I GUESS? YEAH, BEFORE MAKING OR ISSUING CERTIFICATIONS FOR

THOSE PATIENTS.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THEY WOULD HAVE TO

REVIEW THEIR HISTORY BEFORE THEY'VE DECIDED THEY SHOULD HAVE A

CERTIFICATION TO GET THE PRODUCT.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. AND THAT REQUIREMENT

WOULD STAY IN PLACE?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. AMONG THESE OTHER

CHANGES. OKAY.

NOW, THERE IS -- THEY'RE ELIMINATING THE REGISTRY

IDENTIFICATION CARDS AND ALL REFERENCES TO THAT IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT REQUIRE -- THE IDENTIFICATION CARDS ARE BEING

REMOVED FROM THE LANGUAGE?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WHY THE CARDS ARE BEING

REMOVED? AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS SO PEOPLE

HAVE ACCESS TO USING MEDICINAL MARIHUANA IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.

MR. GANDOLFO: WAS THERE AN ISSUE WITH PEOPLE

NOT HAVING THE CARDS?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SO WHAT WE'RE

SUGGESTING IS THAT YOU JUST NEED TO BE CERTIFIED. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY

HAVE TO HAVE THE CARD.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. SO THE REGISTRY

IDENTIFICATION CARD REQUIREMENT IS -- IS THERE A DIGITAL VERSION OF THIS

CARD THAT CAN REPLACE THE PHYSICAL -- I MEAN, I ASSUME IT'S ALREADY

DIGITAL.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL THE

QUESTIONS I HAVE. THANK YOU, MAJORITY LEADER, FOR CLEARING SOME OF

THAT UP.

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YOU'RE VERY WELCOME,

SIR.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. REILLY.

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL

THE MAJORITY LEADER YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES, MADAM SPEAKER.

OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MAJORITY LEADER. SO,

WITH THE -- ONE THING I WANTED TO ASK SPECIFICALLY IS ABOUT DECREASING

THE AGE FOR A CAREGIVER FROM 21 TO 18. CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE

RATIONALE BEHIND THAT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WELL, CLEARLY THERE ARE

PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDER 21 THAT ARE EXPERIENCING ISSUES WITH THEIR

MEDICAL HEALTH THAT WOULD DESIRE TO HAVE ACCESS. THEN THEY CAN EITHER

GO AND DO WHAT THEY'RE TRADITIONALLY DOING USING AN ADULT-USE PRODUCT

OR USING SOME PRODUCT FROM THE STREET, OR THEY CAN TALK TO A REGISTERED

PHYSICIAN WHO CAN ADVISE THEM PROPERLY ON WHAT TO USE.

MR. REILLY: WELL, I THINK MY -- THE -- THE QUESTION

THAT I HAVE IS, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IN THE BILL IS THAT CURRENTLY THE

LAW STATES THAT A 21-YEAR-OLD FOR A CAREGIVER OF SOMEONE WHO NEEDS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MEDICAL CANNABIS, THEY HAVE TO BE 21. SO IN OTHER WORDS, FOR THEM TO

OVERSEE THE DISPENSING TO THE PATIENT. THIS IS DECREASING IT, I BELIEVE,

TO 18. IS THAT -- AM I MISINTERPRETING THAT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: AND THE PRODUCT THAT

THEY WOULD RECEIVE WOULD BE ADMINISTERED BY A CAREGIVER. NOT

SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD USE THEMSELVES.

MR. REILLY: SO -- SO WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR

REDUCING THE AGE FROM 21 TO 18?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SO A PATIENT COULD BE

YOUNGER THAN THAT AND NEED TO HAVE -- A CAREGIVER NEEDS TO HAVE ACCESS

TO A PRODUCT THAT THEY CAN GIVE THEM TO TREAT WHATEVER THEIR ILLNESS IS.

AND SO IF YOU'RE 17 -- I'M SORRY, 18 AND YOU'VE BEEN PERHAPS IN ELDER

CARE OR HOSPICE AND YOU NEED ACCESS TO CANNABINOIDS, THEN A CAREGIVER

WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT FOR YOU.

MR. REILLY: I THINK MY DISCONNECT HERE IS THAT THE

LEGISLATION, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, ALLOWS THE -- THE PERSON WHO'S THE

CAREGIVER FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, THE SICK INDIVIDUAL WHO NEEDS THE

MEDICATION, FOR THAT -- WE'RE LOWERING IT THAT THEY'RE 18, MEANING THAT

CAN THEY PICK UP THE MEDICATION FOR THE PATIENT AT 18 YEARS OLD?

(CONFERENCING)

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: OKAY. SO IF THE

CAREGIVER HAPPENS TO BE 18 AND THE PATIENT IS OLDER, THE -- THE PATIENT

STILL NEEDS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE PRODUCT. AND SO THIS ALLOWS THEM

EITHER TO BE THE PATIENT WITH THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION FROM A CAREGIVER

OR TO BE THE CAREGIVER AND ENSURE THAT THE PERSON WHO THEY'RE HELPING

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TAKE CARE OF HAS ACCESS TO THE PRODUCT.

MR. REILLY: SO HAS -- WHAT -- WHAT CONVERSATIONS

TOOK PLACE TO -- TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REDUCING THAT CAREGIVER AGE OF

21 TO 18? WAS THERE ANY AGENCIES INVOLVED? WAS THERE A DISCUSSION

ON MAYBE SOME DATA THAT SHOWS THE -- THE NEED FOR THAT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES. WE'VE ACTUALLY

BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT, AS

WELL AS THE, I WOULD SAY, SEVERAL MEDICAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE MADE

UP OF PHYSICIANS AS WELL AS OWNERS OF THE BUSINESSES TO MAKE A

DETERMINATION THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE ACCESS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDER

18 BOTH AS PATIENTS AND AS CAREGIVERS.

MR. REILLY: SO IF THERE'S OTHER MEDICATION THAT AN

INDIVIDUAL HAS TO BE OVER A CERTAIN AGE, DOES THIS ALIGN WITH ANY -- ANY

LAWS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN NEW YORK STATE?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: DOES IT -- DOES IT ALIGN

WITH ANY -- WITH WHAT?

MR. REILLY: DOES IT -- DOES IT CONFORM WITH

ALLOWING OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE UNDER -- UNDER A SPECIFIC AGE TO GET

THE -- THE MEDICINE THEMSELVES, RIGHT? SO IS -- IS THERE OTHER POINTS IN

THE LAW IN NEW YORK STATE ABOUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE -- THE AGE

THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO LEGALLY OBTAIN THE MEDICINE FOR THEM TO GET

IT? DOES THIS ALIGN WITH THAT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SO, I CAN REMEMBER

SOME YEARS AGO WHEN THIS BILL WAS BEING CARRIED BY MR. GOTTFRIED, THE

MEDICAL CANNABIS BILL, THERE WERE PARENTS WHO HAD CHILDREN WHO

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

EXPERIENCED EPILEPSY AND OTHER SORTS OF DISABIL -- DISABILITATING [SIC] --

DEBILITATING DISEASES WHO WERE PLEADING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE

ACCESS TO MEDICAL CANNABIS. AND PEOPLE STILL NEED THAT ACCESS. AND SO

I -- WE'RE -- WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO JUST WANTS TO RUN IN

TO SEE A DOCTOR AND CLAIM SOME PROBLEM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE

WHO ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY

HAVE AND SEEING -- SEEK MEDICAL CARE TO GET SUPPORT FOR IT.

MR. REILLY: MADAM MAJORITY LEADER, I -- I

DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND AND -- AND APPRECIATE THE -- THE MEDICAL ASPECT OF

THOSE MAYBE UNDER 18 WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM CANNABIS, AND I'M

TOTALLY -- FOR THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA, I SUPPORTED THAT, RIGHT, LONG

BEFORE I WAS IN -- IN THIS BODY AND I WASN'T HERE FOR THAT VOTE. BUT MY

-- MY QUESTION IS, NOT FOR THOSE 18 AND UNDER BEING -- HAVING ACCESS TO

IT. IT'S ABOUT LOWERING THE AGE FROM THE 21-YEAR-OLD TO BE AN AUTHORIZED

CAREGIVER THAT FITS THE CRITERIA UNDER CURRENT LAW FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS.

NOW WE'RE MOVING IT TO 18. IS THERE ANY -- IS THERE GONNA BE ANY

TRAINING OR CERTIFICATION PROCESS BY THE STATE FOR THOSE THAT ARE 18?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: NO, I DON'T THINK THERE'S

A SPECIFIC CERTIFICATION FOR AN 18-YEAR-OLD TO GO THROUGH TO SAY, I'M THE

ONE WHO IS TAKING CARE OF MY GRANDMOTHER, AND SO SHE'S ORDERED HER

PRODUCT AND I'M THE ONE THAT'S ABLE TO GO PICK IT UP FOR HER.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO IS THIS GONNA CAUSE ANY

ISSUES WITH THOSE LEGAL MEDICAL MARIHUANA DISPENSARIES GIVING THAT

MEDICINE TO SOMEONE WHO'S 18 YEARS OLD OR 19 YEARS OLD OR 20 YEARS

OLD AS A CAREGIVER WHEN THE LEGAL AGE IN NEW YORK STATE FOR CANNABIS

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IS 21?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SO, THEY WOULD GO

THROUGH THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT AND BE REGISTERED TO BE

THAT CAREGIVER FOR THEIR GRANDMOTHER.

MR. REILLY: SO THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS

MANAGEMENT WILL PROVIDE A CERTIFICATION PROCESS?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE 18

TO BE CAREGIVERS.

MR. REILLY: SO, 18, 19 AND 20.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. REILLY: WHAT KIND OF PROCESS IS THAT GOING TO

BE?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M

NOT SURE THE DETAILS OF IT, BUT I GUESS WE CAN PROBABLY FIND YOU HOW THE

APPLICATION LOOKS.

MR. REILLY: I'M SORRY?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WE CAN PROBABLY GET

YOU A COPY OF HOW THE APPLICATION WILL LOOK WHEN IT'S CREATED.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN

APPLICATION FOR THOSE THAT ARE CAREGIVERS FOR NOT THEIR PERSONAL

CONSUMPTION OR THE PERSON THEY'RE CARING FOR?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: REPEAT THE QUESTION. I

HAD TWO PEOPLE TALKING AT THE SAME TIME.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO, CURRENTLY

SOMEONE WHO IS A CAREGIVER WHO IS 21 OR OLDER, IS THERE AN APPLICATION

100

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PROCESS FOR THEM ALREADY?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES, THERE IS.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO IT'S GONNA BE SIMILAR TO

WHAT'S --

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: AS YOU KNOW, THE -- THE

-- MEDICAL CANNABIS WAS DEALT WITH IN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WHEN IT

WAS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED, AND UPON THE PASSING OF ADULT-USE OR --

CANNABIS -- ADULT-USE CANNABIS, IT ALL SWITCHED TO THE OFFICE OF

CANNABIS MANAGEMENT. SO THE TOTALITY OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING IN THE

HEALTH DEPARTMENT AROUND THIS ISSUE, HONESTLY I -- I HAVE TO BE HONEST

AND SAY I WAS NOT NECESSARILY FAMILIAR WITH THAT. BUT I'M

UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT THAT THERE ALREADY IS A PROCESS IN

PLACE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE CAREGIVERS TO PROVIDE THESE PRODUCTS, WHETHER

THEY BE A PARENT AND/OR SOMEONE WHO IS 18 AND TAKING CARE OF THEIR

GRANDMOTHER.

MR. REILLY: OKAY. SO IN THIS LEGIS -- IN THIS

LEGISLATION, AM I CORRECT THAT THIS -- THERE'S GONNA BE A RECIPROCITY WITH

OTHER STATES AS WELL?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. REILLY: SO IS THE CAREGIVER POSITION 18, WOULD

THAT APPLY TO SOMEONE WHO IS IN, SAY, NEW JERSEY?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: NO.

MR. REILLY: SO THE 18-YEAR-OLD CAREGIVER THING

ONLY APPLIES TO NEW YORK STATE RESIDENTS.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

101

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MAJORITY LEADER. THANK

YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. DAIS.

MR. DAIS: WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES, OF COURSE, MADAM

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS

DIALOG.

MR. DAIS: MADAM MAJORITY LEADER, THIS IS FULL

CIRCLE. JUST FOR QUALIFICATION, WE WORKED ON MEDICAL MARIHUANA WHEN

I WAS IN THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA FIELD. BUT I THINK I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY

ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ASKED.

IN REFERENCE TO A CAREGIVER, LIKE A HOME SERVICE AIDE,

YOU ONLY HAVE TO BE THE AGE OF 18 TO BE LIKE A HOME -- A HOME HEALTH

AIDE, CORRECT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: RIGHT.

MR. DAIS: SO I THINK HERE THE CLARIFICATION IS THE --

LOWERING THE AGE FROM 21 TO 18 IS JUST DEMONSTRATING THAT A PERSON WHO

CAN BE A HOME HEALTH AIDE OR A CAREGIVER IS QUALIFIED AT THE AGE OF 18

AND YOU JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT PERSON, BECAUSE THEY'RE BELOW THE

AGE OF 21, CAN OBTAIN THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA PRODUCTS FOR -- FOR THEIR

PATIENT.

102

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: CORRECT.

MR. DAIS: SO BASICALLY THE BILL IS CLARIFYING THIS TO

ENSURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONFUSION TO THE POINT SO THAT OCM,

EVEN WITH THE REGISTRATION PROCESS, IS ENSURING THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO

NEED THIS MEDICAL MARIHUANA CAN OBTAIN IT. IT'S NOT ABOUT THEM BEING

BELOW THE AGE OF 18, IT'S JUST ENSURING THOSE WHO CAN PICK IT UP WILL NOT

BE STOPPED BY THE -- BY THE SECURITY AT -- AT ONE OF THE DISPENSARIES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. DAIS: OKAY. AND SECOND, THE BIGGEST POINT OF

THE BILL ALSO IS TO STREAMLINE AND SUPPORT THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA

INDUSTRY, WHICH IS HAVING SOME ISSUES AT THIS CURRENT TIME, CORRECT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: CORRECT.

MR. DAIS: AND BY STREAMLINING WITH THE HEALTH --

WITH THE HEALTH PROVIDERS PLUS THE CAREGIVERS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO

IS MAKE SURE THAT THE -- THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA PROGRAM CAN CONTINUE

TO BE ROBUST AND CAN WORK FOR ALL THOSE THAT NEED IT.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. DAIS: THANK YOU.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. DAIS: I'LL BE BRIEF. I STARTED WORKING IN MEDICAL

MARIHUANA IN 2018. I ACTUALLY WORKED FOR ONE OF THE FIRST TEN ROS HERE

IN NEW YORK. I ACTUALLY OPENED THE FIRST MEDICAL MARIHUANA

DISPENSARY -- WEST COAST STYLE -- IN MANHATTAN. THE MEDICAL

MARIHUANA FIELD IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE WHO

103

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HAVE THOSE ISSUES THAT MEDICAL MARIHUANA CAN HELP CAN CONTAIN ACCESS.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA INDUSTRY STAYS

AFLOAT, NOT JUST THE ADULT-USE INDUSTRY. THERE ARE CERTAIN PRODUCTS THAT

WILL NOT BE SOLD IN ADULT-USE DISPENSARIES THAT ARE PRODUCED IN MEDICAL

MARIHUANA DISPENSARIES. ONE OF THE FIRST PRODUCTS I HELPED BRING TO THE

FLOOR WAS MEDICAL MARIHUANA LOTION THAT COULD HELP PEOPLE WITH

ARTHRITIS AND OTHER CHRONIC PAIN ISSUES. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE MEDICAL

MARIHUANA FIELD REMAINS ROBUST AND STRONG AND PROTECTED. IN ADDITION,

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THOSE WHO NEED THOSE PRODUCTS HAVE ACCESS TO

THOSE PRODUCTS.

THIS BILL'S COMMONSENSE. IT'S TRYING TO STREAMLINE THE

PROCESS. THE ROLLOUT OF MEDICAL MARIHUANA AND ADULT-USE HAS BEEN

ROUGH AT TIMES, BUT IT DOES ALLOW US TO TRY TO FIX THE ISSUE AND MAKE IT --

STREAMLINE IT AND MORE EFFICIENT. WE CAN LOWER THE PRICES, ENSURE THAT

THE INDUSTRY CAN REMAIN SOLVENT AND STRONG. IT WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE

HAVE A STRONG MEDICAL MARIHUANA PROGRAM, AND I WILL BE VOTING YES ON

THIS BILL.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. ANGELINO.

MR. ANGELINO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WILL THE SPONSOR PLEASE YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES, OF COURSE.

104

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. ANGELINO: SO GOING BACK THROUGH HISTORY, I

REMEMBER IN 2014 I THINK IT WAS CALLED THE COMPASSIONATE CARE ACT.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. ANGELINO: AND I ASSUME YOU MUST HAVE

BEEN INVOLVED WITH THAT AT SOME POINT.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I'M SORRY, SIR. SPEAK

INTO YOUR MICROPHONE. I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

MR. ANGELINO: WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THAT ALSO IN

2014?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: NO, I WAS NOT.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THAT BILL WAS CARRIED BY

OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE MR. GOTTFRIED.

MR. ANGELINO: THE -- AND BACK THEN IT WAS

OVERSEEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: EXACTLY.

MR. ANGELINO: AND NOW IS IT OVERSEEN BY OCM?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: OFFICE OF CANNABIS

MANAGEMENT, YES.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. AND THAT ALL HAPPENED IN

2021, THAT NIGHT WE WERE ALL HERE.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. DID -- AFTER WE ENACTED THE

MRTA, I THINK IT WAS CALLED --

105

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MRTA, YES.

MR. ANGELINO: IT JUST FLASHED INTO MY HEAD.

AFTER WE ENACTED THAT, THAT'S WHEN THE PROBLEMS WITH MEDICAL USE

STARTED HAPPENING. AND DID THE PRICE INCREASE OR DID THE SUPPLY DROP?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I WOULDN'T SAY THAT'S

WHEN THE PROBLEM WITH MEDICAL USE HAPPENED. I -- I WOULD SAY THAT

SOME PEOPLE DID NOT CONTINUE PUSHING THE MARKET AS THEY DID PRIOR TO

ADULT-USE. BUT -- AND SOME PEOPLE WENT OUT OF BUSINESS, AS WAS SAID

BY OUR -- OUR COLLEAGUE A FEW MINUTES AGO. BUT I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THE

ADULT-USE IS THE PROBLEM FOR MEDICAL.

MR. ANGELINO: NO, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S -- THERE

WAS SOME SORT OF CAUSE AND EFFECT AFTER IT HAPPENED. I THINK YOU SAID

DISPENSARIES DROPPED BY TEN, THE NUMBER DROPPED BY TEN. BUT

SOMETHING HAPPENED. DID PATIENTS START USING RECREATIONAL CANNABIS?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I -- I CAN'T TELL YOU IF

THAT'S WHAT PATIENTS STARTED TO DO OR NOT. I -- I CAN TELL YOU THAT PEOPLE

LIKE MY MOTHER, SPECIFICALLY, STILL KEPT USING THE MEDICAL SALVE THAT SHE

GOT BEFORE SHE TRANSITIONED.

MR. ANGELINO: THE -- AND CURRENTLY, WITH OCM

IN CHARGE NOW, SOME SORT OF HEALTHCARE WORKER OR A MEDICAL PROVIDER

STILL HAS TO WRITE SOME SORT OF PRESCRIPTION FOR IT?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. THE -- AND, YOU KNOW, THAT

ALWAYS BEGS THE QUESTION, WHY DOESN'T IT GO INTO A DRUGSTORE?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WHY DO WHAT?

106

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. ANGELINO: WHY DO THEY NOT GO TO A DRUGSTORE

TO GET THEIR MEDICINAL-USE CANNABIS INSTEAD OF GOING INTO A DISPENSARY

NEXT TO THE LIQUOR STORE?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: WELL, YOU KNOW, IT

WASN'T WRITTEN THAT WAY, BUT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THERE CAN BE SOME

CHANGES MADE TO IT. THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE IDEAS YOU PUT FORWARD.

BY THE WAY, IF YOU GO TO A DRUGSTORE AND PICK UP A PRESCRIPTION, YOU

DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES ON IT. SO WE'RE LOOKING TO ELIMINATE TAXES ON

THIS MEDICAL PRODUCT AS WELL.

MR. ANGELINO: SO THERE STILL IS A TAX ON MEDICINAL

USE?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YES.

MR. ANGELINO: WELL, THAT NEEDS TO STOP. IT'S A --

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A MEDICATION.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: ABSOLUTELY. WE AGREE

ON THAT.

MR. ANGELINO: DOES -- DOES THIS PIECE OF

LEGISLATION INCREASE OR EXPAND THE -- THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS FOR

WHICH YOU CAN GET MEDICAL CANNABIS?

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: NO.

MR. ANGELINO: OKAY. THANK YOU, MADAM

LEADER.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: YOU'RE WELCOME, SIR.

MR. ANGELINO: ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

107

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. ANGELINO: I WAS AROUND FOR BOTH OF THESE

WHEN THEY -- BOTH THE 2014 ITERATION AND ALSO 2021 MRTA. AND I

THINK WE PREDICTED THAT THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIHUANA WOULD DECREASE

BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO WERE PRESCRIBED MEDICAL CANNABIS WERE JUST GOING

TO GO BUY THE RECREATIONAL USE. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, THE

RECREATIONAL USE HAS SUCH A HIGH POTENCY THAT IT WAS BEING -- HAVING

NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON PATIENTS WHO REALLY DO NEED THIS. THE ROLE -- I

THINK OCM WAS DISTRACTED, AND WE ALL KNOW THEY WERE DISTRACTED BY

THEIR INITIAL ROLLOUT OF RECREATIONAL USE, AND I THINK THE MEDICAL PORTION

USE WAS JUST PUT ON THE BACK BURNER. AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BRING

MEDICAL USE BACK TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE REGULATED AND POTENCY

MEASURED SO THAT PATIENTS WHO NEED THIS, SOME OF MY FRIENDS WHO ARE

CANCER PATIENTS AND ALSO SOME WITH POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS, REALLY SEE THE

BENEFIT OF MEDICAL USE OF CANNABIS. AND I THINK OCM, NOW THAT THEY

HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOOTING OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING, THEY CAN

GIVE SOME MORE ATTENTION TO THE MEDICAL PORTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. I -- AS WAS BROUGHT UP BY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, I WAS NOT

INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA, BUT I DO

KNOW THE BENEFITS THAT IT'S CAUSED FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR LIVES. AND I DO

KNOW THAT SOME MEDICAL SCHOOLS, INCLUDING SOME FOLKS FROM THE

UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO, HAVE BEEN IN -- IN A LOT OF TRIALS. SOME FOLKS AT

108

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ROSWELL HAVE BEEN IN A LOT OF TRIALS AND THEY'RE WORKING TO MAKE SURE

THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CANNABINOIDS THAT ARE IN THE CANNABIS

AND HEMP PLANTS ARE THE SAME CANNABINOIDS THAT ARE -- THAT ARE WITHIN

OUR -- OUR BODY. AND IF WE UNDERSTAND THEM AND USE THEM IN THE RIGHT

WAYS, IT CAN BE BENEFICIAL.

I WILL ALSO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE AS MANY

ADULT-USE STORES AS YOU LIKE, BUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GO AND GET

A LITTLE CONTAINER OF POWDER THAT SOME PEOPLE USE WITH THEIR CHILDREN

AND SOME CAREGIVERS USE WITH CHILDREN WHEN THEY MIX IT INTO THEIR FOOD

TO HAVE THEM LIVE A BETTER LIFE WHEN THEY ARE IN DEBILITATING CONDITIONS.

AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO DO IN NEW YORK

ALL WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA PROBLEM --

PROGRAM DOES NOT CONTINUE DECREASING. WE SHOULD DO WHAT WE CAN TO

MAKE SURE THAT IT INCREASES BECAUSE THE FIRST VALUE OF IT IS MEDICINAL.

YES, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME PEOPLE LIKE IT FOR OTHER REASONS, BUT IN

HONESTY, THE BEST VALUE OF THIS PLANT IS IN ITS MEDICINAL COMPONENTS.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

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. DAIS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. DAIS: I'LL BE BRIEF. AS I SAID, I'M A CANNABIS

109

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ATTORNEY. I'VE WORKED ON -- IN THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY AND I CARE DEEPLY

ABOUT IT. I THANK THE SPONSOR. SHE IS TRULY ONE OF THE TRUE CHAMPIONS

IN ENSURING THAT WE CAN HAVE A COMPETENT CANNABIS PROGRAM

THROUGHOUT NEW YORK STATE. THERE'S NO GREATER CHAMPION THAN -- THAN

OUR SPONSOR ON THIS.

ONE POINT THAT I -- I DID WANT TO MAKE THAT IS VERY

IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS BILL IS THE RECIPROCITY ASPECT. JUST TO PUT IT IN

PERSPECTIVE WHY IT'S IMPORTANT, EVEN THOUGH LET'S SAY CANNABIS OR

MEDICAL MARIHUANA IS LEGAL IN NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA, IF YOU FLY

FROM CALIFORNIA TO NEW YORK YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH TSA. THAT'S

TECHNICALLY FEDERAL -- FEDERAL JURISDICTION. WHAT THE RECIPROCITY ASPECT

DOES IS IT MAKES A PERSON THAT HAS A MEDICAL MARIHUANA CARD IN

CALIFORNIA, THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE OF POSSIBLY TAKING THEIR

MEDICINE ON THE FLIGHT AND POSSIBLY BEING STOPPED BY TSA. THEY CAN

FLY TO NEW YORK AND GET A SIMILAR PRODUCT SO THAT THEY CAN KEEP

HEALTHY, VISIT OUR GREAT STATE, SEE OUR SITES, EAT OUR GREAT FOOD AND GET

TRUE -- AND GET REAL PEACE, ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE FROM ILLINOIS AND

CHICAGO. SO WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KEEP TRAVELING AND WE

DON'T STOP THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE CONCERNED OF TRAVELING BECAUSE THEY'RE

CARRYING THEIR MEDICAL MARIHUANA, AND BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IT'S STILL

FEDERALLY NOT LEGAL.

THIS BILL IS COMMON SENSE. IT IS STREAMLINING OUR

MEDICAL MARIHUANA PROCESS, AND I THANK THE SPONSOR FOR HER CONTINUED

CHAMPIONSHIP IN ENSURING THAT WE HAVE A BETTER -- BETTER PRODUCT HERE

IN NEW YORK. I WILL BE -- AND THANK YOU. THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING IN THE

110

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DAIS IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. ZACCARO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. ZACCARO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I

RISE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CRITICAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT IS AIMED AT

EXPANDING ACCESS TO MEDICAL CANNABIS FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST.

AS WE KNOW, MANY INDIVIDUALS SUFFER FROM CHRONIC

CONDITIONS AND DEBILITATING ILLNESSES THAT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT --

SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. AND FOR THESE PATIENTS THE

MEDICAL USE OF CANNABIS CAN PROVIDE RELIEF THAT TRADITIONAL TREATMENTS

FALL SHORT. AND SO THIS BILL IS DESIGNED WITH THE SINGULAR INTENT TO

ENSURE THAT PATIENTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACCESS MEDICAL CANNABIS AS

PRESCRIBED BY THEIR HEALTH PROVIDERS. AND BY STREAMLINING THIS

PROCESS, THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS, AND ENHANCING THE ROLE OF DESIGNATED

CAREGIVERS, WE ARE REMOVING BARRIERS THAT ARE HISTORICALLY LIMITED --

LIMITING ACCESS TO THIS ESSENTIAL MEDICINE. AND SO THIS BILL'S

INTRODUCTION IS AN IMPORTANT PROVISION FOR PATIENTS' RECIPROCITY,

ALLOWING OUT-OF-STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PATIENTS TO OBTAIN THE

MEDICATION THEY NEED WHILE IN NEW YORK. AND THIS DOES NOT ONLY

DEMONSTRATE OUR COMMITMENT TO PASSIONATE CARE, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZES

THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING PATIENTS REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY COME

FROM.

I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO EMPHASIZE MY

COMMITMENT TO ASSISTING THOSE WHO USE MEDICAL CANNABIS FOR

111

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TREATMENT. AND I ALSO WANNA EXTEND MY HEARTFELT THANKS TO OUR

MAJORITY LEADER AND THE BILL SPONSOR FOR HER EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP ON

THIS ISSUE, AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR HER COMMITMENT TO IMPROVING THE LIVES

OF NEW YORKERS WHO RELY ON MEDICAL CANNABIS.

AND WITH THAT I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. ZACCARO 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 CONTINUE OUR WORK ON OUR DEBATE CALENDAR, WE'RE GONNA GO TO

701 BY MS. ROSENTHAL, 715 BY MS. GLICK, AND 734 BY MS. WOERNER. IN

THAT ORDER, PLEASE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

PAGE 14, RULES REPORT NO. 701, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08420-A, RULES REPORT

NO. 701, SENATOR GIANARIS (A08887-B, ROSENTHAL). AN ACT TO AMEND

THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING ADVERTISEMENTS TO

DISCLOSE THE USE OF A SYNTHETIC PERFORMER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. ROSENTHAL.

112

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. ROSENTHAL: THIS BILL REQUIRES PRODUCERS AND

CREATORS OF ADVERTISEMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES TO PROVIDE A

DISCLAIMER WHEN SUCH ADS CONTAINS A SYNTHETIC PERFORMER OR A DEEP

FAKE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. BLUMENCRANZ.

MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. ROSENTHAL: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. RA: THANK YOU. SO CAN WE JUST GO THROUGH THE

DEFINITION WE'RE USING HERE? SOME OF THE OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL HAS

COME FROM THE CONCERN THAT IT IS VERY BROAD. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK

WE LOOK AT WHAT IT SAYS ON -- ON ITS FACE IN TERMS OF THE DISCLOSURE

REQUIREMENT, BUT THAT A LOT OF ADVERTISING IS GENERATED USING DIFFERENT,

YOU KNOW, COMPUTER-BASED TOOLS, WHETHER THEY'RE ACTUALLY AI OR JUST A

COMPUTER ALGORITHM TODAY, AND THAT IT MIGHT SWEEP IN THINGS THAT

AREN'T, YOU KNOW, LIKE THINGS LIKE VOICE ENHANCING AND STUFF LIKE THAT AS

OPPOSED TO WHAT I THINK THIS IS TRYING TO GET AT, WHICH IS YOU'RE

ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, CREATING A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, KIND OF, AND HAVING

TO DISCLOSE THAT. SO CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE -- THE DEFINITION THAT WE'RE

USING WITH REGARD TO A SYNTHETIC PERFORMER?

MS. ROSENTHAL: OKAY. SO I'LL -- I'LL DESCRIBE

113

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WHAT THE SYNTHETIC PERFORMER IS. IT'S -- IT'S NOT OVERLY BROAD, IT'S

ACTUALLY VERY NARROW. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE DIGITAL USES OF TECHNOLOGY OR

AI USE THAT EDITS, ALTERS OR CREATES VISUAL EFFECTS IN AN AD. IT DOESN'T

INCLUDE DIGITALLY-CREATED OR AI-CREATED USES OF DIGITAL REPLICAS, WHICH

MEANS BASICALLY A DIGITAL CLONE OF A REAL PERSON. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE

AUDIO-ONLY ADVERTISEMENTS LIKE RADIO USING ADVANCED DIGITAL OR AI

VOCAL TOOLS. AND IT ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY USES OF SYNTHETIC

PERFORMERS IN ADS FOR EXPRESSIVE WORKS THAT ALREADY CONTAIN USES OF

THESE SYNTHETIC PERFORMERS, WHETHER IT'S FILM, TV, VIDEO GAMES, ET

CETERA. SO IT IS ACTUALLY QUITE NARROW.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO WOULD IT BE YOUR INTENTION THAT

THAT INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT ARE CURRENTLY USED

IN POST-PRODUCTION THAT HAVE BEEN STANDARD FOR DECADES IN ADVERTISING

LIKE CGI ANIMATION, DIGITAL COMPOSITING, VOICE MODULATION?

MS. ROSENTHAL: IF -- I MEAN, IF YOU'RE CREATING A

PERSON WHO'S JUST CREATED BY SYNTHETIC MEDIA IT WOULD CAPTURE THEM.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT IF YOU'RE USING, YOU

KNOW, AI EDITING TOOLS? YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHEN YOU'RE -- YOU KNOW,

THERE'S A PERSON BUT YOU'RE USING WHATEVER; GREEN SCREENS, PUTTING

SOMEBODY IN A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT THAT THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY IN.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. ROSENTHAL: IF IT CAPTURES A NATURAL PERSON

THEN IT IS COVERED HERE.

MR. RA: IF IT CAPTURES A NATURAL PERSON. OKAY. SO

JUST -- BUT IN THAT DEF -- DEFINITION, RIGHT, WHAT -- WHAT SOMEWHAT

114

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CONCERNS ME IS WHERE IT SAYS -- YOU KNOW, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, I -- I

TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE, THAT WE'RE CREATING

THIS FICTIONAL PERSON.

MS. ROSENTHAL: RIGHT.

MR. RA: BUT WHERE IT SAYS "OR A SOFTWARE ALGORITHM

THAT IS INTENDED TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSET IS ENGAGING IN

AN AUDIOVISUAL AND/OR VISUAL PERFORMANCE OF A HUMAN PERFORMER WHO

IS NOT RECOGNIZABLE AS ANY IDENTIFIABLE NATURAL PERFORMER." NOW,

THERE'S, I GUESS, TWO PIECES OF THAT THAT I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR ON. WHAT DO

WE MEAN BY A SOFTWARE ALGORITHM OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF ARTIFICIAL

INTELLIGENCE? AND THEN IN TERMS OF NOT RECOGNIZABLE, ARE WE TALKING

ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WHO ISN'T FAMOUS, SOMEBODY THAT WE

WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE, OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS, LIKE,

CLEARLY NOT HUMAN?

MS. ROSENTHAL: NO, IT -- IT LOOKS HUMAN, BUT IT'S

-- IT'S NOT A HUMAN. IT IS A -- IT'S -- IT'S CREATED DIGITALLY AND IT'S -- IT'S --

IT'S NOT ANYONE YOU WOULD RECOGNIZE.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND -- AND WHAT ARE WE -- WHAT DO

YOU MEAN BY A SOFTWARE ALGORITHM WITH REGARD TO THIS?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. ROSENTHAL: WHICHEVER WAY IT'S CREATED

THROUGH SOFTWARE, OTHER DIGITAL MEANS THAT -- THAT ANY -- ANY COMPUTER

PROGRAM OR ANY OTHER DIGITAL PLAT -- DIGITAL METHOD THAT MODIFIES AN

IMAGE.

MR. RA: OKAY. NOW, DO YOU KNOW CURRENTLY IN THE

115

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS A LARGE INDUSTRY IN NEW

YORK, A MAJOR PART OF OUR ECONOMY, YOU KNOW, HOW COMMON THESE

PRACTICES ARE CURRENTLY?

MS. ROSENTHAL: MM-HMM. WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY

BECOMING MORE AND MORE COMMON. IN THE NBA FINALS LAST WEEK THERE

WAS AN AD FEATURING A SHIRTLESS OLDER GENTLEMAN DRAPED IN AN AMERICAN

FLAG, A FARMER FLOATING IN AN INFLATABLE POOL FILLED WITH EGGS, A LADY IN A

SPARKLY PINK TRACKSUIT DRIVING A ZAMBONI. THOSE WERE ALL CREATED.

THOSE WERE DEEP FAKES.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO IN THOSE EXAMPLES, WHAT -- WHAT

IS THE CONCERN FOR THE CONSUMER IF THEY'RE NOT AWARE THAT THAT IS A

SYNTHETIC PERFORMER?

MS. ROSENTHAL: IT'S -- IT'S BASICALLY SOMETHING

ABOUT TRAN -- IT'S ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND NOT BEING DECEIVED, THINKING

THAT THAT IS A REAL PERSON. THAT IT -- THE CONSUMER HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW

THAT THIS IS NOT A PERSON, THIS IS A DIGITALLY-CREATED IMAGE. AND IT'S AN

ORDER TO ALSO TO ENSURE TRUST IN ADVERTISING. BECAUSE YOU ARE FOOLED IF

YOU THINK, WOAH, THAT'S REALLY A FARMER. NO, IT'S NOT A FARMER, IT'S A

DIGITALLY-CREATED IMAGE OF A FARMER.

MR. RA: OKAY. MY -- MY CONCERN BEING THAT IF WE

ARE, YOU KNOW, SWEEPING IN SOMETHING THAT HAS BECOME IN VERY

COMMON USAGE WE'RE GONNA SEE THESE DISCLOSURES ON EVERY AD AND THEY

MAY SOMEWHAT LOSE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS. IF WE'RE REALLY TRYING GET AT A

SITUATION WHERE THAT CONFUSION MIGHT, YOU KNOW, LEAD THE CONSUMER TO

THINK SOMEBODY IS ENDORSING A CERTAIN PRODUCT OR, YOU KNOW, OH,

116

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WOW. THAT GUY'S A BIG STRONG GUY AND IS THIS IS FOR, YOU KNOW, A

EXERCISE MACHINE OR SUPPLEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT SEEMS TO

ME THAT'S WHAT WE WANNA GET AT, THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING A FALSE

IMPRESSION OF THE PERSON. BUT IF WE SWEEP IN STUFF THAT IS BASICALLY IN

EVERY AD AND WE START SEEING THESE DISCLOSURES ON EVERY SINGLE AD, I

THINK IT'S GONNA LOSE ITS EFFECTIVENESS.

MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, I -- I DON'T AGREE. I THINK

IT IS JUST DISCLOSURE SO THE VIEWER UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS A CREATED

IMAGE. IT ISN'T A REAL PERSON. AND YOU SEE WHEN YOU HAVE ADS LIKE

WITH DOCTORS SAYING, I PRESCRIBE X, Y, Z AND THEN YOU HAVE A DISCLOSURE

THAT SAID, THIS ACTOR PORTRAYING A DOCTOR SO THE CONSUMER CAN KNOW

THAT IT IS NOT A PERSON. IT IS A CREATED IMAGE. AND IT'S REALLY JUST SO YOU

CAN, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME KIND OF TRUST IN THE AD.

MR. RA: SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN IN

TERMS OF THE DISCLOSURE ITSELF? IT SAYS IT HAS TO BE A CONSPICUOUS

DISCLOSURE, BUT THERE'S NOT REALLY A LOT OF GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF WHAT --

WHAT THAT MEANS. HOW DO YOU ENVISION THE ADVERTISING ENTITIES

COMPLYING WITH THIS IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE MAKING A

CONSPICUOUS DISCLOSURE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL?

MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, CONSPICUOUS IS GENERALLY A

WORD THAT MEANS YOU CAN -- IT IS NOTICEABLE, IT IS SEEABLE. IT -- IT DOES

NOT PRESCRIBE WORDING, WHICH WE COULD HAVE DONE. BUT, YOU KNOW,

BASICALLY CONSPICUOUS WOULD BE SIMPLE WORDING THAT IS EASILY SEEN OR

SEEN BY THE CONSUMER. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE THE BEGINNING OF THE AD

IT COULD SAY, THIS AD USES A SYNTHETIC HUMAN. OR AT THE END OF THE AD IT

117

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

COULD HAVE SAID THAT. JUST LIKE AS I SAID EARLIER, PHARMACEUTICAL ADS

SAY, THIS IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR. AND -- AND WE DON'T GIVE THE WORDING.

WE LEAVE IT UP TO THE CREATOR OF THE AD TO DECIDE TO GIVE THEM

FLEXIBILITY.

MR. RA: OKAY. I -- I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE

SHOULD KEEP IN MIND. I -- I KNOW -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE DEALING WITH SO

MANY OF THESE THINGS THAT -- THAT ARE NEW TECHNOLOGIES, NEW TYPES OF

THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS WAS

COMPARED TO IS THE FTC HAS INFLUENCER DISCLOSURE RULES AND PEOPLE

HAVE FELT THAT THE CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS STANDARD THAT THEY USED HAVE

LED TO VERY UNEVEN DISCLOSURE ACROSS DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLATFORMS.

WHAT ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS WITH REGARD TO THE

PROVISIONS WE MAY -- WELL, MANY OF US MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THAT THE

SCREEN ACTORS GUILD HAD A CONTRACT AGREEMENT AND THEY -- ONE OF THE

BIG AREAS OF -- OF DISAGREEMENT AT FIRST WAS -- WAS AI, AND THEY CAME TO

SOME AGREEMENT AS TO HOW THEY'RE GONNA DEAL WITH THIS AND THAT IS

BEING ADDRESSED. HOW DOES -- WHAT IS THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THIS --

DOES THIS MIRROR THAT? DOES IT CONFLICT WITH THAT AT ALL?

MS. ROSENTHAL: NO, IT -- IT DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T

CONTRADICT ANYTHING BARGAINED IN THE RECENT COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT

NEGOTIATIONS. IN FACT, I INTRODUCED THIS QUITE SOME YEARS AGO BEFORE THE

DISAGREEMENT HAPPENED. SO IT HAS NO IMPACT EITHER WAY.

MR. RA: AND LASTLY, THE -- THE CURE PERIOD. SO

THERE'S A FIVE-DAY CURE PERIOD?

MS. ROSENTHAL: NO. THAT -- THAT WAS IN A

118

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PREVIOUS VERSION.

MR. RA: OKAY, I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. SO THAT'S NOT

IN THIS. SO IS THERE ANY CURE PERIOD IN THIS BILL?

MS. ROSENTHAL: NO. IT'S ON THE -- THE CREATOR.

AND SO THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED CURE --

MR. RA: OKAY. AND WHAT --

MS. ROSENTHAL: -- PERIOD. THERE IS NO LIABILITY.

MR. RA: WHAT IS THE PENALTY, THEN, FOR A VIOLATION?

MS. ROSENTHAL: THE PENALTY ON -- ON THE -- LET

ME JUST -- IT'S IN THE -- IT'S IN THE BILL HERE. SO, A VIOLATION WILL RESULT IN

A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1,000 FOR A FIRST VIOLATION, AND $5,000 FOR ANY

SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS. BUT IT IS ON THE CREATOR, NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON

THE BROADCAST THAT RUNS THAT AD.

MR. RA: SO WOULD -- WOULD THE VIOLATION BE JUST

PRODUCING AN AD THAT DIDN'T HAVE THIS DISCLOSURE, OR, I MEAN, WOULD --

WOULD THE CREATOR BE GUILTY OF A VIOLATION -- SAY THEY PRODUCED A

TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT AND IT'S AIRING ON NETWORK TV AND IT'S AIRING

THROUGH STREAMING SERVICES. IS EACH OF THOSE AIRINGS OF THE COMMERCIAL

A VIOLATION?

MS. ROSENTHAL: I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY SO.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. RA: THANK YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, THE REAL

CONCERN I HAVE HERE IS -- IS REALLY A COUPLE OF THINGS. I THINK THAT SOME

119

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OF THESE DEFINITIONS COULD BE CLEARER SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE UNEVEN USE

OF THESE DISCLOSURES ACROSS DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, COMPANIES THAT ARE

PRODUCING THESE ADS. WE -- WE'RE NOT REALLY SAYING WHAT IT NEEDS TO

SAY, WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE PUT. SO IT MAY BE WORDED DIFFERENTLY ACROSS

DIFFERENT ADVERTISERS. BUT I -- I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND,

ADVERTISING AND RELATED INDUSTRY SUPPORT NEARLY 1.6 MILLION JOBS IN

NEW YORK AND CONTRIBUTES $437 BILLION IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. THIS IS A

MAJOR, MAJOR ECONOMIC DRIVER IN NEW YORK AND HAS BEEN FOR -- FOR

DECADES. AND WHAT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT IS NOT DOING THINGS

THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR ALL OF THE BUSINESSES IN

NEW YORK AND ELSEWHERE THAT USE NEW YORK ADVERTISERS TO SAY, YOU

KNOW WHAT? I'M GONNA GO USE SOME -- I'M GONNA GO OUT-OF-STATE, AND

-- AND PUT -- AND WE THEN PUT OUR ADVERTISER -- ADVERTISING FOLKS TO

PEOPLE WHO ARE DEVELOPING DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT THEY'RE UTILIZING

FOR ADVERTISING AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE AS -- TO OTHER STATES WHO

MAY NOT HAVE SUCH A STRINGENT REGULATION.

SO OUT -- OUT OF CONCERN FOR THAT I'M GONNA BE VOTING

IN THE NEGATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A FEW MORE QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. ROSENTHAL: YES.

120

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: MS. ROSENTHAL --

MS. ROSENTHAL: MR. BLUMENCRANZ.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHEN IT COMES TO THE

DEFINITIONS HERE AND THE CAPTURE, WHAT -- WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A

SYNTHETIC PERFORMER, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO LABEL THE USE OF

SYNTHESIZING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS? YOU USED THE -- THE

EXAMPLE OF A DOCTOR, RIGHT? LET'S SAY A REAL HUMAN DOCTOR IS IN AN

ADVERTISEMENT, BUT THEY SYNTHETICALLY ALTER THEIR LOCATION, THEY PUT A

STETHOSCOPE ON HIM. DO WE NOW HAVE TO LABEL THAT REAL HUMAN BEING

AS A SYNTHETIC ACTOR HERE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: HEY, IS IT A REAL HUMAN BEING OR

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IT IS A REAL HUMAN BEING, BUT

IN POST-PRODUCTION THE ADVERTISERS FELT ADVANTAGEOUS TO INCLUDE

DIFFERENT ARTICLES OF CLOTHING. LET'S SAY CHANGE --

MS. ROSENTHAL: NO. NO.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: NO. IT -- IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S

CAPTURED IN THE DEFINITION.

MS. ROSENTHAL: IF IT'S A FAKE HUMAN. BUT WE'RE

NOT TALKING, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WITH CLOTHES ON A REAL HUMAN.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO A SYNTHETIC PERFORMER

MEANS ANY DIGITALLY-CREATED ASSET CREATED, REPRODUCED OR MODIFIED BY A

COMPUTER. SO EVEN IF IT IS A REAL HUMAN, IF THERE'S BEEN SYNTHETIC

MODIFICATIONS TO THE HUMAN BEING THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED?

121

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. ROSENTHAL: I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO WHERE DOES THAT LINE --

WHERE IS THAT LINE DRAWN? SO LET'S SAY I TAKE LINDA ROSENTHAL, I PUT

YOU IN AN ADVERTISEMENT. BUT I CHANGE YOUR HAIR, YOUR NOSE, YOUR CHIN.

YOU'RE STILL YOU, BUT NOW YOUR FEATURES ARE DIFFERENT, YOUR PITCH AND

TONE IS DIFFERENT. THE BACKGROUND YOU WERE STANDING IN IS DIFFERENT.

STILL NO DISCLOSURE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: OKAY, SO THE IMAGE OF ME AS

YOU DESCRIBED IT, DIFFERENT HAIR, DIFFERENT FEATURES, THAT IS MANIPULATING

AN IMAGE. SO I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE COVERED.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO THIS -- NOW WE'RE

DISCUSSING LINES THAT ARE NOT WRITTEN WITHIN THE BILL. SO WHERE IN THE

BILL TEXT DOES IT SAY WHERE THE LINE'S DRAWN WHERE SOMEONE IS

SYNTHESIZED IN A WAY THAT IS CONSIDERED A SYNTHETIC PERFORMER UNDER

YOUR DEFINITION HERE? AND WHERE IS [SIC] MODIFICATION QUALIFY AS --

LET'S SAY I TOOK SOME PIMPLES OFF SOMEONE'S FACE OR I LIGHTENED THEIR

HAIR A LITTLE BIT.

MS. ROSENTHAL: OKAY. SO IN (C), SYNTHETIC

PERFORMER MEANS -- MEANS A DIGITALLY-CREATED ASSET CREATED,

REPRODUCED OR MODIFIED BY A COMPUTER USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL

INTELLIGENCE OR A SOFTWARE ALGORITHM THAT IS INTENDED TO CREATE THE

IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSET IS ENGAGING IN AN AUDIOVISUAL AND/OR VISUAL

PERFORMANCE OF A HUMAN PERFORMER WHO IS NOT RECOGNIZABLE AS ANY

IDENTIFIABLE NATURAL PERSON.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO IF I CAN STILL RECOGNIZE --

122

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

EVEN IF I CHANGED YOUR HAIR, YOUR GLASSES, YOUR CLOTHES, DIGITALLY, IF I

CAN STILL RECOGNIZE YOU AS LINDA ROSENTHAL THAT WOULD NOT BE A

SYNTHETIC PERFORMER?

MS. ROSENTHAL: OKAY. IT -- YOU KNOW, THIS JUST

SEEMS LIKE A FINE LINE. IT DEPENDS IF -- IF IT'S ALTERED SO THAT IT'S NOT

RECOGNIZABLE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IT'S AN EXTREMELY FINE LINE.

SO WHY DON'T WE TALK ABOUT THAT. WHO DETERMINES THAT FINE LINE? WHO

IS THE AUTHORITY HERE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: I'M SORRY, SAY IT AGAIN?

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHO'S THE AUTHORITY?

WHO'S -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT HERE. WHO IS GONNA DECIDED TO FINE, AS

YOU STATED WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, THE PER VIOLATION IS EVERY TIME IT

IS PRODUCED, SAY, ON ONE CHANNEL OR ANOTHER, EVERY TIME IT'S VIEWED.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO HONE IN ON THAT. BUT WHO'S MAKING THAT DETERMINATION?

MS. ROSENTHAL: I GUESS ULTIMATELY IT WOULD BE

UP TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IF SOMEBODY BRINGS THAT TO THEIR ATTENTION

AND THEY FEEL THAT IT WARRANTS, YOU KNOW, INVESTIGATION AND/OR

PROSECUTION.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IS -- I DIDN'T SEE MANY

INDICATIONS IN HERE, FLEXIBILITY AS TO HOW THEY'LL BE PROMULGATING RULES,

REGULATIONS SURROUNDING HOW THIS ADVERTISEMENT WILL WORK. HOW ARE

ADVERTISERS SUPPOSED TO COMPLETELY WITH SUCH A VAGUE CAPTURE-ALL?

MS. ROSENTHAL: I THINK IT'S -- IT'S -- IT'S BASICALLY

LAID OUT ENOUGH IN -- IN THIS BILL. AND -- AND THE AG HAS JURISDICTION

123

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OVER ALL GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, SO THAT'S WHO -- WHO THE AUTHORITY

WOULD ULTIMATELY BE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO YOU STATE HERE IN, I GUESS

THIS IS PART 3, ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN ANY

PROPERTY OR SERVICE OF ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE PRODUCES OR CREATES AN

ADVERTISEMENT SHALL CONSPICUOUSLY DISCLOSE IN THE ADVERTISEMENT THE

SYNTHETIC PERFORMER IS SUCH ADVERTISEMENT WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS

ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. CAN YOU DEFINE "ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE" FOR ME IN THIS

CASE? SO IF I -- GO AHEAD IF YOU HAVE A DEFINITION READY. BECAUSE IT'S

NOT IN THE BILL.

MS. ROSENTHAL: I MEAN, THAT IS COMMONLY USED

IN -- IN LAW, SO IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE DEFINED HERE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO IGNORANCE OF ARTIFICIAL

INTELLIGENCE USAGE IN AN ADVERTISEMENT BY A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR IS A

LEGAL DEFENSE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: I MEAN, IF YOU'RE CREATING THE AD

YOU -- YOU WOULD HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF HOW YOU CREATED IT, ET

CETERA.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO IF I GO TO A THIRD-PARTY

ADVERTISING AGENCY WHO OUTSOURCES THE --

MS. ROSENTHAL: BUT WHO ARE YOU?

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WHAT?

MS. ROSENTHAL: WHO ARE YOU IN THIS SCENARIO?

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: LET'S SAY I'M -- LET'S SAY I'M

DISNEY, AND I GO TO A THIRD-PARTY AND I SAY, CREATE AN ADVERTISEMENT

124

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FOR ME. I NEED IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER, A PRINCESS IN A CASTLE.

HOW AND WHAT LINE OF IGNORANCE DO THEY HAVE OF THAT EXACT -- DO THEY

HAVE TO NOW GO -- IS THEIR PROTOCOL NOW NEED THEM TO HAVE THEIR

THIRD-PARTY VENDORS ALL DISCLOSED WHETHER OR NOT IN THEIR META DATA THEY

UTILIZE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE CREATION OF THE AD?

MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, I MEAN, ONCE THIS

BECOMES LAW THEN IT IS -- IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT

THEY HAVE TO DISCLOSE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO, BUT...

MS. ROSENTHAL: WHOEVER CREATES OR PRODUCES

THE AD. SO IF THAT'S A THIRD-PARTY, THEN THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES ON THEM.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: BUT THE CREATION OF A PIECE

OF WORK LIKE AN ADVERTISEMENT CAN SOMETIMES AFFECT MULTIPLE DIFFERENT

ENTITIES, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO ARTISTIC AND POST-PRODUCTION IN THE

RENDERINGS OR ANY ADJUSTMENTS OR CHANGES. LIKE YOU SAID, I CAN CHANGE

MAYBE YOUR HAIR, BUT YOU'RE STILL YOU SO YOU'RE NOT CONSIDERED A

SYNTHETIC PERFORMER. WHO AND HOW ARE WE BOTH EDUCATING INDIVIDUALS

WHERE THAT LINE IS WHERE THEY HAVE TO DISCLOSE? BECAUSE NATURALLY, IF I

JUST CHANGED YOUR HAIR COLOR, I DON'T WANT TO TELL PEOPLE YOU'RE A FAKE

PERSON. BUT UNDER THE GUISE OF THIS CAPTURE-ALL I MAY HAVE TO?

MS. ROSENTHAL: AS I SAID, ONCE WE PASS THE LAW

THEN WHOEVER IS INVOLVED IN THE CREATION AND PRODUCTION OF THAT AD HAS

TO KNOW WHAT THE RULES AROUND IT ARE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO YOU TALK ABOUT -- JUST

GOING BACK TO, AGAIN, THE CAPTURE-ALL IS VERY CONFUSING AND THE INDUSTRY

125

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FEELS THE SAME WAY, WHICH IS WHY I BRING UP THESE QUESTIONS. A

SYNTHETIC PERFORMER, HOW IS THE PUBLIC SUPPOSED TO KNOW -- LET'S SAY I

CHANGED PITCH AND VOLUME OF A -- OF YOUR VOICE. THAT -- WOULD THAT

QUALIFY AS ALTERING?

MS. ROSENTHAL: MODIFICATIONS ON THE AUDIO ARE

EXCLUDED.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO IF I USE A COMPLETELY

FALSE AUDIO ADVERTISEMENT THAT PLAYS ON RADIO -- A -- A GENERATED ONE.

SORRY. A GENERATED AUDIO, NOT A REAL PERSON THAT THAT AUDIO'S ON RADIO.

I DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: CORRECT. IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION

7(A), IT SAYS THIS -- THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ADVERTISEMENTS AND

PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: AUDIO

ADVERTISEMENTS IS 7(A).

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO WHEN IT COMES TO

HUMAN-LIKE FEATURES, RIGHT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHATEVER SYNTHESIZE

NEED TO SEEM HUMAN-LIKE, RIGHT? IT NEEDS TO BE ALMOST LIKE TRICKERY IF

THEY'RE GONNA BE CONSIDERED A SYNTHETIC PERFORMER? WHO'S MAKING THE

DETERMINATION WHERE THE LINE IS BETWEEN NON-HUMAN-LIKE AND HUMAN-

LIKE? I THINK THAT THERE'S A WIDE-RANGING -- YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS PRETTY

SUBJECTIVE AS TO WHAT MAY SEEM HUMAN-LIKE AND NOT HUMAN-LIKE. IS A

CARTOON THAT SEEMS TOO HUMAN-LIKE GONNA BE AN ISSUE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: THE CREATOR AND PRODUCER, THEY

-- THEY WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RULES, AND ERR -- IF THEY'RE MAKING A

MISTAKE THEY SHOULD -- OR IF THEY'RE UNSURE THEY SHOULD ERR ON THE -- ON

126

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE SIDE OF CAUTION. AND ULTIMATELY, THE AG IS RESPONSIBLE FOR -- IF

THERE'S ANY LEGAL ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THEM.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: DOES THE AG'S OFFICE OR

HAVE THEY IN ANY WAY INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE OR

SPECIALITY TO SCRUB META DATA OF EVERY ADVERTISEMENT OUT THERE TO

UNDERSTAND WHERE AND HOW SYNTHETIC PERFORMERS, UNDER AN UNKNOWN

DEFINITION, ARE BEING USED?

MS. ROSENTHAL: I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST YEAR WE DID

A SIMILAR MEASURE WHEN IT COMES TO AI AND ELECTION ADVERTISING. SO

THE AG SHOULD HAVE STAFF THAT'S FAMILIAR WITH HOW TO DETECT WHAT'S REAL,

WHAT'S SYNTHETIC.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: WELL, I CAN ACTUALLY SPEAK

FIRSTHAND IN THAT EXPERIENCE. I'VE ACTUALLY CALLED INTO QUESTION THE

USAGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN AN ELECTION, AND I CAN SAY THERE WAS

NOT REALLY MUCH OF A RESOURCE THERE WHEN IT CAME TO ASSISTING AND

UNDERSTANDING HOW OR WHAT THAT PROTOCOL WOULD LOOK LIKE IN MAKING

THAT DETERMINATION WITH ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION PROVIDED FROM A

PARTICULAR PARTY. SO THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY WAY OF TELLING. THEY SAID,

WE DON'T KNOW. SO HOW ARE THEY GONNA KNOW HERE? THEY DON'T IN THE

WAY WE DID IT BEFORE AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA KNOW NOW? I'M NOT SURE.

IS THERE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE IN THE AG'S OFFICE? YOU'RE SO

CONFIDENT YOU'RE PUTTING SUCH A BROAD-BRUSH DEFINITION HERE THAT THEY'RE

JUST GONNA KNOW WHAT TO DO, HOW TO RECREATE THIS DEFINITION, DRAW THAT

LINE THAT YOU AND I ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND. THAT'S A BIG TASK.

MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, I -- I'D SAY I HAVE MORE

127

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FAITH IN THE AG'S OFFICE THAN -- THAN YOU DO. BUT IF YOU'VE NOTICED

OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS -- YES, SIX MONTHS -- WE HAVE PASSED ALL SORTS

OF BILLS THAT REQUIRE DIFFERENT AGENCIES, DIFFERENT BUREAUS TO EXECUTE

CERTAIN TASKS, TAKE UP CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES. AND THAT MEANS IF THEY

DO NOT HAVE AN EXPERT IN-HOUSE, THEY HAVE TO GET UP TO SPEED BECAUSE

WE'VE MADE THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING A LAW.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY.

LET'S TALK ABOUT A REAL-LIFE SCENARIO THAT'S HAPPENING

RIGHT NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, A PIECE OF IP. HER -- ITS -- ITS NAME IS

TATA, RIGHT? SHE'S THE FIRST-EVER SIGNED SYNTHETIC PERFORMER WHO WILL

PRODUCE MUSIC SYNTHETICALLY AND IS SIGNED TO A MAJOR RECORD LABEL.

NOW, IF TATA IS UNDER THIS LAW IN AN AUTO -- AUDIO-ONLY RECORDING ON

THE RADIO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT SHE'S NOT A REAL PERSON, RIGHT?

MS. ROSENTHAL: RIGHT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: BUT IF SHE'S IN A VISUAL

SOCIAL MEDIA AD FOR RADIO SONGS, WOULD SHE HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT SHE IS

NOT A REAL PERSON OR WOULD THE ADVERTISER?

MS. ROSENTHAL: THE ADVERTISER.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A

DISCLOSURE THAT THAT WASN'T A REAL PERSON.

MS. ROSENTHAL: YES.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO IN MUSIC VIDEOS. SO

NOW, ON THE RADIO NO ONE NEEDS TO KNOW --

MS. ROSENTHAL: CORRECT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: -- IF HER MUSIC VIDEO --

128

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. ROSENTHAL: IS THAT AN AD, THOUGH?

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IS IT AN AD? THEY COULD BE

PLAYING CLIPS AS ADVERTISEMENTS AS THEY DO WITH MUSIC VIDEOS.

MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, I MEAN, IF IT'S JUST MUSIC

THAT -- THIS BILL DOESN'T CONCERN THAT. THIS JUST CONCERNS COMMERCIAL

ADVERTISING.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO IN A COMMERCIAL

ADVERTISEMENT FOR TATA'S MUSIC VIDEO, THAT WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT

SHE'S NOT A REAL --

MS. ROSENTHAL: YES.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. IS THERE A REASON YOU

MADE A DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN JUST PURELY AUDIO AND VISUAL?

MS. ROSENTHAL: YES, WE DID. AND WE WANTED TO

ACCOMMODATE DIFFERENT CONCERNS THAT DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES HAD, AND THE

ADVERTISERS, ACTORS, BROADCASTERS, THEY ALL HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS AROUND

AUDIO. AND SO TO ACCOMMODATE THEM WE DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THE

RESPONSIBILITY TO DISCLOSE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. NOW, WHAT IF THERE

IS ALBUM ARTWORK WITH TATA, A SYNTHETICALLY-CREATED ARTIST --

MS. ROSENTHAL: IS THAT A -- IS THAT A REAL PERSON,

A REAL SCENARIO (INAUDIBLE/CROSS-TALK) --

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IT'S REAL IP THAT HAS REALLY

BEEN SIGNED AS A SYNTHETIC PERSON TO A RECORD LABEL. THAT'S WHY I USED

HER AS AN EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THIS IS -- IT'S RELEVANT.

MS. ROSENTHAL: OKAY. (INDISCERNIBLE) GOOD

129

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IMAGINATION, TOO.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: IF SHE HAS AN ALBUM COVER

WITH HER FACE ON IT, A SYNTHETICALLY-CREATED FACE, THAT WOULD -- WOULD

THAT TRIGGER IF THAT FACE IS USED IN ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE FUTURE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: I MEAN, IF IT'S USED IN

ADVERTISING, YES. HOWEVER, THERE IS AN EXEMPTION FOR EXPRESSIVE WORK.

SO THIS -- I'LL -- I'LL READ YOU SECTION 7(B) -- NO, SORRY, NOT 7(B).

(PAUSE)

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THERE IS AN EXEMPTION FOR

MS. ROSENTHAL: SO IT SAYS -- IT IS SECTION 2 -- I

DON'T KNOW, SECTION 4: "THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ADS IN

COMMERCIAL MATERIALS FOR EXPRESSIVE WORKS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED

TO, MOTION PICTURE, TV PROGRAMS, STREAMING CONTENT, DOCUMENTARIES,

VIDEO GAMES OR OTHER SIMILAR AUDIOVISUAL WORKS, PROVIDED THE USE OF A

SYNTHETIC PERFORMER IN THE AD OR PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL IS CONSISTENT

WITH ITS USE IN THE EXPRESSIVE WORK."

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO --

MS. ROSENTHAL: SO THAT IS GIVING CREATIVE LICENSE

THE ABILITY TO NOT BE IDENTIFIED AS A SYNTHETIC PERFORMER.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO THERE IS CREATIVE LICENSE.

SO IN ANY FORM -- SO LET'S SAY IF SHE IS A -- A FALSE -- FALSELY-CREATED

PERSON, A SYNTHETIC PERSON. SHE'S ADVERTISING FOR HER MUSIC, USING HER

-- ITS ARTISTIC LICENSE, WHATEVER THE LABEL THAT OWNS HER -- THE RIGHTS TO

HER IP. IS THAT ARTISTIC LICENSE THE USAGE OF HER --

130

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. ROSENTHAL: I WOULD SAY SO. YES.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. SO ESSENTIALLY, JUST

FOR THE RECORD, YOUR -- IT'S NOT YOUR BELIEF THAT ANY SYNTHETICALLY-CREATED

ARTISTS WOULD QUALIFY IN -- AS LONG AS THEY'RE PRODUCING SOME SORT OF

WORK, THEY WOULD NOT QUALIFY EVEN IF THEY'RE ADVERTISING?

MS. ROSENTHAL: IT -- IT WOULD BE EXPRESSIVE

WORK.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. WHAT'S EXPRESSIVE IF

NO HUMAN IS INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THAT EXPRESSION? THESE ARE

REALLY SERIOUS QUESTIONS WE MUST ASK BEFORE WE START TO REGULATE.

THAT'S WHY I ASK.

MS. ROSENTHAL: OKAY. EVERYTHING IN -- IN THE

SECTION THAT -- THAT I READ EARLIER WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT. YOU KNOW,

EXPRESSIVE AS IN MOTION PICTURES, TV PROGRAMS, STREAMING CONTENT,

DOCUMENTARIES, VIDEO GAMES, OTHER SIMILAR WORKS, PROVIDED THE USE IS

CONSISTENT WITH ITS USE IN THE EXPRESSIVE WORK. I MEAN, THE -- THE POINT

ISN'T TO -- IS TO MAKE THE CONSUMER AWARE THAT THIS IS CREATED.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: BUT AWARE SOMETIMES.

MS. ROSENTHAL: SO BUT IF IT'S EXPRESSIVE -- IF IT'S

AN EXPRESSIVE CREATION AS IN THAT -- THAT ALBUM COVER, THAT WOULD SEEM

TO ME TO BE EXEMPT. HOWEVER, IF THE CREATOR HAS ANY QUESTION OR ANY

DOUBT, THEY COULD SIMPLY ADD THAT DISCLOSURE, TATA, OR WHOMEVER, WAS

CREATED BY SYNTHETIC MEDIA.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: NOW, WHAT WOULD THAT

DISCLOSURE LOOK LIKE? WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO SAY SPECIFICALLY?

131

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, THAT IS UP TO THE PRODUCER.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO THEY COULD SAY -- LIKE

MOST SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS DO PROVIDE YOU A BUTTON YOU CAN PRESS TO

SAY THAT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WAS USED IN THE CREATION OF THIS

ADVERTISEMENT. RIGHT? WOULD THAT BE SUFFICIENT OR WOULD THEY NEED TO

ACTUALLY TARGET AND SAY THAT A SYNTHETIC PERFORMER IS THERE? BECAUSE IF

I JUST SAY AI IS USED IN THE CREATION OF AN AD, HOW IS SOMEONE SUPPOSED

TO KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT A REAL PERSON? THAT THEY DIDN'T JUST USE IT TO

CREATE SUBTITLES.

MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT -- IT'S

NOT LIKE THE WORDS ARE NOT LAID OUT HERE; HOWEVER, THE INTENT IS CLEAR.

SO AS LONG AS THEY ADHERE TO THE INTENT, WHICH IS TO INFORM THE VIEWER

THAT THIS IS A CREATED PERSON. SO WE GIVE THEM LEEWAY IN HOW TO SAY IT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY.

WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO AMENDING THE BILL TO INCLUDE A

SAFE HARBOR FOR CLEARLY ARTISTIC, FICTIONAL OR HUMOROUS USE OF GENERATIVE

MEDIA WHERE THERE IS NO CONSUMER DECEPTION AND IS REASONABLY

POSSIBLE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU

WOULD SAY THERE'S NO CONSUMER DECEPTION; HOWEVER, I'M -- I'M ALWAYS

OPEN TO DISCUSSION.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY.

WOULDN'T A MORE TAILORED DISCLOSURE LIMITED TO

IMPERSONATIONS OF REAL PEOPLE OR DECEPTIVE USE ACHIEVE THE SAME

TRANSPARENCY GOALS WITHOUT CREATING THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO NEW

132

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YORK'S CREATIVE ECONOMY? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW A LOT OF THE CREATIVES IN

THIS SPACE ARE QUESTIONING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MEET A, AS WE'VE

LEARNED THROUGH THIS DEBATE, OFTEN SUBJECTIVE MEANING OF THIS -- THIS

NEW BAR THAT YOU'VE CREATED?

MS. ROSENTHAL: WE THINK THAT THE DESCRIPTIONS

AND THE NARROW SCOPE PROVIDES ENOUGH GUIDANCE FOR THEM TO ACCURATELY

FOLLOW THE LAW. AND -- AND BY THE WAY, IF WE, YOU KNOW, SAID, USE

THESE EXACT WORDS, YOU PROBABLY WOULD SAY, WHY'D YOU PICK THAT

WORD? YOU SHOULD HAVE PICKED A DIFFERENT WORD. SO THIS GIVES THEM

LEEWAY, WHICH I THINK THEY APPRECIATE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. BUT I DON'T -- THEN

LET'S GO BACK TO THE CIVIL PENALTIES. SO IS THERE -- IS THERE - CAN I SAY

I'VE BEEN HARMED IF I KNOW SOMEBODY HAS BEEN USING A SYNTHETIC AD

THAT I WASN'T AWARE WAS SYNTHETIC AS A PRIVATE RIGHT TO ACTION HERE?

MS. ROSENTHAL: THERE IS NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF

ACTION HERE.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: SO THIS IS JUST THE AG CAN

SUE ON --

MS. ROSENTHAL: CORRECT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: -- BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF

NEW YORK?

MS. ROSENTHAL: YES.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: AND IN THAT CASE, COULD WE

JUST HONE IN ON HOW THAT WILL WORK? WHAT DO YOU SEE AS HAPPENING IF

I'M GOOGLE AND I PUT IN AN AD AND I DON'T DISCLOSE PROPERLY? IS THIS

133

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SOMETHING THAT WE THINK WILL BE PER OCCURRENCE, AS IN EVERY TIME

EYEBALLS SEE SOMETHING, OR IS THIS PER OCCURRENCE EVERY TIME AN AD

CAMPAIGN IS RUN? OR IS IT EVERY PLATFORM IT'S ON?

MS. ROSENTHAL: WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS -- WE --

WE GIVE THE AG THE AUTHORITY TO GO AFTER THEM. BUT, YOU KNOW, AS WITH

ALL LAWS, HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SUCH A HUGE PENALTY OR A

HUGE FINE FOR THEM TO FOLLOW THE LAW. AND -- AND SO THAT'S THE CASE

HERE, TOO. IF THE AG CHOOSES TO PURSUE ANY KIND OF ACTION, THEN, YOU

KNOW, THEY WILL DO THAT.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: OKAY. THANK YOU.

ON THE BILL, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: ON THE BILL.

MR. BLUMENCRANZ: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION,

LIKE SOME OTHERS WE'VE SEEN THIS YEAR, BUT SOME THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER

THE COURSE THE LAST FEW YEARS, SEEMING TO TRY AND TACKLE A PARTICULAR

EVOLVING ISSUE IN THE WORLD OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CREATIVE SPACES,

IN VISUAL AND AUDIO ARTS, IT -- IT'S HARD TO PINPOINT HOW AND WHAT WE CAN

DO TO TRY AND MAKE SURE WE CAN PROTECT CONSUMERS. BUT ONE THING IS

FOR SURE; LEGISLATION LIKE THIS THAT'S -- WITH NO OFFENSE TO THE SPONSOR

BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A LAUDABLE GOAL TO DISCLOSE TO INDIVIDUALS -- SEEMS A

LITTLE BIT HALF-BAKED. I'VE -- I'VE DEALT WITH THE AG'S OFFICE IN A -- IN A

SIMILAR MATTER, AND IT -- IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE NEW YORK IS FULLY READY,

WILLING AND PREPARED TO MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS. ESPECIALLY

CONSIDERING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO COME UP WITH THEIR

OWN REGULATIONS, AND ANY NATIONAL CAMPAIGN AND ADVERTISING MAY BE

134

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MORE DIFFICULT TO PINPOINT NEW YORK'S SPECIAL DEFINITION VERSUS WHAT

WILL BE A FEDERAL DEFINITION.

THERE'S A REASON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LOOKING AT

TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO EVEN LEGISLATE LIKE THIS, BECAUSE IT IS GONNA

CREATE SO MANY PROBLEMS FOR OUR BUSINESSES, FOR OUR CONSUMERS. IT'S

GONNA CREATE A BAR THAT'S GOING TO MINIMIZE OUR ABILITY TO REALLY WARN

CONSUMERS WHEN THERE'S A SERIOUS PROBLEM IF WE'RE JUST WARNING THEM

ABOUT EVERYTHING. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT,

AND I THINK THAT NOT KNOWING WHEN SOMEONE IS A SYNTHETIC INDIVIDUAL

TRYING TO SELL YOU SOMETHING VERSUS A REAL PERSON IS ONE OF THEM. BUT I

DON'T THINK THAT THIS BILL ACHIEVES THE GOAL IT SEEKS TO ACHIEVE, BECAUSE

IT SEEMS TO DO AN AWFUL LOT, AND THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE AN AWFUL LOT OF

PROBLEMS.

SO IN MY OPINION I -- I DON'T THINK IT'S READY FOR THE

BOARD YET, BUT I DO THINK THAT IT'S -- IT'S WORTH A LONGER CONVERSATION AND

SOME COLLABORATIVE WORK, WE COULD GET THIS DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: READ THE

LAST SECTION.

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

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: A PARTY

VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

135

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MINORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON

THIS LEGISLATION. SHOULD ANYONE WISH TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, NOW

WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO AT YOUR SEATS.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: MS.

HYNDMAN.

MS. HYNDMAN: MADAM SPEAKER, THE MAJORITY

PARTY WILL BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. SHOULD

ANY MEMBERS WISH TO VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE, THEY MAY DO SO AT THEIR

DESK.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: THE CLERK

WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MS. ROSENTHAL TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. ROSENTHAL: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE.

AI AND -- AND SUCH TECHNOLOGY IS RAPIDLY EVOLVING,

AND IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO TRY TO KEEP UP IN -- TO KEEP UP SO THAT THE

AVERAGE VIEWER, THE CONSUMER HAS THE ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT IS REAL AND

WHAT IS FAKE. REALITY IS ALTERED SO OFTEN IN ALL KINDS OF WAYS, IN ALL

KINDS OF PLATFORMS. AND SO THE STATE HAS A STRONG INTEREST IN PROTECTING

CONSUMERS SO THEY WILL KNOW WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS NOT. I THINK THAT

ADVERTISEMENTS THAT SAY, THIS WAS CREATED BY AI ACTUALLY BOLSTERS A

CONSUMER'S TRUST IN THE ADVERTISEMENT, THAN IN THE PRODUCT. WE'RE NOT

136

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TRYING TO TRICK YOU OR PULL A FAST ONE. WE'RE DISCLOSING THIS IS NOT A REAL

PERSON. AND I THINK THAT WILL HELP THEM, AND I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR THAT

CONSUMERS KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT AN ACTOR. THEY'RE NOT

LOOKING AT A REALLY PERSON. THEY'RE LOOKING AT A SYNTHETIC OR DEEP FAKE

IMAGE, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE.

SO I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: MS.

ROSENTHAL IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 14, RULES REPORT NO. 715, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S00073-A, RULES REPORT

NO. 715, SENATOR KAVANAGH (A04641-A, GLICK, COLTON, OTIS, SIMONE,

ROSENTHAL, DE LOS SANTOS, REYES, DINOWITZ, SIMON, STERN, JACOBSON,

BORES, ROZIC, RAJKUMAR, STECK, MCMAHON, ANDERSON, KIM, SHIMSKY,

LUNSFORD, SANTABARBARA, EPSTEIN, BARRETT, FORREST, TAYLOR, CLARK,

BICHOTTE HERMELYN, R. CARROLL, PAULIN, SEAWRIGHT, SHRESTHA, SLATER,

CUNNINGHAM, SAYEGH, MAGNARELLI, LEVENBERG, WOERNER, RAGA, VANEL,

GONZ LEZ-ROJAS, BENEDETTO, JACKSON, RIVERA, TAPIA, JONES, STIRPE,

LUPARDO, MEEKS, CONRAD, LEE, BRONSON, BUTTENSCHON, PHEFFER AMATO,

DAVILA, BURKE, FALL, HUNTER, WILLIAMS, EACHUS, RAMOS, BURDICK,

MAMDANI, ALVAREZ, KELLES, RA, GIBBS, BLUMENCRANZ, MCDONOUGH,

DILAN, MCDONALD, SCHIAVONI, KASSAY, HEVESI). AN ACT TO AMEND THE

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, IN RELATION TO RECHARGEABLE BATTERY

137

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

RECYCLING.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: AN

EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. GLICK.

MS. GLICK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE PURPOSE OF

THE BILL IS TO MAXIMIZE THE REMOVAL OF UNWANTED AND DEPLETED

RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES FROM THE SOLID WASTE STREAM, AND UPDATE OUR

EXISTING RECHARGEABLE BATTERY COLLECTION SYSTEM TO INCLUDE WHAT HAS

BEEN EXCLUDED AT THE TIME, WHICH DATES BACK TO 2010, THE PROLIFERATION

OF E-BIKE BATTERIES AND E-SCOOTER BATTERIES.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: MR. DURSO.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

MS. GLICK: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MS. GLICK. SO, IS THIS BILL

FOR NEW YORK CITY ALONE OR IS THIS A STATEWIDE BILL?

MS. GLICK: IT WOULD BE STATEWIDE. THE PROGRAM

THAT EXISTS NOW FOR RECYCLING -- COLLECTING AND RECYCLING BATTERIES IS

STATEWIDE. IT IS -- IT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED E-BIKE BATTERIES AT THE TIME

AND E-SCOOTER BATTERIES, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT IS NOW A MUCH LARGER PART OF

THE MARKET. AND THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE -- WOULD SAY THAT SELLERS

COULDN'T -- RETAILERS COULDN'T SELL IT UNLESS THE MANUFACTURER WAS

PARTICIPATING IN A COLLECTION PROGRAM THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED. AND THE

138

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HOPE THERE IS THAT WE WOULD GET SOME OF THE GRAY MARKET BATTERIES OUT

OF THE SYSTEM WHICH, IN MANY INSTANCES, ARE EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC.

MR. DURSO: SO IS THIS BILL SPECIFICALLY JUST FOR

E-BIKE BATTERIES AND SCOOTER BATTERIES, OR IS THIS ALL LITHIUM-ION

RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES?

MS. GLICK: WELL, IT UPDATES THE ENTIRE BATTERY

PROGRAM WHICH, AS I SAID, STARTED BACK IN 2010. AND THIS UPDATES IT IN

-- IN A FEW WAYS BECAUSE IT UP -- UPDATES THE PROGRAM PLAN TO INCLUDE

SAFE AND PROMPT COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF BATTERIES. AND THAT'S -- THAT

HAS BEEN ONE OF THE CONCERNS AND FRUSTRATIONS FOR I THINK RETAILERS OF

ANY KIND OF BATTERIES.

MR. DURSO: SO WITH THAT, THE COLLECTION PORTION OF

IT. SO NOW IF -- IS THIS ONLY FOR BUSINESSES THAT SELL THOSE PRODUCTS --

MS. GLICK: YES.

MR. DURSO: -- AND THAT --

MS. GLICK: YES. AND IT -- IT ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY

REFERS TO TAKING BACK BATTERIES THAT ARE OF THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE AND

FUNCTION. SO IF SOMEBODY SELLS BATTERIES TO ME THAT ARE AAS OR AAAS

AND DOESN'T SELL BIKE BATTERIES, THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE THEM

BACK. IT IS FOR THOSE RETAILERS THAT SELL THE SAME SIZE, SHAPE AND WEIGHT

FUNCTION OF BATTERY.

MR. DURSO: SO WHEN YOU SAY FUNCTION, IF I'M A

RETAILER, SMALL BUSINESS, A BIGGER BUSINESS AND I SELL SCOOTERS THAT HAVE

A LITHIUM-ION BATTERY AS -- IS WHAT POWERS IT, DO I HAVE TO TAKE JUST

THOSE BATTERIES BACK THAT I HAVE SOLD, OR DO I HAVE TO TAKE BACK IN ALL

139

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BATTERIES IF SOMEONE WANTS TO, BASICALLY LIKE YOU SAID, KEEP IT OUT OF

THE WASTE STREAM. I'M A SMALL BUSINESS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOMEONE IN

THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS FOUR E-BIKE BATTERIES THAT HAVE GONE BAD.

DO I HAVE TO TAKE THEM IN?

MS. GLICK: THERE IS A DAILY MAXIMUM OF TEN. BUT

IF YOU ARE SELLING A BATTERY THAT IS THE SAME SIZE, SHAPE AND FUNCTION,

YES, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TAKE IT BACK, BUT THERE IS A LIMITATION ON

-- ON THE NUMBER.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. SO IT'S IF -- I DIDN'T HAVE TO SELL

IT, BUT THERE IS A LIMITATION ON HOW MANY I CAN TAKE IN. IS THAT PER DAY?

MS. GLICK: YES.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. AND YOU SAID THE NUMBER IS TEN

PER DAY.

MS. GLICK: YES.

MR. DURSO: WHAT -- WHAT IN THIS BILL -- OR WHAT ARE

THE CURRENT PROTOCOLS FOR THEM STORING THE BATTERIES THAT THEN THEY ARE

TAKING IN?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. GLICK: THERE -- THIS WOULD REQUIRE UPDATED

REGS TO ENSURE THAT THERE WOULD BE THE SAFE COLLECTION, DISPOSAL AND

WOULD REQUIRE THAT MANUFACTURERS OR THE PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY

ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS 2 -- CALL2RECYCLE IS THE INDUSTRY-CREATED EPR.

THAT WOULD BE THEIR -- THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THE COLLECTION,

AND IT WOULD -- ALSO, DEC WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE AN UPDATED BATTERY

COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION AND RECYCLING PLAN, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE

140

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TRAINING OF ANY STAFF ON THE PROPER STORAGE.

MR. DURSO: SO -- SO IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU'RE

SAYING IS THAT ONCE THIS BILL IS PASSED, ANYBODY THAT WORKS INSIDE ONE OF

THESE BIGGER BUSINESSES OR SMALL BUSINESSES NOW HAVE TO GET TRAINED ON

RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT THE DEC WILL COME UP WITH ON HOW TO STORE

AND TAKE IN THESE BATTERIES?

MS. GLICK: WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S

PROBABLY A GREAT DEAL OF TRAINING NEW EMPLOYEES FACE ABOUT A NUMBER

OF THINGS, AND ONE ADDITIONAL PIECE WOULD BE WHERE TO PROPERLY STORE

THESE WHILE THEY'RE WAITING FOR COLLECTION.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. SO THERE IS NO PLAN IN PLACE

NOW. IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE PROTOCOLS HAVEN'T BEEN FORMULATED BY THE

DEC ON HOW THESE STORES ARE GOING TO COLLECT THEM, STORE THEM AND

WHAT THE TRAINING IS GOING TO BE FOR THESE BUSINESSES THAT ARE REQUIRED

TO TAKE THESE BATTERIES IN AND NOW ARE GONNA HAVE TO GO FOR TRAINING?

THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING SET YET, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: WELL, THERE IS AN EXISTING PROGRAM. SO

PRESUMABLY, EVERY BUSINESS THAT IS TAKING BACK BATTERIES NOW SHOWS

THEIR EMPLOYEES WHERE THEY SHOULD BE PUT AND HOW -- AND WHO COMES

TO COLLECT THEM, ET CETERA. SO THIS WOULD BE JUST THE UPDATE BECAUSE

THESE ARE A LARGER BATTERY, FOR THE MOST PART, AND THEY WOULD BE -- THE

ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND THE ADDITIONAL UPDATED REGS, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT

PART OF THE CURRENT REGS, THAT'S THE UPDATED PART OF THE REGULATIONS. AND

WITH THAT, ANYBODY WHO IS SELLING WOULD SEE THE NEW REGULATIONS AND

PRESUMABLY WOULD WANT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO KNOW WHAT TO DO. I -- I --

141

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: UNDERSTOOD. BUT IS THERE MONEY IN

THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION FOR THE TRAINING? BECAUSE I MEAN I DIDN'T SEE

ANY AND OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOW PUTTING ANOTHER MANDATE ON --

MS. GLICK: NO, NO, NO, NO.

MR. DURSO: -- ALL BUSINESSES AND SMALL BUSINESSES

THAT ARE NOW REQUIRED TO TAKE THIS IN, AND THEY HAVE TO GO GET TRAINING

AND LEARN HOW TO STORE IT. AND I'LL GET TO HOW THEY'RE STORING IT NEXT.

BUT IS THERE ANY FUNDING IN THIS AT ALL?

MS. GLICK: WELL, THE MANUFACTURERS ARE THE ONES

WHO PAY FOR THE EPR, AND SO THIS IS AN EXISTING PROGRAM. THEY HAVE

ASKED FOR THE -- BECAUSE GETTING -- TWO THINGS; ONE, GETTING THE

MATERIALS BACK ARE GOOD FOR THE MANUFACTURERS; TWO, IT IS GOOD FOR

THOSE INVOLVED IN THE SOLID WASTE STREAM BUSINESS WANT THOSE OUT OF THE

WASTE STREAM. AND SO, BOTH THE MANUFACTURERS AND THE SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT FOLKS ARE HAPPY TO SEE THESE BATTERIES JOIN THE OTHER

BATTERIES IN BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM. AND SO THE

MANUFACTURERS WILL, AS THEY DO NOW, INDICATE PROTOCOLS FOR HOW THEY

WANT THEM TO BE COLLECTED IN ORDER TO HAVE THEIR -- THEIR COLLECTION AND

TRANSPORTATION IN A MANNER AND FASHION THAT WORKS FOR THEM.

MR. DURSO: SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE -- WE'RE

COUNTING ON THE MANUFACTURERS TO TELL THOSE WHO ARE SELLING THESE

BATTERIES AND THE -- THE VEHICLES THAT USE THESE BATTERIES ON WHAT THE

PROPER PROTOCOLS ARE. BUT --

MS. GLICK: WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN EXISTING

PROGRAM, AND THIS IS A -- A -- AN EXPANSION OF A PARTICULAR TYPE OF

142

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ADDITIONAL BATTERY, BUT THE PROGRAM EXISTS. THE MANUFACTURERS ALREADY

HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE RETAILERS THAT ARE PART OF THE PROGRAM.

THE DEC WILL ADD TO THIS. AND SPECIFICALLY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK --

I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU, BUT I CAN'T SEE THIS IF I DON'T --

MR. DURSO: THAT'S OKAY, MA'AM.

MS. GLICK: -- TAKE THE GLASSES OFF. SO, APOLOGIES.

ADDITIONALLY, THE DEC IN PRODUCING ITS REGULATIONS THAT ARE UPDATING

THIS PROGRAM -- AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE OFFICE OF FIRE PREVENTION

AND CONTROL, AND THE DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY

SERVICES, AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK -- WITHIN

180 DAYS -- IT'S SIX MONTHS, NOT -- NOT, YOU KNOW, THE DAY AFTER -- WILL

PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THE SAFE STORAGE OF

RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES THAT MINIMIZES THE RISK OF FIRES, AND SUCH RULES

ALSO, AT A MINIMUM, REQUIRE RETAILERS TO COORDINATE WITH THE BATTERY

MANUFACTURER OR A COMBINATION OF MANUFACTURERS WORKING TOGETHER,

WHICH IS THE 2 -- CALL2RECYCLE GROUP, TO REGULARLY REMOVE BATTERIES

FROM RETAIL LOCATIONS AND INFORM ALL EMPLOYEES WHO HANDLE -- NOW

MAYBE SOME PEOPLE ONLY DO THE CASH REGISTER -- BUT THOSE EMPLOYEES

WHO HANDLE OR HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING BATTERIES, ABOUT THE

PROPER HANDLING AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES INCLUDING FIRE-RELATED

HAZARDS, APPROPRIATE TO THE TYPE OR TYPES OF BATTERIES HANDLED BY THE

RETAILER.

MR. DURSO: SO --

MS. GLICK: SO THAT'S --

MR. DURSO: AND I UNDERSTAND. AND THANK YOU FOR

143

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CLARIFYING THAT. BUT MY QUESTION IS, CURRENTLY WITH THE CURRENT PROGRAM

THAT'S GOING ON, HOW DO THESE MANU -- HOW DO THE -- EXCUSE ME, THE

RETAILERS STORE THOSE BATTERIES WHEN THEY COME IN?

MS. GLICK: WELL, ACCORDING TO WHATEVER -- RIGHT

NOW, THERE IS -- THERE -- ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE EXISTING BATTERIES?

MR. DURSO: SURE. LET'S -- BECAUSE THIS IS NEW, AND

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE IS NO PROTOCOLS AND SYSTEM IN PLACE IN THIS

BILL. IT'S GONNA BE UP TO THE DEC LATER TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO STORE THESE

BATTERIES, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: WELL, CURRENTLY, THE BATTERIES THAT ARE

PART OF THE EXISTING PROGRAM SINCE 2010 HAVE BEEN STORING THEM IN

ACCORDANCE WITH WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE COME.

MR. DURSO: WHAT ARE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS?

HOW ARE THEY STORING THEM NOW?

MS. GLICK: THAT IS -- CURRENTLY, THAT IS BETWEEN

RETAILERS AND -- AND THE MANUFACTURERS.

MR. DURSO: SO, MS. GLICK, SO THAT -- THAT IS MY

BIGGEST CONCERN HERE, IS BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING A -- ESSENTIALLY ADDING

ON TO -- WE'RE MAKING A NEW LAW ON HOW BATTERIES ARE RECYCLED, TAKING

IT OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM, WHICH I, BY THE WAY, AGREE ON 100 PERCENT.

THEY NEED TO STAY OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM. THEY ARE DANGEROUS. THEY

DO POLLUTE OUR ENVIRONMENT. SO WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO RECYCLE

THEM. MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE MAKING A LAW HERE THAT IS SAYING TO

RETAILERS, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THESE BATTERIES IN, AND WE'RE NOT TELLING

THEM HOW THEY'RE GONNA STORE THEM, WHAT THE SAFETY PROTOCOLS ARE FOR

144

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THEM. OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE SEEN, ESPECIALLY IN NEW YORK CITY, THE

AMOUNT OF FIRES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE OF LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES,

ESPECIALLY E-BIKES AND E-SCOOTERS. AND THERE'S HUNDREDS UPON

HUNDREDS OF FIRES EACH YEAR. AND A LOT OF THESE STORES THAT ARE --

ESPECIALLY IN NEW YORK CITY, ESPECIALLY THE MOM-AND-POPS, ARE IN A

MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH APARTMENTS UPSTAIRS. SO DON'T YOU FEEL THAT

THIS IS A LITTLE DANGEROUS FOR SOME OF THESE STORES TO BE HOUSING THESE

BATTERIES INSIDE A BUILDING THAT HAS PEOPLE LIVING ABOVE IT?

MS. GLICK: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S BE CLEAR. WE

HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE, THE REPAIR OR THE CHARGING IN ANY OF

THOSE LOCATIONS CURRENTLY.

NOW, I BELIEVE THAT MANY OF THE FIRES, WHICH ARE

DREADFUL. I'VE HAD THEM IN MY DISTRICT, SO I AM AWARE OF THEIR

DANGEROUS NATURE. THEY ARE CURRENTLY USUALLY THE RESULT OF CHARGING;

CHARGING PERHAPS ON A POWER STRIP. PERHAPS THE BATTERY IS AN

OFF-MARKET BATTERY. AND THOSE THINGS ARE DANGEROUS. CLEARLY, THAT IS

THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS NOT CREATE A

WHOLE NEW THING, BUT JUST EXPAND AN EXISTING PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN

VERY EFFECTIVE. THAT MANUFACTURERS ARE -- AND RETAILERS ALREADY HAVE

ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS. THOSE THAT DO NOT YET HAVE A RELATIONSHIP

BECAUSE THEY ONLY SELL E-BIKE BATTERIES WILL BE, I BELIEVE, HAPPY TO HAVE

THE MANUFACTURERS WORK WITH THEM TO TAKE THEM BACK AND HANDLE THEM

WITH THE PROTOCOLS THAT BOTH THE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS AND THE

DEPARTMENT WILL, IN FACT, LOOK AT AND WILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDNY

AND THE OFFICE OF FIRE PREVENTION PROVIDE A SAFER PROCESS GOING

145

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FORWARD.

MR. DURSO: MS. GLICK, BUT -- BUT HERE'S MY

CONCERN: SIX MONTHS FROM THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL YOU SAID IT WILL BE A

REQUIREMENT FOR THESE STORES, REGARDLESS IF THEY ARE A STANDALONE

COMMERCIAL BUILDING. IF IT'S MIXED-USE. IF THEY'RE WITHIN 50 FEET OF

HOUSING. ANY -- ANYWHERE IN NEW YORK STATE, THAT THEY ARE NOW

REQUIRED TO TAKE THESE BATTERIES IN WITH NO PROTOCOLS IN PLACE OF HOW TO

STORE THEM.

NOW, IF YOU ARE WORKING ON A CONSTRUCTION SITE AND

YOU HAVE FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS OR GASES THAT YOU'RE USING FOR A -- FOR A

TORCH, THEY HAVE TO BE STORED IN VERY SPECIFIC CONTAINERS, BOXES THAT

WILL CONTAIN A BLAST, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT WAY, OBVIOUSLY IT'S SAFE

AROUND, THAT IT'S SAFE FOR THE OTHER BUILDINGS AROUND THE SURROUNDING

AREAS ARE SAFE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL. AND,

AGAIN, WE HAVE MANY CONCERNS FROM THE UFA -- WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY THE

UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY -- THAT THE RULES

AND -- THAT ARE IN THIS BILL ARE NOT ENOUGH TO PROTECT THOSE THAT POSSIBLY

LIVE ABOVE THESE BUILDINGS THAT ARE TAKING THE BATTERIES IN OR THE

SURROUNDING AREAS. SO, I MEAN -- AND AGAIN, ALONG WITH THEM --

BECAUSE I'VE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM -- THEY AGREE WITH THE

IDEA OF THE BILL. LISTEN, AS A FORMER SANITATION WORKER, I AGREE WITH THE

IDEA OF THE BILL; GET IT OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM. FIND A WAY TO RECYCLE IT.

THE PROBLEM IS, IF YOU -- AS YOU SAID, YOU HAVE A LIMIT OF TAKING TEN

BATTERIES IN A DAY. IF YOU HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS, THEY MIGHT JUST

THROWN THEM UNDER THE COUNTER FOR TWO WEEKS.

146

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. GLICK: WELL, I WOULD CERTAINLY -- I -- I -- I

BELIEVE THAT THIS DOES REQUIRE THAT RETAILERS SHOULD -- ARE REQUIRED TO

INFORM ALL EMPLOYEES WHO ACTUALLY ARE INVOLVED IN EITHER HANDLING OR

MANAGING THE HANDLING OF THE COLLECTION AND STORAGE TO HAVE -- BE

INSTRUCTED IN THE BEST SAFETY PROTOCOLS, WHICH WILL BE THE RESULT OF

REGULATIONS AND ADVICE FROM THE MANUFACTURERS.

MR. DURSO: AGREED. BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THE

REGULATIONS YET, AND WE'RE WAIT -- AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WAIT FOR

THEM TO MAKE THOSE REGULATIONS. AGAIN, MY CONCERN IS IF -- IF -- AND --

AND WHO'S FOLLOWING UP ON IT? I MEAN, WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF THESE

STORES NOW ALL ACROSS NEW YORK STATE THAT ARE SELLING E-BIKES AND

SCOOTERS AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE THOSE BATTERIES IN, WHERE NOW

ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES NEED TRAINING THAT WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT YET.

THERE'S GONNA BE A PROTOCOL IN PLACE TO STORE THEM, WHICH WE HAVEN'T

FIGURED OUT YET. AND WE'VE HAD, I DON'T KNOW, LET'S GO WITH 277 FIRES IN

NEW YORK CITY IN 2024 DUE TO LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES BEING STORED

INDOORS; 268 IN 2023. AND THE FDNY AND THE FIRE COMMISSIONER

HAVE DONE TELEVISION ADS AND RADIO ADS, PSAS, SAYING DO NOT STORE

THESE BATTERIES INDOORS. AND AS YOU SAID, THESE BATTERIES ARE EITHER BAD,

NOT WORKING PROPERLY. THEY'RE ACTUALLY ON THEIR WAY OUT. THEY'RE

DANGEROUS TO BEGIN WITH. AND WE'RE ASKING THEM TO TAKE THEM IN

WITHOUT ANY RULES AND REGULATIONS OF HOW TO STORE IT, AND THE PROPER

TRAINING, IF IT'S GOTTA BE IN A METAL BOX, IF IT'S GOTTA BE OUTSIDE. I'M JUST

CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY CONCERNS FOR ALL THOSE IN THE SURROUNDING

AREAS. AND UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE SAW, I MEAN THERE WAS JUST ONE IN THE

147

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BRONX WHICH WAS A BIG CASE WHERE SOMEONE WAS STORING AN E-BIKE

INSIDE THEIR BUILDING, CAUGHT FIRE AND A GENTLEMAN PASSED AWAY. WE'VE

HAD A NUMBER OF DEATHS THROUGHOUT THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, JUST

BECAUSE, AGAIN, PEOPLE GET COMFORTABLE. PEOPLE AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT

IT. EVERY TIME OF THE YEAR IS DIFFERENT MONTHS. IT'S -- WE'RE MAKING A

LAW WITHOUT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FIRST.

MS. GLICK: WELL, THAT IS WHAT WE DO IN MANY

INSTANCES. I MEAN, WE DON'T -- THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE BASED ON A

STATUTE THAT IS ENACTED BY THIS BODY. THAT HAPPENS IN, YOU KNOW,

PROBABLY A DOZEN OR MORE TIMES A WEEK. SO THIS IS NOT NEW. THE FACT

THAT ABSENT DOING ANYTHING, THESE BATTERIES ARE WHEREVER THE HECK THEY

WANNA BE, AND PEOPLE MAY DECIDE TO KEEP SOME EXTRA ONES THAT ARE

DEPLETED AND SHOULD GO TO BEING STORED PROPERLY CURRENTLY IN THEIR

APARTMENT. WHERE POTENTIALLY, SOMEBODY SAYS, OH, LET'S JUST THROW IT

IN THE GARBAGE, IN WHICH CASE, IT GOES INTO THE GARBAGE TRUCK AND THE

DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION IS NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT --

MR. DURSO: OF COURSE NOT.

MS. GLICK: -- BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN FIRES IN FIRE

TRUCKS. THERE HAVE BEEN FIRES IN MUNICIPAL WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS; ONE

BURNED DOWN UPSTATE. THIS IS -- YOUR -- YOUR SOLUTION OR YOUR CONCERN

ESSENTIALLY SAYS LET'S KEEP THE STATUS QUO, WHICH IS THAT THEY'RE NOT

BEING COLLECTED PROPERLY. THEY ARE BEING WILLY-NILLY NOT STORED ONE

WAY OR ANOTHER. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE AN EXPANSION OF AN

EXISTING PROGRAM THAT COLLECTS THESE MATERIALS. THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ALREADY SAYS THAT ABOUT 80 PERCENT OF OUR

148

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SOLID WASTE HAS SOME MONETARY VALUE. THESE BATTERIES SHOULD BE

COLLECTED, RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER WHERE THEY CAN, IN FACT,

RETRIEVE SOME OF THE USABLE MATERIAL FROM IT.

MR. DURSO: I AGREE.

MS. GLICK: AND IT CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T BE OUT THERE.

LOOK, I -- I APPRECIATE THE CONCERN. I SPENT SEVERAL YEARS WORKING IN A

FACTORY WHERE WE HAD FLAMMABLE MATERIALS. WE USED RAGS THAT COULD,

IN FACT, CONTAIN THOSE MATERIALS. AND THERE WAS, IN FACT -- IT DIDN'T TAKE

A WHOLE A LOT OF MAJOR TRAINING. PEOPLE WERE TOLD AT THE END OF THE DAY,

THE -- THE CANISTERS OF MATERIALS WENT IN THE FIREBOX. AS YOU WERE

USING RAGS, THEY WENT IN THE DISPOSAL BOX. IT WASN'T EXACTLY GOING

AWAY FOR TWO WEEKS FOR SOME SORT OF MAJOR TRAINING. PEOPLE WHO ARE

RETAILERS, WHO GET THE INFORMATION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS, WILL GET IN

REGULATIONS THAT WILL BE IN SYNC WITH THE CONCERNS OF MANUFACTURERS.

AND THEY WILL JUST TELL THEIR -- THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE CHARGED WITH

TAKING THESE BACK OR MANAGING THE TAKING OF THEM BACK, WHERE TO PUT

THEM SO THEY ARE AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE.

MR. DURSO: AGREED. AND -- AND -- AND, MS. GLICK,

I AGREE WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY --

MS. GLICK: IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE IT, SORRY.

MR. DURSO: -- THAT THESE THINGS NEED TO BE -- I'M

SORRY, MA'AM?

MS. GLICK: IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE IT.

MR. DURSO: I KNOW -- I -- I --

MS. GLICK: I APOLOGIZE.

149

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: I -- I AGREE WITH THE IDEA OF IT. THE

PROBLEM IS THE APPLICATION IS TERRIBLE. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE,

UNFORTUNATELY, DOING THE WORK IF ONE OF THESE BATTERIES GO ON FIRE INSIDE

SOMEONE'S HOME, INSIDE A BUSINESS THAT HAS HOMES ABOVE IT, WHICH ARE

THE -- IN THIS CASE, AND I -- I HAVE THE PAPERWORK HERE FROM THE

FIREFIGHTERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

SO WHAT DO WE SAY TO THOSE THAT WE'RE NOW CHARGING WITH COMING IN

AND RESCUING US IN A FIRE? ARE WE NOT TAKING THEIR IDEAS INTO ACCOUNT?

MS. GLICK: I APPRECIATE THAT. I MET WITH THEM. I

TALKED TO THEM.

MR. DURSO: YES, MA'AM.

MS. GLICK: WE WENT BACK AND FORTH. THEIR

RECOMMENDATION THAT IT NOT BE IN ANY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OR WITHIN 50

FEET OF IT PRETTY MUCH SAID YOU COULDN'T COLLECT THEM IN NEW YORK CITY,

WHICH IS NOT A SOLUTION.

MR. DURSO: BUT THIS BILL IS NOT JUST FOR NEW YORK

CITY. WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE STATE?

MS. GLICK: THE REST -- WELL, THESE WERE FIREFIGHTERS

FROM NEW YORK CITY.

MR. DURSO: UNDERSTOOD.

MS. GLICK: SO THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION.

MR. DURSO: BUT THIS IS A BILL FOR ENTIRE NEW YORK

CITY.

MS. GLICK: IT IS. AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY PEOPLE

UPSTATE ARE EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT FIRES AND HAVE THE SAME CONCERN.

150

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AND CERTAINLY, THE TOWN WHERE THE WASTE TRANSFER STATION BURNED DOWN,

I'M SURE THEY ARE PRETTY CONCERNED AND WOULD APPRECIATE KNOWING THAT

THOSE BATTERIES WERE BEING TAKEN BACK BY THE MANUFACTURER AND NOT

SHOWING UP AT THEIR FACILITY --

MR. DURSO: AGREED.

MS. GLICK: -- WHERE THEY CAN LEAK -- NOT JUST CAUSE

A FIRE, BUT THEY CAN LEAK CHEMICALS THAT ARE HARMFUL TO THE WASTE

FACILITY. SO I THINK THAT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THIS -- WHILE THE BILL

GOES INTO EFFECT, THERE IS A PROCESS AND A TIMELINE FOR RETAILERS TO

THAT SOMEHOW TOMORROW WILLY-NILLY TEN BATTERIES A DAY ARE GONNA SHOW

UP IN EACH BUSINESS'S LOCATION IS NOT A REALITY.

MR. DURSO: WELL, THE REALITY OF IT, MA'AM, IS -- IS

THIS: IS THAT -- I UNDERSTAND AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT I AM RUNNING OUT OF

TIME. I UNDERSTAND THE MANUFACTURERS, THE DEC, EVERYBODY'S GONNA GET

TOGETHER AND MAKE SOME OF KIND RULES AND REGULATIONS ON HOW THESE

ARE GOING TO BE COLLECTED. THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE

CHARGED WITH PUTTING OUT THE FIRES, PULLING PEOPLE OUT OF DANGER, AND

UNFORTUNATELY, IN NUMEROUS CASES HAVE PULLED PEOPLE OUT THAT HAVE LOST

THEIR LIVES BECAUSE OF UNSAFE STORAGE OF THESE. THEIR CONCERNS ARE VERY

MUCH HIGH, AND WE'RE NOT LISTENING TO THEM BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T

CHANGED ANYTHING IN THE BILL.

MS. GLICK: WELL, ACTUALLY THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. WE

DID ADD -- NOW, THE -- THE PROVISION THAT WE ADDED WAS AFTER

CONSULTATION WITH THE OFFICE OF FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL AND THE

151

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT. WE HAD --

MR. DURSO: WHAT FIRE DEPARTMENT, MA'AM?

MS. GLICK: WELL, IN THAT INSTANCE IT IS THE FDNY,

WHICH IS, AS I SAID, WE HAD SOME MEETINGS DIRECTLY WITH FIREFIGHTERS.

SO WE INCLUDED THE FDNY, AND THAT -- WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE THINK IS

PRUDENT, APPROPRIATE, TO REDUCE THE RISK. BECAUSE CURRENTLY THERE IS A

RISK BECAUSE THESE ARE WILLY-NILLY WHEREVER. AND I DON'T QUITE GRASP

THE -- THE CONCERN THAT NOW THAT WE'RE EXPANDING THE BATTERY RECALL AND

THAT WE'RE ASKING THE MANUFACTURERS TO TAKE THESE BACK, THAT THE ONLY

WAY THE SYSTEM FUNCTIONS IS IF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH

THE MANUFACTURER -- WHICH IS THE RETAILERS -- PARTICIPATE TOGETHER.

THAT'S -- THAT IS HOW MANY OF OUR EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY

OPERATIONS WORK.

MR. DURSO: AGREED.

MS. GLICK: WE DON'T TELL PEOPLE WHO SELL SHOELACES

AND SHOES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PAINT RETURN.

MR. DURSO: AGREED. BUT --

MS. GLICK: IT'S THE PAINT PEOPLE.

MR. DURSO: BUT THE SHOELACES -- BUT THE SHOELACES

AREN'T GONNA LIGHT ON FIRE AND KILL ANYBODY.

MS. GLICK: WELL, PAINT MIGHT.

MR. DURSO: WELL, UNFORTUNATELY -- LISTEN, I'M NOT

SAYING THAT IT -- IT CAN'T HAPPEN, AND I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

BUT IT CAN HAPPEN. AND THAT IS THE CONCERN OF THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT

152

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WE CHARGE WITH GOING IN, PUTTING OUT THE FIRES AND SAVING PEOPLE'S

LIVES. THEY HAVE CONCERNS, AND THOSE CONCERNS ARE NOT BEING MET. I

AGREE WITH YOU, AND SO DO THEY, FRANKLY, THAT THESE THINGS NEED TO STAY

OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM AND BE RECYCLED. THE PROBLEM IS, AND AS THEY

HAVE SAID, THE LEGISLATION FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ISSUES CONCERNING

THE STORAGE OF THE BATTERIES. THAT IS MY PROBLEM, IS WE'RE TELLING THEM

MS. GLICK: YOU KNOW --

MR. DURSO: -- YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MANU --

MA'AM, EXCUSE ME, ONE SECOND -- YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE RETAILERS AND

THE MANUFACTURERS HAVE TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP. AS THE LEGISLATURE,

WHERE IS OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THOSE THAT ARE CHARGED WITH RUNNING INTO

A BURNING BUILDING AND SAVING PEOPLE THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, LIVE ABOVE A

LOT OF THESE THINGS, WHICH YOU HAVE SAID? BECAUSE IF THERE WAS A

50-FOOT RULE FOR THIS OR NOT IN A MIXED-USE BUILDING, YOU COULDN'T BE

RECYCLING THESE IN NEW YORK CITY. THERE HAS TO BE A WAY TO HAVE THAT

RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND EMS TO SAY, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY

TO DO THIS WITHOUT COSTING LIVES AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT? THERE

NEEDS TO BE A WAY TO WORK TOGETHER. UNFORTUNATELY, AS YOU SAID, IT'S

NOT WILLY-NILLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE MET WITH THEM. BUT THEY ARE

DISAGREEING WITH HOW THIS IS BEING PUT FORTH. AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO

WE'RE ASKING AT THAT POINT, THEN GO DO YOUR JOB AND GO PUT FIRE OUT. GO

DRAG THAT GENTLEMAN OUT. GO GET THAT KID OUT OF THAT BURNING WINDOW,

WHICH WE HAVE SEEN AND HAS HAPPENED. BUT WE'RE NOT TAKING INTO

ACCOUNT OF WHAT THEY'RE SAYING AND THEIR CONCERNS. WE'RE JUST GONNA

153

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DO THIS BILL WILLY-NILLY IN HOPES THAT PEOPLE DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH

A MANUFACTURER. THAT IS NOT GONNA KEEP PEOPLE SAFE IN NEW YORK

STATE.

MS. GLICK: ABSENT THIS BILL, THE CURRENT SITUATION

CONTINUES.

MR. DURSO: AGREED.

MS. GLICK: SO NOTHING -- THE STATUS QUO JUST

CONTINUES, WHICH YOU AND FIREFIGHTERS ARE SAYING IS NOT A SAFE SITUATION.

YOU ON THE ONE HAND SAY WE MICROMANAGE TOO MUCH, AND NOW YOU'RE

SAYING WE'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH. WE ARE SAYING THAT THE EXPERTS WHO

HAPPEN TO BE BOTH THE MANUFACTURERS --

MR. DURSO: FIREMEN ARE NOT EXPERTS, MA'AM?

MS. GLICK: I DIDN'T FINISH MY SENTENCE.

MR. DURSO: OH, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY.

MS. GLICK: MANUFACTURERS, THE EXPERTS -- WE

FREQUENTLY HAVE EXPERTS EITHER FROM NYPD AND CONSULT WITH OTHERS.

OR THE FDNY CONSULT WITH OTHERS. SO WE HAVE REQUIRED -- NOT

SUGGESTED -- WE'RE REQUIRING THE CONSULTATION --

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MS. GLICK.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

154

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. GLICK: YES, OF COURSE.

MR. RA: ACTUALLY, IF YOU -- CAN YOU START WITH --

BECAUSE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING I'M INTERESTED IN AND WE ACTUALLY

DISCUSSED THIS BRIEFLY LAST WEEK. SO, CAN YOU CONTINUE TO JUST -- WHAT IS

IN THE BILL WITH REGARD TO THAT CONSULTATION WITH -- WITH THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT?

MS. GLICK: WELL, WE HAD ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED THAT

THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH WOULD BE DEC, WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE

EFFECTIVE DATE, PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO ENSURE SAFE STORAGE

OF RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES THAT MINIMIZES THE RISK OF FIRES. AND THE

RULES AND REGULATIONS WOULD REQUIRE RETAILERS TO COORDINATE WITH THE

BATTERY MANUFACTURER OR A COMBINATION OF MANUFACTURERS, AND THAT THEY

INFORM ALL EMPLOYEES WHO HANDLE OR HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING

THEM, THE BEST PROPER HANDLING AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES. WHAT WE

HAVE ADDED AFTER OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE

BOTH FROM THE UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS AND FROM THE UNIFORMED FIRE

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THAT AFTER -- THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT SHALL, AFTER

CONSULTATION WITH THE OFFICE OF FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL AND THE

DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK CITY, THEN THEY PROMULGATE RULES AND

REGULATIONS BASED ON THE CONSULTATION THAT THEY HAVE HAD WITH THOSE

INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH FIRE PREVENTION AND, IN

FACT, FIREFIGHTING. SO WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DONE THE RESPONSIBLE

THING TO ENSURE THAT AS THE REGULATIONS BY DEC, WHICH CONTROLS

REGULATIONS AROUND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND THE RETRIEVAL OF

155

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MATERIALS, THAT -- THAT WE HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING AND THAT OUT OF THAT

THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WILL ENSURE THAT THERE IS A SAFE PROCESS FOR

TAKING BACK THESE BATTERIES WITHOUT HAVING THEM GO INTO, AS THEY

CURRENTLY DO, THE WASTE STREAM.

MR. RA: WHAT -- SO WHAT DO YOU ENVISION THAT

CONSULTATION LOOKING LIKE? BECAUSE I -- I CAN THINK OF ANY NUMBER OF

BILLS THAT WE'VE PASSED HERE THAT JUST REQUIRE A CONSULTATION WITH SOME

ENTITY, AND THEY WERE NOT HAPPY WITH THE OUTCOME OR DIDN'T FEEL LIKE

THEIR INPUT REALLY WAS REFLECTIVE IN THE ULTIMATE REGULATIONS THAT CAME

OUT. SO HOW -- HOW ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT IF THEY'RE COMING UP WITH

REGULATIONS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SAYS, NO, WE REALLY DON'T THINK

THAT'S SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY, DO THEY HAVE ANY RECOURSE?

WHAT -- HOW, YOU KNOW, INVOLVED ARE THEY GOING TO BE IN -- IN

DEVELOPING THESE REGULATIONS?

MS. GLICK: WELL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WITH --

THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM WITH PAINT CARE, WHICH IS THE

MANUFACTURER'S RETRIEVAL OF PAINT, WHICH IS -- YOU KNOW, COULD BE A

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND. ALTHOUGH THEY -- THERE ARE SOME PAINTS

THAT ARE NOT OR HAVE LESS OR REDUCED VOCS. SO I -- I BELIEVE THAT THE

DEPARTMENT IS CLEAR THAT WE MADE THIS SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO ENSURE

THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, ACTUAL SIT-DOWN PARTICIPATION. IF MY FRIENDS AT THE

UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FEELS LIKE -- OR FDNY LEADERSHIP

FEELS LIKE THEY'RE NOT BEING HEARD, I THINK THEY'RE GONNA TELL ME. AND I

AM GOING TO CALL THE COMMISSIONER AND ASK THEM, IN POLITE TERMS, YOU

KNOW, WHAT THE HECK?

156

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. RA: I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO BE ANYTHING BUT

POLITE.

MS. GLICK: SO I -- I -- I BELIEVE THAT WE DID THIS IN

GOOD FAITH, BELIEVING THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES THAT THAT

CONSULTATION BE ROBUST AND BE RESPECTFUL AND INCLUSIVE OF THE

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME FROM THOSE WHO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE

POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARD.

MR. RA: I -- I AM -- I AM VERY GLAD TO HEAR THAT.

SO AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS, I KNOW YOU

AND -- AND MY COLLEAGUE IN -- IN YOUR DISCUSSION TALKED ABOUT THE

CONCERN THAT'S BEEN RAISED THAT MANY TIMES WE HAVE THESE SHOPS,

PARTICULARLY IN NEW YORK CITY, THAT MAY BE ON THE GROUND FLOOR, THERE

MAY BE RESIDENTS ABOVE, AND THEY'RE GONNA BE TAKING IN THESE BATTERIES.

WOULD SOMETHING LIKE -- IF AS THIS IS GOING ON, THEM SUGGESTING, HEY,

YOU -- YOU NEED SOME MORE STRINGENT GUIDELINES FOR WHAT A RETAILER

DOES WHEN THEY BRING IN A BATTERY IF THAT'S THE CASE. IF THEY'RE IN A

LOCATION THAT IS IMMEDIATELY PART OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OR

IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AN APARTMENT BUILDING, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT

COULD COME ABOUT THROUGH REGULATION?

MS. GLICK: I -- I SUPPOSE IT COULD. I MEAN, THE

REALITY IS THAT UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE ARE NO

REQUIREMENTS THAT I'M AWARE OF -- AND WE LOOKED INTO IT -- ABOUT WHAT

KINDS OF STRUCTURES BUSINESSES CAN BE SELLING THESE, CHARGING THEM. I

BELIEVE SOME OF THESE BUYERS HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF, YOU KNOW,

IDIOCY. YOU CAN'T ALWAYS LEGISLATE AGAINST THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE

157

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SHOULD NOT BE -- I'VE GOTTEN SOME DIFFERENT KINDS OF APPLIANCES THAT

ACTUALLY SAY DO NOT RECHARGE IN A POWER STRIP. YOU SHOULD BE USING THE

OUTLET THAT IS CONNECTED TO A, YOU KNOW, A -- A CIRCUIT BREAKER. SO,

PERSONALLY, EARLY ON WHEN THEY STARTED SELLING THESE THINGS, I DIDN'T

THINK THEY SHOULD BE SOLD UNLESS THEY CAME WITH A FIREPROOF BOX. I WAS

NOT -- I WAS INSTRUCTED THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN.

MANUFACTURERS WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THAT. SO OUT OF MY OWN

EXPERIENCE EARLY ON WITH VOLATILE MATERIALS. SO THAT WAS MY

RECOMMENDATION WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED, BUT I HOPE THAT WE HAVE

MANUFACTURERS TALKING WITH THE DEC AND THE DEC TALKING WITH FIRE

PROFESSIONALS TO COME UP WITH A COMMONSENSE PROTOCOL. BUT RIGHT

NOW YOU CAN CHARGE THESE AND THEY COULD BE IN -- THEY'RE IN RESIDENTIAL

BUILDINGS, AND PEOPLE HAVE THESE ITEMS AND THEY'RE CHARGING THEM NOW.

AND THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS A FAIRLY

MODEST PROPOSAL THAT WHEN WE HAVE THESE AND THEY'RE DEPLETED AND

PEOPLE ARE READY TO CHUCK THEM, THAT THEY DON'T THROW THEM INTO THE

GARBAGE, THAT THEY GET RETRIEVED.

MR. RA: SO NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE RETAILERS, SO --

RIGHT? A RETAILER THAT SELLS THESE ITEM -- ITEMS THAT CONTAIN THESE TYPES

OF BATTERIES CAN ONLY OFFER FOR SALE ONES THAT ARE COMING FROM A

MANUFACTURER THAT HAS A PLAN ON FILE THAT'S PARTICIPATING IN THIS, CORRECT?

MS. GLICK: YES.

MR. RA: NOW, SUPPOSE -- BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THERE

ARE TONS OF ITEMS OUT THERE THAT CONTAIN THESE. PEOPLE MAY HAVE

PURCHASED THEM OUT-OF-STATE, PEOPLE MAY HAVE PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED

158

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THEM ONLINE. I KNOW WE'VE TRIED TO WORK ON THAT ISSUE OVER THE LAST

COUPLE OF YEARS. IS A RETAILER WHO IS, YOU KNOW, COMPLYING WITH THIS,

ONLY OFFERING FOR SALE ITEMS FROM MANUFACTURERS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING

IN THIS REQUIRED TO TAKE BACK A BATTERY FROM A MANUFACTURER THAT DOESN'T

HAVE A PLAN ON FILE AND ISN'T PARTICIPATING IN THIS AND MAYBE ISN'T, YOU

KNOW, UP TO SNUFF IN TERMS OF QUALITY STANDARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT?

MS. GLICK: WELL, WE -- WE ARE NOT BRAND-SPECIFIC.

SO THERE ISN'T -- THERE WILL BE, I BELIEVE -- LET ME DOUBLE-CHECK. I THINK

THAT THEY -- THERE WILL BE A LIST OF -- ON THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE, OF

MANUFACTURERS AND THEIR PLAN. YOU KNOW, THAT THEY HAVE AN APPROVED

PLAN. I SUSPECT THAT MOST WILL WANT TO GO THROUGH CALL2RECYCLE

BECAUSE IT'S A WELL-ESTABLISHED RECYCLING EPR. SO I -- I SUSPECT THAT

THAT IS GOING TO BE. BUT IF SOMEBODY SHOWS UP, QUITE HONESTLY -- I

DON'T WANT TO BE DISINGENUOUS -- I THINK IF SOMEBODY SHOWS UP WITH A

BATTERY TO A PLACE THAT THEY HAVE IN THE PAST WORKED WITH, THEY GOT THEIR

BIKE THERE, AND THEY GOT A BATTERY WHO KNOWS WHERE AND THEY GO BACK

AND THEY GIVE IT TO THAT GUY, I -- I SUSPECT THAT IS -- THAT -- THAT WILL -- I

WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THAT HAPPENS.

MR. RA: AND THAT -- THAT RETAILER WOULD BE REQUIRED

TO ACCEPT THAT?

MS. GLICK: YEAH.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND IS -- IT'S ANY RETAILER WHO WOULD

OFFER THESE TYPES OF ITEMS LIKE -- LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE WE ALL

KNOW, RIGHT? YOU GET, SAY, AROUND THE HOLIDAYS THAT MAYBE A DRUGSTORE

THAT DOESN'T NORMALLY SELL THESE TYPE OF THINGS, BUT MAYBE, YOU KNOW,

159

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BECAUSE THERE'S IMPULSE PURCHASES, THING LIKE THAT, THAT MAYBE THEY --

THEY -- THEY GET SOME SCOOTERS INTO STOCK THAT THEY'RE GONNA SELL

BECAUSE IT'S CHRISTMASTIME AND PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO, YOU KNOW, BUY

GIFTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. WOULD -- WOULD THEY BE UNDER, LIKE, A

RECURRING OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT THESE THINGS IF IT WASN'T SOMETHING THEY

REGULARLY DEALT WITH?

MS. GLICK: IF -- IF THEY -- IF THEY'VE SOLD SEVEN,

THEY'D PROBABLY HAVE TO TAKE BACK SEVEN. THEY WOULD NOT BE -- AND IT

WOULD HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE MANUFACTURERS -- RETAILERS HAVE TO

HAVE -- WORK WITH MANUFACTURERS THAT HAVE BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE

DEPARTMENT. I AM TRYING TO ENVISION, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T -- IN SOME

OF THE DRUGSTORES YOU CAN'T GET TOOTHPASTE, SO I'M WONDERING WHO'S

SELLING BIKE BATTERIES. I -- I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. I'M TRYING TO

ENVISION WHO WOULD DO THIS ON A SPUR OF THE MOMENT.

MR. RA: WELL, I --

MS. GLICK: THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CONNECTION

WITH A MANUFACTURER. AND MAYBE THEY HAVE THE CONNECTION BECAUSE

THAT MANUFACTURER DEALS WITH SORT OF MORE NORMAL BATTERIES AND THEY

ALSO HAVE THESE, AND THEY DECIDE FOR, AS YOU SAY, HOLIDAY THAT THEY'RE

GONNA BRING IN A SMALL AMOUNT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE BACK THE

NUMBER THAT THEY SOLD.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO EVEN IF IT WAS -- SAY THEY SOLD A

DOZEN OF THEM AND -- BUT IT WAS REALLY A SEASONAL THING, AND NOW

THEY'VE TAKEN BACK A DOZEN BATTERIES, BUT -- I MEAN, THOSE BATTERIES

AREN'T NECESSARILY COMING FROM THE PERSON THEY SOLD THEM TO, CORRECT?

160

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IT COULD BE --

MS. GLICK: IT'S -- IT IS -- IT IS POSSIBLE, YES.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. RA: THANK YOU. SO I -- I VERY MUCH, YOU KNOW,

APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THIS BILL. I'M SUPPORTIVE IN CONCEPT OF TRYING TO

DEAL WITH THE ISSUE WE HAVE WITH THESE BATTERIES, TRYING TO MAKE SURE

THEY ARE PROPERLY RECYCLED. BUT WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS PROBLEM IN THE

STATE, AND -- AND -- AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE SPONSOR SAID IS --

IS WELL-TAKEN. WE -- MANY TIMES WE'VE SEEN FIRES WHERE PEOPLE WERE

REALLY -- I WAS -- I WANT TO JUST SAY FOOLISH AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW,

SOMETHING MORE EXTREME OR JUDGMENTAL OF THEM. BUT, YOU KNOW,

OVERLOADING A POWER STRIP WITH -- WITH A NUMBER OF THESE TYPES OF

BATTERIES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND IT CAUSES A FIRE. BUT I THINK WE DO

HAVE TO REALLY TAKE PAUSE WHEN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BEST-TRAINED

FIREFIGHTING GROUPS AND -- AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE SAYING TO US

THAT THEY HAVE CONCERNS WITH HOW THIS BILL IS GOING TO WORK, AND WITH

THE POTENTIAL FOR -- FOR NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.

SO I HOPE THAT THAT CONSULTATION -- IF THIS WERE TO BE

SIGNED INTO LAW, I HOPE THAT THAT CONSULTATION WITH -- WITH THE FDNY IS

AS ROBUST AS THE SPONSOR STATED. I HOPE THAT SUGGESTIONS THEY MAKE ARE

PUT INTO EFFECT. BUT -- BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT

GIVING THIS THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THERE ARE MAYBE -- EVEN IF IT'S NOT A FULL

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THEM IF YOU'RE IN A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, AT THE

161

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

VERY AT LEAST, VERY STRONG PRO -- PROVISIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S

BEING DONE IN THE MOST SAFE MANNER POSSIBLE.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. ARI BROWN.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. GLICK: OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPONSOR.

SOME POINT IN MY CAREER I BUILT A LOT OF MEDICAL OFFICES AND

RESTAURANTS, MEDICAL OFFICES AND NATIONAL CHAINS OF DRUGSTORES. THERE

WAS ALWAYS A PLACE FOR MEDICAL WASTE. IT WAS EASY; A VERY SIMPLE BOX.

RESTAURANTS, A LOT OF THEM REQUIRE INDOOR REFRIGERATED CONTAINMENT FOR

THE REFUSE SO THAT RATS AND THINGS WOULDN'T COME.

JUST ONE QUICK SUGGESTION, I THINK WE CAN SOLVE THE

WHOLE PROBLEM. WOULD YOU CONSIDER ADDING ONE LINE INTO THE BILL TO

REQUIRE AN INEXPENSIVE BAG? WE USED A LOT OF BATTERY TOOLS. THEY

WERE INVENTED 40 YEARS AGO. SO WE HAVE THIS ISSUE NOW. FOR EXAMPLE,

WOULD YOU CONSIDER ADDING AN EXTRA-LARGE LSR XL BAG, $30 TO $50,

THAT WOULD CONTAIN THE BATTERIES? OR RIDGID, A COMMON MANUFACTURER,

TOOLS THEY MAKE. THEY'RE $60 TO $120, A BOX CONTAINER STORAGE FOR

LITHIUM BATTERIES. OR EVEN A UL ONE, WHICH NOT REQUIRED TO DO, WOULD

162

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BE 30 -- $300 TO $500. ONE LINE SAYING IF YOU'RE GONNA STORE THEM, YOU

GOT TO GET THIS $30 TO $50 BAG. I THINK IT SOLVES A LOT OF PROBLEMS.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

MS. GLICK: I THINK THAT THAT MAY BE A SUGGESTION

THAT COMES FROM FDNY AS THEY PREPARE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. I

TOLD YOU -- I -- I SAID BEFORE THAT I THOUGHT THEY SHOULDN'T BE SOLD

WITHOUT A FIREPROOF BOX, BUT THAT'S ME. SO I BELIEVE THAT THE REGS WILL

BE PROMULGATED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OUT OF THE

OFFICE OF FIRE PREVENTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FDNY. AND IT

MIGHT BE THAT THAT IS A SIMPLE THING. WE WOULD NOT PUT THAT SOMEBODY

HAS TO -- A RETAILER HAS TO SPEND X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS FOR A PARTICULAR

ITEM BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T PUT THAT IN LAW. AND OF COURSE THEN THE

OBJECTION WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD BE -- YOU KNOW, REQUIRING THEM TO

SPEND MONEY THAT THEY HADN'T INTENDED TO. BUT WE WOULDN'T PUT INTO

REGULATION A SPECIFIC PRODUCT, EVEN -- BUT WE ASSUME THAT IN

CONSULTATION THAT WILL BE PART OF THE REGULATIONS. THAT THAT WOULD BE

THE RECOMMENDATION FROM FDNY AND THAT THAT WILL BE REGULATIONS THAT

DEC PROMULGATES.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPONSOR.

COULD YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAD PROPOSED? IF WE'RE

REQUIRING THEM TO SPEND THE MONEY FOR DISPOSAL, WHY NOT MAKE THEIR

LIVES EASIER AND SAFER AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE WE ARE REQUIRING THEM

TO HAVE AN EXPENDITURE? AND I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD BE HAPPY WITH

THAT. IT'S VERY INEXPENSIVE. IT KEEPS THEM SAFE. WE DON'T NEED

ANYBODY ELSE TO TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, AND IT'S JUST A NICE, EASY,

163

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INEXPENSIVE THING.

MS. GLICK: WELL, THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDED THE

FDNY. THEY MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION THAN YOU HAVE

BECAUSE THEY MAY BE MORE UP-TO-DATE ON WHAT MATERIAL THEY THINK IS

BEST.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU.

MS. GLICK: THANK YOU.

MR. A. BROWN: SO -- AND JUST TO GO BACK TO A

PREVIOUS QUESTION MY COLLEAGUE ASSEMBLYMAN DURSO SUGGESTED, THE

FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND THE LIKE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS AN UNSAFE

MEANS. WE'RE HAVING A SITUATION RIGHT NOW WHERE WE CAN SAVE LIVES

TOGETHER IN A VERY COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. WHY NOT JUST ADD THE LINE?

THERE'S NO HARM IN ANY WHICH WAY. WE ARE -- IF WE WEREN'T ASKING

THEM IN THE PAST TO HAVE AN EXPENDITURE OF DISPOSAL, I AGREE WITH YOU.

BUT WE ARE ANYWAY. SO 30 TO 50 OR $100 TO KEEP EVERYBODY SAFE AND

ALIVE SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO LOOK BACK AT THIS MEETING AND SAYING, WELL,

WHY DIDN'T WE JUST ADD THAT LINE TO SAVE ONE LIFE? WHY WOULDN'T WE DO

THAT?

MS. GLICK: WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I SAT DOWN

AND TALKED WITH THEM AND THAT WASN'T THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPONSOR. SO

WHO WAS THAT, AGAIN, THAT YOU HAD SAT DOWN WITH EXACTLY? I -- I

REMEMBER --

MS. GLICK: UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

AND THE UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION.

164

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. A. BROWN: AND -- AND THEY -- THANK YOU.

AND THEY HAD NO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORAGE?

MS. GLICK: WELL, THEY HAD RECOMMENDATIONS. SIR,

I ALREADY -- PERHAPS YOU WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION AT THE TIME. BUT I

ALREADY INDICATED WHAT -- AND -- AND WE DID MAKE AN AMENDMENT BASED

ON THE CONVERSATIONS.

MR. A. BROWN: SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE DON'T

WANNA MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP THEM SAFE BY GETTING

(INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) --

MS. GLICK: WELL, THAT -- I -- I -- EXCUSE ME. DO NOT

PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

MR. A. BROWN: LET ME FINISH MY -- MY --

(INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) --

MS. GLICK: I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY WORK FOR

YOU, BUT IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT RESPECTFUL.

MR. A. BROWN: I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF SPEAKING

AND YOU INTERRUPTED ME. SO I DON'T KNOW (INDISCERNIBLE) RESPECTFUL. I

WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF SPEAKING. SO --

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: COLLEAGUES.

MR. A. BROWN: I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF SPEAKING. I

WAS INTERRUPTED.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: OKAY, WE'RE GOING

TO BE --

MR. A. BROWN: SO, AGAIN, I WAS (INDISCERNIBLE/

CROSS-TALK) --

165

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: -- RESPECTFUL.

MR. A. BROWN: -- THE SPONSOR, WHY NOT DO IT RIGHT

NOW, JUST TO KEEP -- SAVE ONE LIFE? IT'S SO INEXPENSIVE.

(PAUSE)

WE'RE -- WE'RE DONE? OKAY.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. A. BROWN: AS I HAD SUGGESTED TO MY

COLLEAGUE, WE'RE ALREADY ASKING FOR AN EXPENDITURE BY PEOPLE FOR THE

STORAGE OF THE BATTERIES, AND I THINK IT'S A COMMENDABLE EFFORT. IT'S A

COMMENDABLE BILL. ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS TO SPEND A FRACTION OF WHAT IT'S

GONNA COST THEM TO DISPOSE OF THESE BATTERIES. KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE

AND ALIVE, I THINK THAT'S -- WE ALL HAVE IN MIND. SPEND 30, 50, $100, I

THINK IT'S A -- IT WOULD BE A GREAT TOOL AND A QUICK AMENDMENT.

WE'LL SEE HOW I'LL VOTE ON THIS THING. AND THANK YOU,

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: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

MINORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS BILL. BUT IF ANYONE

WISHES TO VOTE YES, NOW WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO SO AT YOUR

166

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CHAIRS.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. HYNDMAN.

MS. HYNDMAN: MADAM SPEAKER, THANK YOU. THIS

WILL BE A -- THE -- THE MAJORITY PARTY WILL BE IN THE POSITIVE AND UP ON

THIS VOTE. IF ANY MEMBER WISHES TO VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE, PLEASE

PROCEED TO THE CHAMBER SO YOU CAN VOTE AT YOUR DESK.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. DURSO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE SPONSOR TAKING THE

QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, AT A TIME I WAS THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. BUT

AGAIN, ONCE WE HAD SPOKE [SIC] TO THOSE THAT KEEP US SAFE, THE -- THE

ORGANIZATIONS THAT REPRESENT THE FDNY AND NEW YORK CITY, THEY HAD

GRAVE CONCERNS, AND THEY DID BRING THEM TO THE SPONSOR AND

UNFORTUNATELY, NONE OF THOSE CONCERNS WERE MET. NOT HAVING THESE

BATTERIES STORED INSIDE A MIXED-USE BUILDING WHERE THERE'S APARTMENTS

UPSTAIRS ENDANGERS LIVES; ENDANGERS THE LIVES OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN

THOSE BUILDINGS. AND AS WE HAVE SEEN, THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS AMOUNTS

OF FIRES, ESPECIALLY IN NEW YORK CITY, DUE TO THESE BATTERIES BEING

STORED INSIDE. AND NOT HEEDING THE CALLS OF THOSE WHO ARE THE

167

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PROFESSIONALS, THE ONES THAT ARE ANSWERING THE CALL, FRIGHTENS ME.

AGAIN, BRING -- BRINGING ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN TO MAKE THE BILL BETTER, TO

MAKE IT WORK. TO GET THESE THINGS OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM. BUT AGAIN,

TO ALSO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND

THE SPONSOR SAID CARVING THOSE THINGS OUT WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO

BASICALLY HAPPEN IN NEW YORK CITY. AGAIN, WE COULD REWRITE THE LAW

-- WE COULD REWRITE THE BILL TO MAKE IT SO THAT YOU CAN RECYCLE THEM,

BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE SAFELY AND WITH THE RESPECT OF THOSE AND THE

UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE WHO ARE KEEPING US SAFE ON HOW TO DO IT BEST.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DURSO IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MS. GLICK TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. GLICK: THANK YOU, MS. SPEAKER. I -- I

APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO THINGS THAT MOST OF US WOULDN'T

WANT TO DO, AND THAT'S RUN TOWARDS FIRE. AND WE DID TALK WITH THEM AND

WE HAD ATTEMPTED TO HAVE A PROLONGED EXCHANGE. FRANKLY, THEY MADE

ONE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE UNIFORMED FIRE ASSOCIATION AND THEN

NEVER RESPONDED AND HAD NO COMEBACK WHEN WE SAID THIS DOESN'T

MAKE IT WORKABLE IN THE CITY. AND THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT

THESE BATTERIES ARE BEING SOLD, REPAIRED AND CHARGED IN BUILDINGS THAT

ARE RESIDENTIAL AND ARE IN -- AND WITHIN 50 FEET OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING. SO THERE WAS NO GIVE. WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE

UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, AND OUT OF THAT CAME UP WITH AN

168

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AMENDMENT. IT MAY NOT BE THE EXACT WORDS THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY

WANTED, BUT WE HAD AN EXCHANGE. WE THINK THAT DEC, IN CONSULTATION

WITH THE OFFICE OF FIRE PREVENTION AND WITH THE FDNY, WILL MAKE

APPROPRIATE RULES AND REGULATIONS.

THIS IS A STEP FORWARD. THE ALTERNATIVE IS CONTINUING

THE WRONG PATH THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY ON. I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND

VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. GLICK IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 16, RULES REPORT NO. 734, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S05935-A, RULES REPORT

NO. 734, SENATOR ADDABBO (A06745-A, WOERNER, VANEL, KAY, ROZIC,

FALL, BUTTENSCHON, BURDICK, SHIMSKY, MCDONALD, BEEPHAN, HAWLEY,

K. BROWN, GLICK, KASSAY, LUNSFORD, LEVENBERG, ROSENTHAL, GALLAHAN).

AN ACT TO AMEND THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING

LAW, IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING ONLINE SWEEPSTAKES GAMES AND REVENUE

FROM ILLEGAL MARKETS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. WOERNER.

MS. WOERNER: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, MY

COLLEAGUES. THIS BILL ADDRESSES A GROWING THREAT TO NEW YORK'S

169

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CONSUMERS AND LEGAL GAMING INDUSTRY: ONLINE SWEEPSTAKES CASINOS

OPERATING OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE LAW. THESE PLATFORMS USE DUAL-

CURRENCY SYSTEMS THAT ALLOW PLAYERS TO PURCHASE VIRTUAL COINS,

REDEEMABLE FOR REAL MONEY; SIMULATE CASINO GAMES LIKE SLOT MACHINES

AND POKER; AND ARE ACCESSIBLE OVER THE INTERNET, INCLUDING TO MINORS,

WITHOUT ANY OF THE SAFEGUARDS NEW YORK REQUIRES FOR LEGAL GAMING.

BY EXPLOITING LEGAL AMBIGUITIES TO POSE AS

SWEEPSTAKES, THESE OPERATORS AVOID LICENSING, OVERSIGHT, RESPONSIBLE

GAMING REQUIREMENTS, AND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS. THEY'RE

UNREGULATED, UNTAXED AND UNFAIRLY COMPETE WITH NEW YORK'S LICENSED

GAMING FACILITIES, WHICH HAVE TO FOLLOW STRICT RULES AND CONTRIBUTE

REVENUE TO THE STATE.

WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THESE ONLINE

SWEEPSTAKES CASINOS WHICH USE THE DUAL-CURRENCY SYSTEM ARE ILLEGAL

GAMBLING OPERATIONS IN NEW YORK. IT GIVES THE GAMING COMMISSION,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND STATE POLICE THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO

STOP THESE BAD ACTORS, BOTH OFFSHORE AND DOMESTIC. IT ALSO IMPOSES

PENALTIES TO DETER ILLEGAL OPERATORS FROM ENTERING AND REMAINING IN

NEW YORK STATE, THE PROCEEDS FROM WHICH WILL BE DIRECTED TO PROBLEM

GAMING EDUCATION AND TREATMENT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. GANDOLFO.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WOULD THE SPONSOR PLEASE YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

170

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WOERNER: IT'D BE MY PLEASURE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO FIRST,

THERE'S A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS LAID OUT THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THEM UNDER

THE LAW. ONE OF THEM IS A DUAL-CURRENCY SYSTEM. CAN YOU EXPLAIN A

LITTLE BIT WHAT A DUAL-CURRENCY SYSTEM IS?

MS. WOERNER: SURE. SO, A DUAL-CURRENCY SYSTEM

STARTS WITH YOU GET SOME FREE COINS. AND THEN YOU CAN PURCHASE SOME

PREMIUM COINS WITH WHICH TO WAGER, AND THEN YOU GET -- YOU CAN CASH

THOSE PREMIUM COINS OUT FOR REAL CASH OR CASH PRIZES.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. SO, ARE THE PREMIUM

COINS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE WAGERED FOR PRIZES, ARE THOSE THE ONES THAT

ARE PURCHASED OR ARE THOSE GIVEN FOR FREE WITH THE PURCHASE OF, I GUESS,

NON-MONETARY COINS?

MS. WOERNER: IT CAN BE EITHER.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. BECAUSE I'M -- I'M AWARE

OF, JUST IN MY RESEARCH FOR THIS BILL, THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE OPERATED THAT

CALLS THEMSELVES A CASINO. AND I BELIEVE IT WORKS THAT YOU PURCHASE

GOLD COINS, AND THEN WITH THE PURCHASE OF GOLD COINS YOU GET SWEEPS

COINS. THE GOLD COINS CANNOT BE WAGERED FOR ANYTHING OF VALUE, BUT

THE SWEEPS COINS THAT GET FOR FREE CAN BE AND YOU CAN WIN CASH. I DON'T

KNOW IF YOU CAN WIN OTHER PHYSICAL PRIZES. SO IS THAT WHAT WE'RE

LOOKING AT HERE?

MS. WOERNER: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,

YES.

171

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. GANDOLFO: NOW, IS IT ONLY CASH PRIZES OR ANY

PRIZES THAT HAVE A CASH VALUE? LIKE IF IT WAS MERCHANDISE THAT YOU

WON INSTEAD OF CASH.

MS. WOERNER: IT IS -- IT IS CASH AND CASH

EQUIVALENTS.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE, LIKE, IF

YOU GOT T-SHIRTS OR ELECTRONICS. WOULD THAT BE A CASH EQUIVALENCE?

MS. WOERNER: I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MORE

LIKE GIFT CARDS.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. SO, GIFT CARDS. OKAY.

NOW, A DUAL-CURRENCY SYSTEM, SINCE IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR

WHAT THAT MIGHT END UP ENCOMPASSING, WOULD A -- LET'S SAY A REWARD

PROGRAM, STARBUCKS, TO USE AN EXAMPLE, WHERE YOU GO AND YOU BUY

COFFEE AND BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT THE COFFEE AND YOU GET STARS THAT CAN BE

REDEEMED FOR GIFT CARDS SOMETIMES.

MS. WOERNER: YEAH. SO, THOSE ARE NOT

CONSIDERED THESE ONLINE CASINO SWEEPSTAKES GAMES. THOSE -- THEY

DON'T ALLOW YOU TO ACCUMULATE REWARD POINTS AND THEN CASH THEM IN FOR

CASH.

MR. GANDOLFO: FOR CASH. OKAY.

MS. WOERNER: IT IS BASICALLY AN ONLINE ANALOG TO,

YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN STARBUCKS IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT, LIKE, A

MCDONALD'S MONOPOLY --

MS. WOERNER: NO.

172

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. GANDOLFO: -- WHERE YOU -- OKAY -- WHERE

YOU COLLECT THE PIECES AND GET THE MILLION BUCKS? THAT'S NOT

ENCOMPASSED?

MS. WOERNER: NO.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY.

NOW, THERE'S A COUPLE OF MORE CONDITIONS HERE, ONE OF

THEM BEING THE TYPES OF GAMES. IS IT TYPICALLY ANYTHING THAT SIMULATES

A CASINO GAME OR ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE ENCOMPASSED IN

THE BAN?

MS. WOERNER: IT IS PRINCIPALLY GAMES THAT -- THAT

SIMULATE CASINO GAMES.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. AND I BELIEVE I THINK I

SAW, LIKE -- THERE'S ANOTHER WEBSITE THAT DOES KIND OF A SPORTS WAGERING

SETUP SIMILAR WHERE YOU BUY COINS THAT YOU DON'T WAGER, BUT THEN YOU

GET FREE COINS THAT YOU WAGER. SO IT'S SPORTS BETTING ONLY.

MS. WOERNER: RIGHT. THOSE ARE -- THOSE ARE

SIMULATING LEGAL GAMING AND THEY ARE NOT LEGAL GAMING.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. AND I KNOW THE DEFINITION

HERE SAYS INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO. I'VE SEEN SOME OF THESE WHERE

PEOPLE BUY SOME KIND OF TOKEN AND IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PLAYING

PLINKO. WOULD THAT BE -- AND IT MULTIPLIES THE AMOUNT OF COINS AND

THEN I THINK EVENTUALLY THEY CAN CASH OUT THE COINS. DOES THAT FALL

UNDER THAT UMBRELLA?

MS. WOERNER: I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT PARTICULAR GAME,

BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO, BASED ON HOW YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT.

173

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY.

NOW, WITH THE ENFORCEMENT HERE, I BELIEVE THE FINE IS

$10 -- $10,000 PER VIOLATION. THAT'S CORRECT?

MS. WOERNER: IT CAN BE BETWEEN 10,000 AND

100,000.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE

VIOLATION? IS IT JUST OPERATING, AND WOULD THAT THEN ACCUMULATE PER DAY

OF OPERATING IN VIOLATION?

MS. WOERNER: SO IT'S OPERATING OR FACILITATING THE

OPERATION IN SOME WAY OF THESE GAMES. AND I DO BELIEVE IT'S PER DAY,

VIOLATION PER DAY, PER VIOLATION.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. SO WE'RE EXPECTING THAT

SHOULD THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN NEW YORK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A

SIGNIFICANT OF MONEY RAISED FOR THE PROBLEM GAMBLING HOTLINE?

MS. WOERNER: I WOULD THINK SO.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S

ABOUT ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE HERE. THANK YOU.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. GANDOLFO: THIS BILL HERE IS ADDRESSING A

LOOPHOLE IN OUR GAMING LAWS. THERE ARE A LOT OF THESE OPERATORS THAT

ARE BASICALLY GAMBLING. YOU'RE USING REAL MONEY TO BUY TOKENS THAT

YOU DON'T WAGER, BUT WHEN YOU BUY THOSE TOKENS YOU GET FREE TOKENS

THAT YOU CAN WAGER. SO IT'S BASICALLY ONLINE IGAMING, JUST WITH AN

EXTRA STEP TO TECHNICALLY MAKE IT LEGAL.

174

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN ANY COURT RULINGS OR

LAWSUITS ON THIS, BUT EITHER WAY, THIS LEGISLATION IS ADDRESSING A LITTLE

LOOPHOLE HERE THAT HAS BEEN ABUSED, AND THAT THESE KINDS OF WEBSITES

LACK THE OVERSIGHT THAT LEGAL GAMING WEBSITES AND APPS HAVE. SO THERE

IS A CONCERN THAT WITHOUT THE SAME LEVELS OF SECURITY AND AGE

VERIFICATION AND LOCATION VERIFICATION THAT LEGAL SITES HAVE, YOU CAN END

UP IN A SITUATION WHERE MINORS ARE POTENTIALLY ENGAGING IN THIS

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOR WHICH COULD STAY WITH THEM THEIR WHOLE LIFE AND

LEAD TO SOME NEGATIVE OUTCOMES FOR THEM.

SO THIS IS A BILL THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING AGAIN TO CLOSE

THIS LOOPHOLE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR GAMING SYSTEM IS ON THE

UP-AND-UP HERE IN NEW YORK. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

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,

MEMBERS HAVE ON THEIR DESKS AN A-CALENDAR. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO

ADVANCE THAT A-CALENDAR.

175

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON MRS. PEOPLES-

STOKES' MOTION, THE A-CALENDAR IS ADVANCED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: SO THAT WE MIGHT TAKE IT

UP IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON CONSENT, PAGE 3,

RULES REPORT NO. 854, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A01556-E, RULES

REPORT NO. 854, KELLES, COLTON, EPSTEIN, GIBBS, GLICK, JACKSON, LEE,

LEVENBERG, RAGA, REYES, ROSENTHAL, SAYEGH, SEAWRIGHT, SHIMSKY,

SIMON, STECK, STIRPE, TAPIA, CLARK, P. CARROLL, HEVESI, TORRES, CRUZ,

NORBER, DINOWITZ KAY, LUNSFORD, GALLAGHER, SLATER, PAULIN,

BURROUGHS, SCHIAVONI, DE LOS SANTOS, TAGUE, ANGELINO, MEEKS,

GALLAHAN, ALVAREZ, OTIS. AN ACT TO AMEND THE AGRICULTURE AND

MARKETS LAW, IN RELATION TO ENACTING THE "FOOD SAFETY AND CHEMICAL

DISCLOSURE ACT."

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED. THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02103-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 855, PAULIN, OTIS. AN ACT TO AMEND THE ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSERVATION LAW, IN RELATION TO EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR

CARPET.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED.

176

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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. A03351, RULES REPORT

NO. 856, DINOWITZ. AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND

RULES, IN RELATION TO PERMITTING A PLAINTIFF TO RECOVER AGAINST A THIRD-

PARTY DEFENDANT IN CERTAIN CASES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A03480, RULES REPORT

NO. 857, P. CARROLL. AN ACT TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, IN

RELATION TO PROVIDING A TAX EXEMPTION ON REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY ACTIVE

AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICERS IN LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN CERTAIN

COUNTIES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1ST.

177

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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. A03849, RULES REPORT

NO. 858, WEPRIN, PAULIN, DINOWITZ, SAYEGH. AN ACT TO REPEAL SECTION

470 OF THE JUDICIARY LAW, RELATING TO ALLOWING ATTORNEYS HAVING OFFICES

IN THE STATE TO RESIDE IN AN ADJOINING STATE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A04068, RULES REPORT

NO. 859, PALMESANO. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COUNTY OF YATES TO IMPOSE AN

ADDITIONAL 1 PERCENT OF SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAXES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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.)

178

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A04216, RULES REPORT

NO. 860, CUNNINGHAM, SHIMSKY, EPSTEIN, YEGER, MCDONOUGH,

MANKTELOW. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO EXCLUDING

CERTAIN FOOD DONATIONS FROM SALES TAX.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

CUNNINGHAM, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A04396, RULES REPORT

NO. 861, FALL. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, IN RELATION

TO THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

179

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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. A05403-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 862, SOLAGES, HEVESI, SIMON, SEAWRIGHT, REYES, LASHER,

DAVILA, TAYLOR, SAYEGH, BICHOTTE HERMELYN, SEPTIMO, CLARK, GIBBS,

BORES, PHEFFER AMATO, TORRES, MCDONALD, PAULIN, BRONSON, KIM,

DESTEFANO, GLICK, OTIS. AN ACT TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN

RELATION TO ENACTING THE "JACK REID LAW: PROTECT ALL STUDENTS ACT."

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

SOLAGES, 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.)

MS. WALSH TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. SO, I

HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO, IN A -- IN ZOOM MEET JACK REID'S PARENTS AND

HAVE THEM EXPLAIN TO ME THE STORY, THE REASON FOR THEIR ADVOCACY FOR

THIS PARTICULAR BILL. IT WILL PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT OR

180

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BULLYING, INCLUDING CYBERBULLYING, OF STUDENTS BY OTHER STUDENTS ON

NON-PUBLIC OR SECONDARY-SCHOOL PROPERTY OR AT A NON-PUBLIC OR

SECONDARY-SCHOOL FUNCTION. AND IT REQUIRES SCHOOL EMPLOYEES WHO

WITNESS BULLYING OR HARASSMENT OR RECEIVE A REPORT OF SUCH TO ORALLY

ALERT THE HEAD OF THE SCHOOL OR DESIGNEE NOT LATER THAN ONE SCHOOL DAY

AFTER WITNESSING OR RECEIVING A REPORT OF THE CONDUCT.

THEY -- THEY REACHED OUT TO ME BECAUSE THEY KNEW

THAT I HAD A BILL CALLED "JACOB'S LAW", WHICH UNFORTUNATELY HASN'T BEEN

-- BEEN ABLE TO ADVANCE SINCE I'VE COME INTO THE ASSEMBLY, BUT IT'S A

GOOD BILL. AND IT -- THAT BILL ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT IF A STUDENT IS BEING

BULLIED AND THE ADMINISTRATION OR TEACHERS KNOW ABOUT IT, THAT PARENTS

WILL BE NOTIFIED. AND SO AS JACK'S PARENTS, THEY REACHED OUT TO ME.

THIS IS A GOOD BILL. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF --

JUST LIKE WE TELL OUR KIDS, IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING.

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT HAPPENS IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL. IF THERE'S

BULLYING GOING ON, PARENTS NEED TO -- TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND IT NEEDS TO

BE REPORTED BECAUSE IF THEY KNOW, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO AVERT WHAT WAS

REALLY A TRAGIC SITUATION HERE WITH JACK REID. SO I -- I'M GLAD THAT HIS

PARENTS CAME FORWARD AND WERE SUCH STRONG ADVOCATES FOR THIS. AND I

APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THIS BILL WILL PASS

UNANIMOUSLY. AND I WILL, OF COURSE, BE SUPPORTING IT AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WALSH IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

181

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A05588, RULES REPORT

NO. 863, ZINERMAN, SIMON, CUNNINGHAM, CLARK, TAYLOR. AN ACT TO

AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO ADDING CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO THE

DEFINITION OF A QUALIFIED HISTORIC HOME FOR THE HISTORIC

HOMEOWNERSHIP REHABILITATION CREDIT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

ZINERMAN, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A05868, RULES REPORT

NO. 864, PHEFFER AMATO, LAVINE, GRIFFIN, STERN. AN ACT TO AMEND THE

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, IN RELATION TO GRANTING CERTAIN

COUNTY FIRE MARSHALS, SUPERVISING FIRE MARSHALS, FIRE MARSHALS, ASSISTANT

FIRE MARSHALS, ASSISTANT CHIEF FIRE MARSHALS OR CHIEF FIRE MARSHALS

PENSION BENEFITS FOR SERVICE RENDERED BEYOND 25 YEARS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

182

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PHEFFER AMATO, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED. 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. A06887, RULES REPORT

NO. 865, BRONSON, BENEDETTO, BRABENEC, HEVESI, COLTON, DESTEFANO,

DURSO, JACOBSON, LUCAS, DAVILA, BICHOTTE HERMELYN. AN ACT TO AMEND

THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, IN RELATION TO CONTRACTED NETWORK

PHARMACY USE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

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

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

183

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A07390-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 866, HYNDMAN, SAYEGH. AN ACT TO AMEND THE EDUCATION

LAW, IN RELATION TO COLLEGE ADMISSION AND FINANCIAL AID FOR STUDENTS

WHO HAVE RECEIVED A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA FROM CERTAIN ONLINE HIGH

SCHOOL PROGRAMS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 90TH

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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A07464-B, RULES

REPORT NO. 867, STIRPE, EACHUS, LUPARDO, MAGNARELLI, STERN, TAPIA,

WRIGHT, TAYLOR, HYNDMAN, SOLAGES, BUTTENSCHON, DE LOS SANTOS,

LUNSFORD, SIMONE, SHIMSKY, WOERNER, JACOBSON, PAULIN, HEVESI,

SANTABARBARA, CRUZ, PHEFFER AMATO, KASSAY, BORES, BARRETT, KAY,

MCDONALD, CLARK, P. CARROLL, SCHIAVONI, DAVILA, LAVINE, SAYEGH,

184

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CONRAD, TORRES, ALVAREZ. AN ACT TO AMEND THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

CONTROL LAW, IN RELATION TO PERMITTING CERTAIN RETAIL LICENSEES TO

PURCHASE WINE AND LIQUOR FROM CERTAIN OTHER RETAIL LICENSEES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 90TH

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. STIRPE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. STIRPE: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. PASSING

LEGISLATION THAT CHANGES ABC'S LAWS IS NOT AN EASY UNDERTAKING IN NEW

YORK STATE. IN THE SYSTEM WE OPERATE IN NEW YORK, MOST OF THE

CHANGES TO THESE LAWS CREATE WINNERS AND LOSERS. THIS IS NOT THE CASE

HERE. NO ONE LOSES. THE RESTAURANT, BAR OR CATERER WHO RUNS OUT OF A

PARTICULAR DISTILLED SPIRIT OR WINE AND CAN'T WAIT A WEEK OR TWO FOR THE

NEXT REGULAR DELIVERY CAN RUN TO THEIR LOCAL LIQUOR -- LIQUOR STORE AND

BUY UP TO SIX BOTTLES TO KEEP THEIR CUSTOMERS HAPPY. THE WHOLESALER

SELLS THE BOTTLES TO THE RESTAURANT OR BAR OR TO THE LIQUOR STORE. THE --

THE TEAMSTER DRIVERS SHIP THE SAME NUMBER OF BOTTLES TO THEIR

CUSTOMERS. SO NOBODY LOSES, OPPOSED TO WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE

BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST YEAR OR TWO.

185

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. STIRPE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A07713, RULES REPORT

NO. 868, SMULLEN. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 326 OF THE LAWS OF 2006

AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF HAMILTON

TO IMPOSE A COUNTY RECORDING TAX ON OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY MORTGAGES

ON REAL PROPERTY, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION THEREOF.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A07775, RULES REPORT

NO. 869, BENDETT. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER TO IMPOSE AN

186

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ADDITIONAL 1 PERCENT OF SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAXES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A07822, RULES REPORT

NO. 870, LEMONDES. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 308 OF THE LAWS OF

2023, AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO AUTHORIZING AN OCCUPANCY TAX

IN THE VILLAGE OF WEEDSPORT, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS

THEREOF.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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.)

187

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A07862-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 871, LEVENBERG, SHRESTHA, ANDERSON. AN ACT TO AMEND THE

ELECTION LAW, IN RELATION TO PERMIT POLITICAL PARTIES TO PERFORM CERTAIN

FUNCTIONS WITHOUT FORMING COUNTY COMMITTEES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED. THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A07918-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 872, MAHER. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 636 OF THE LAWS OF

1995 RELATING TO INCORPORATING THE VOLUNTEER AND EXEMPT FIREMEN'S

BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF COLDENHAM, INC., AND PROVIDING FOR ITS

POWERS AND DUTIES, IN RELATION TO THE PURPOSES AND DUTIES OF SUCH

CORPORATION AND THE USE OF FOREIGN FIRE INSURANCE PREMIUM TAXES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

MAHER, 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.

188

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08091-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 873, PEOPLES-STOKES, LEVENBERG, ROSENTHAL, SHIMSKY,

GALLAGHER, PAULIN, MCDONALD, SIMON, SHRESTHA, KASSAY, RAGA,

ANDERSON, SOLAGES, ZINERMAN, KELLES, STIRPE, EPSTEIN, BRONSON,

SANTABARBARA, JACOBSON, CUNNINGHAM, SEAWRIGHT, JACKSON. AN ACT TO

AMEND THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IN RELATION TO THE AWARDING OF

CERTAIN PURCHASE CONTRACTS TO PURCHASE FOOD.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE

BILL IS ADVANCED. THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08220-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 874, WRIGHT. AN ACT TO AMEND THE ARTS AND CULTURAL

AFFAIRS LAW, IN RELATION TO EMPOWERING THE COUNCIL ON THE ARTS TO

DESIGNATE THE HARLEM RENAISSANCE CULTURAL DISTRICT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

WRIGHT, 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.

189

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08297, RULES REPORT

NO. 875, LUNSFORD. AN ACT TO AMEND THE FAMILY COURT ACT AND THE

JUDICIARY LAW, IN RELATION TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PILOT PROGRAM TO

PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND NAVIGATOR SERVICES IN CHILD

SUPPORT MATTERS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON 270TH

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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08330-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 876, WOERNER, STECK, BUTTENSCHON, KAY, BURDICK,

MCDONALD, GALLAHAN, BENDETT, LEMONDES, SAYEGH. AN ACT TO AMEND

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, IN RELATION TO CLARIFYING

PROVISIONS REGARDING THE USE OF CROSSBOWS FOR HUNTING.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

190

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WOERNER, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08466, RULES REPORT

NO. 877, GIGLIO. AN ACT IN RELATION TO GRANTING RETRO -- RETROACTIVE TIER

II MEMBERSHIP IN THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL POLICE AND FIRE

RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO GIUSEPPE T. ROSINI.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED. 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.

191

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08566, RULES REPORT

NO. 878, BRABENEC. AN ACT IN RELATION TO AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSOR OF

THE TOWN OF RAMAPO, COUNTY OF ROCKLAND, TO ACCEPT AN APPLICATION

FOR A REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FROM YESHIVAS NACHLAS SOFRIM.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

BRABENEC, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08738, RULES REPORT

NO. 879, BRONSON, CLARK, LUNSFORD, RIVERA, STIRPE, MCMAHON, KAY,

LUPARDO, KELLES, WOERNER, ROMERO, MCDONALD, STECK, JENSEN. AN ACT

TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO REIMBURSEMENT RATES

FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS ESTABLISHED BY NOT-FOR-PROFIT AND PUBLIC SKILLED

NURSING FACILITIES IN UPSTATE NEW YORK NURSING HOME REGIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

192

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 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. A08787, RULES REPORT

NO. 880, GLICK. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 189 OF THE LAWS OF 2013,

AMENDING THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW

RELATING TO ESTABLISHING IN A CITY WITH A POPULATION OF ONE MILLION OR

MORE A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTING SPEED VIOLATION

MONITORING SYSTEMS IN SCHOOL SPEED ZONES BY MEANS OF PHOTO DEVICES,

IN RELATION TO MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND EXTENDING SUCH

PROVISION RELATED THERETO; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RELATING THERETO.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED. 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.

193

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08822, RULES REPORT

NO. 881, KAY, NOVAKHOV. AN ACT TO AMEND THE MILITARY LAW, IN

RELATION TO AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL PAID LEAVE FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO

ARE ABSENT ON MILITARY DUTY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

KAY, 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.)

MS. KAY TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. KAY: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THIS PAST

SATURDAY, AS MANY OF I'M SURE YOU DID, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN

VETERANS IN MY DISTRICT FOR FLAG DAY. WE REFLECTED ON WHAT IT MEANS TO

TRULY SUPPORT ONE'S COMMUNITY THROUGH ONGOING COMMITMENT AND

ACTION. WE OWE OUR SERVICE MEMBERS A DEBT OF GRATITUDE, AND DOUBLY

SO WHEN THEY ARE ALSO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN THEIR CIVILIAN LIVES. THAT IS

WHY I SPONSORED THIS BILL WHICH WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF

PAID LEAVE AVAILABLE TO THESE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHEN THEY ARE ORDERED ON

MILITARY DUTY. THIS IS MY WAY OF SAYING THANK YOU AND SHOWING

SUPPORT FOR THOSE WHO DEFEND US. COURAGEOUS NEW YORKERS WHO

DEDICATE SO MUCH OF THEIR TIME TO SERVICE AND DUTY DESERVE TO BE FAIRLY

194

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

COMPENSATED.

I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME IN PASSING THIS BILL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. KAY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08869, RULES REPORT

NO. 882, ROMERO. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, IN

RELATION TO THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS THAT RELATE TO CIVIL

INVESTIGATIONS; TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE TO PROVIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW

WITH DIRECT, REAL-TIME ACCESS TO THE CRIMINAL GUN CLEARINGHOUSE; TO

AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, RELATING TO THE

ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION

LAW, IN RELATION TO AUTHORIZING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ENFORCE THE

PROVISIONS OF THE EDUCATION LAW AGAINST COVERED ENTITIES WHO ENGAGE

IN DISCRIMINATION AND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF STATE UNIVERSITY

TRUSTEES; AND TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO THE

COMPROMISE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS THE STATE MAY HAVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED. THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08882, RULES REPORT

195

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NO. 883, SIMONE, CRUZ, ROSENTHAL. AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL RIGHTS

LAW, IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

SIMONE, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A06448, RULES REPORT

NO. 884, HUNTER. AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, IN RELATION

TO CONCILIATION AND NONCOMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

EMPLOYMENT; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SUCH LAW RELATING

THERETO.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED. THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, WOULD

YOU PLEASE CALL THE RULES COMMITTEE?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: RULES COMMITTEE

196

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MEMBERS TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM. RULES COMMITTEE

MEMBERS, PLEASE GO TO THE SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE ROOM QUIETLY.

THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU FOR BRINGING

US BACK TO QUIET FOR A MOMENT. WE ARE NOW GOING TO CONTINUE OUR

WORK ON CALENDAR NO. 70, OUR DEBATE CALENDAR. WE'RE GONNA -- THESE

ARE ALL RULES REPORTS, MADAM SPEAKER. SO RULES 212 BY MS. ROZIC,

425 BY MR. BRONSON, 762 BY MR. BRONSON, 787 BY MS. ROZIC, AND 832

BY MR. LASHER.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

PAGE 3, RULES REPORT NO. 212, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S02551, RULES REPORT NO.

212, SENATOR MYRIE (A03858, ROZIC, KELLES, LEVENBERG, GLICK,

JACOBSON, BORES, SIMON). AN ACT TO AMEND THE PENAL LAW, IN RELATION

TO FINES FOR CORPORATIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. ROZIC.

MS. ROZIC: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THIS BILL

UPDATES OUTDATED PENALTY LIMITS IN NEW YORK'S PENAL LAW BY

INCREASING THE MAXIMUM FINES THAT COURTS MAY IMPOSE ON CORPORATIONS

CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES. UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE MAXIMUM FINE

FOR A CORPORATE FEL -- FELONY IS $10,000. THIS NUMBER HAS NOT CHANGED

197

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SINCE 1965. SO WE RAISED THE CAP -- THAT CAP TO 80,000 FOR A FELONY,

40,000 FOR A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR, 15,000 FOR A CLASS B

MISDEMEANOR, AND 4,000 A VIOLATION. IT ALSO RETAINS THE ABILITY OF

COURTS TO IMPOSE FINES BASED ON UNLAWFUL CORPORATE PROFITS IN CASES

INVOLVING FINANCIAL CRIMES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. MORINELLO.

MR. MORINELLO: THANK YOU. WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. ROZIC: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. MORINELLO: THIS PARTICULAR BILL ADDRESSES

STRICTLY CRIMINAL PENALTIES; AM I CORRECT?

MS. ROZIC: YES.

MR. MORINELLO: HOW DO THEY COMPARE TO THE

CIVIL PENALTIES FOR A CORPORATION?

MS. ROZIC: I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME. I DON'T

HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I'M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON THAT.

MR. MORINELLO: OKAY. NOW, WHAT I SEE IS FOR A

FELONY, WHAT CATEGORY OF FELONY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

(CONFERENCING).

MS. ROZIC: I'M TOLD IT'S ANY FELONY.

MR. MORINELLO: SO ANY DEGREE OF FELONY WOULD

BE THE SAME FINE?

198

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. ROZIC: YES.

MR. MORINELLO: THANK YOU.

NOW, CAN YOU STATE WHICH OFFENSES WOULD BE SUBJECT

TO THE $80,000 FINE?

MS. ROZIC: THAT'S IN THE HANDS OF THE JUDICIAL

SYSTEM AND THE COURTS.

MR. MORINELLO: WAIT, I'M CONFUSED. YOU'RE

PUTTING A NUMBER ON A FELONY.

MS. ROZIC: WE'RE UPDATING THE PENALTY LEVELS. SO

WHAT IS CURRENTLY $10,000 WRITTEN IN THE LAW WHEN A CONVICTION IS OF A

FELONY, WE ARE JUST CHANGING (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) --

MR. MORINELLO: WELL, I -- I CAN READ THAT. MY

QUESTION WAS, OKAY, WHAT FELONIES? YOU'RE SAYING IT'S UP TO THE COURT.

MS. ROZIC: ANY.

MR. MORINELLO: SO, ANY FELONY?

MS. ROZIC: YES.

MR. MORINELLO: ANY DEGREE OF FELONY.

MS. ROZIC: YES.

MR. MORINELLO: OKAY. HOW DOES THAT FINE THAT

YOU ARE PROPOSING COMPARE TO A FINE FOR A NON-CORPORATION CONVICTED

OF A FELONY?

MS. ROZIC: CAN YOU RESTATE THAT QUESTION?

MR. MORINELLO: I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

MS. ROZIC: I COULDN'T HEAR YOU, EITHER. CAN YOU

RESTATE --

199

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. MORINELLO: OKAY. MY QUESTION WAS, HOW

DOES THE $80,000 FINE FOR A CORPORATION COMPARE TO A FINE FOR A NON-

CORPORATION THAT IS CONVICTED OF A FELONY?

MS. ROZIC: I DON'T HAVE THAT OTHER SECTION OF LAW IN

FRONT OF ME.

MR. MORINELLO: SO YOU DON'T KNOW THE

COMPARISON?

MS. ROZIC: I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

MR. MORINELLO: OKAY. WELL, DID YOU COMPARE

THEM WHEN YOU PREPARED THE BILL? DID YOU LOOK AT THEM WHEN YOU

COMPARED [SIC] THE BILL?

MS. ROZIC: WE CERTAINLY CONSULTED WITH A LOT OF

DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS AND FOUND THAT THESE WERE THE RIGHT LEVELS TO BE

UPDATED.

MR. MORINELLO: THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION, BUT

APPARENTLY YOU WON'T ANSWER IT. OKAY.

DID YOU COMPARE -- WHAT -- ON -- ON THE $40,000,

WHAT CRIMES WOULD BE COMPRISED THAT WOULD GENERATE A $40,000 FINE?

MS. ROZIC: WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE ACTUAL

CRIMES. WE'RE JUST UPDATING THE PENALTY LEVELS.

MR. MORINELLO: RIGHT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHICH

ONES -- I WANNA KNOW WHICH ONES YOU'RE -- THAT WOULD BE CONVICTED OF

OR PLED TO THAT WOULD YIELD A $40,000 FINE.

MS. ROZIC: CLASS A MISDEMEANORS.

MR. MORINELLO: PARDON?

200

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. ROZIC: CLASS A MISDEMEANORS.

MR. MORINELLO: SO, ANY CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.

MS. ROZIC: YES.

MR. MORINELLO: OKAY. BUT IT WOULDN'T BE A

DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S A CORPORATION.

MS. ROZIC: CAN -- CAN A CORPORATION DRIVE WHILE

INTOXICATED?

MR. MORINELLO: NO, I'M SAYING NO. BUT WHAT

CLASS A MISDEMEANORS WOULD YOU CONSIDER A CORPORATION COULD BE

CONVICTED OF?

MS. ROZIC: WHATEVER IS CURRENTLY UNDER THE LAW.

MR. MORINELLO: OKAY. BUT CAN YOU ENUMERATE

THEM?

MS. ROZIC: I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME. I JUST

HAVE THE UPDATE --

MR. MORINELLO: OKAY. CAN'T ANSWER THE

QUESTION.

WHAT ABOUT $15,000? CAN YOU ENUMERATE WHAT

CRIMES WOULD BE -- A CORPORATION COULD BE CONVICTED OF?

MS. ROZIC: WHATEVER THE CURRENT -- WHATEVER THE

CURRENT ONES ARE.

MR. MORINELLO: WHAT -- BUT YOU DON'T KNOW

WHAT THEY ARE.

MS. ROZIC: I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.

MR. MORINELLO: OKAY. COULD YOU COMPARE

201

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THEM TO A NON-CORPORATION, A CIVILIAN OR -- A NON-CORPORATION FINE FOR

THE SAME B MISDEMEANOR?

MS. ROZIC: WE ARE JUST UPPING THE PENALTIES BASED

UPON WHAT WE FEEL IS APPROPRIATE (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) --

MR. MORINELLO: IS THAT A NO?

MS. ROZIC: (INDISCERNIBLE) CORPORATION.

MR. MORINELLO: IS THAT A NO? I ASKED IF YOU

COMPARED THEM TO A NON-CORPORATION. NOT WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I KNOW

WHAT YOU'RE DOING. YOU'VE TOLD ME THAT AT LEAST TEN TIMES. I'M ASKING

YOU THE QUESTION, DID YOU COMPARE THEM?

MS. ROZIC: THAT IS MY ANSWER.

MR. MORINELLO: SO THE ANSWER IS NO. OKAY. IT'S

REALLY INTERESTING. TODAY WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF NOS OUT OF YOUR SIDE.

WHAT ABOUT A $4,000 FINE?

MS. ROZIC: SAME THING. ANY VIOLATION --

MR. MORINELLO: SAME THING. ANOTHER NO. OKAY.

DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS IS A DRASTIC INCREASE ALL AT ONCE?

MS. ROZIC: NO. IT'S ACTUALLY UNDER WHAT WOULD BE

IF YOU TOOK INFLATION INTO ACCOUNT.

MR. MORINELLO: ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN, A NON-

CORPORATION, HOW HAVE THEY INCREASED OR NOT INCREASED OVER THE SAME

PERIOD OF TIME?

MS. ROZIC: WE -- WE ARE ONLY FOCUSED ON

CORPORATIONS IN THIS BILL.

MR. MORINELLO: SO YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER

202

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ALSO, CORRECT? I ASKED A QUESTION. YOU ARE -- YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING

MY QUESTIONS.

MS. ROZIC: MADAM SPEAKER.

MR. MORINELLO: YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE

QUESTIONS.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. MORINELLO: APPARENTLY THE SPONSOR IS NOT

AWARE OR CANNOT ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ARE NORMALLY ASKED WHEN YOU'RE

GOING THROUGH THESE EXCESSIVE INCREASES ON CRIMES THAT NON-

CORPORATIONS HAVE -- WILL PAY ALSO. THAT'S NUMBER 1. NUMBER 2, THE

NON-CORPORATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN INCREASED ALSO. SO I'M TRYING TO -- I

WAS TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHY SUCH A FOCUS ON CORPORATIONS? BUT NOW I

UNDERSTAND WHY; BECAUSE THE SOCIALISTS RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S

MONEY THAT THIS BODY KEEPS SPENDING, AND SO THEY NEED TO CREATE BASIS

TO GET MONEY.

BECAUSE OF ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE OF THE EXCESSIVENESS,

BECAUSE OF NO GRADUATION AND NOT ABLE TO ANSWER, I URGE MY COLLEAGUES

TO VOTE NO.

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.)

203

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 9, RULES REPORT NO. 495, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A03999-B, RULES

REPORT NO. 495, BRONSON. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

LAW, IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHING THE MECHANICAL INSULATION ENERGY

SAVINGS PROGRAM.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

AN EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

MR. BRONSON.

MR. BRONSON: YES. THROUGH YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER, THIS BILL WOULD DIRECT THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY AND

RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE

SPECIFIC ENERGY AUDITS OF MECHANICAL INSULATION AND PROVIDE GRANTS FOR

PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL MECHANICAL INSULATION.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. PALMESANO.

MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. BRONSON: YES, I WILL, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

204

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU, MR. BRONSON. HOW

ARE YOU THIS EVENING?

MR. BRONSON: I'M DOING WELL AND --

MR. PALMESANO: GOOD.

MR. BRONSON: -- I HOPE YOU ARE AS WELL.

MR. PALMESANO: GOOD. THANK YOU. BEFORE I

START, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS HOW MUCH IS ALLOCATED FOR THIS

PROGRAM?

MR. BRONSON: I -- I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

MR. PALMESANO: HOW MUCH -- HOW MUCH --

DOES THIS BILL ALLOCATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR THIS PROGRAM?

MR. BRONSON: THERE IS NO APPROPRIATION IN THIS

PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

MR. PALMESANO: ALL RIGHT. WHERE DOES THE

MONEY COME FROM?

MR. BRONSON: THE MONEY WILL COME FROM CURRENT

REVENUES RECEIVED BY NYSERDA.

MR. PALMESANO: ALL RIGHT. AND THOSE REVENUES

COME FROM THE RATEPAYER, DON'T THEY? SOME OF THEM? ABOUT 700

MILLION OF THEM?

MR. BRONSON: IN SOME CASES IT COMES FROM THE

RATEPAYERS; HOWEVER, THIS BILL AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROGRAM

WILL NOT, WILL NOT, INCREASE THE COSTS TO RATEPAYERS. THAT COST WILL BE

SET ALREADY THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF RECEIVING THOSE FUNDS.

MR. PALMESANO: SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT AN

205

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INCREASE TO RATEPAYERS, BUT THE RATEPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR IT. BECAUSE

IT'S OUT OF EXISTING FUNDS THAT ALREADY THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. BRONSON: THE -- YES. A PORTION OF IT WILL BE

PAID BY RATEPAYERS; HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT AN INCREASE TO

RATEPAYERS.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW

MUCH OF A SOURCE OF FUNDS NYSERDA GETS FROM UTILITY SURCHARGE

ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE PAID BY UTILITY RATEPAYERS?

MR. BRONSON: I DO NOT, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO PUT IT

ON THE RECORD, GO FOR IT.

MR. PALMESANO: $743 MILLION.

MR. BRONSON: VERY GOOD.

MR. PALMESANO: YOU KNOW HOW MUCH IS

PROVIDED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT (INDISCERNIBLE)?

MR. BRONSON: I WOULD SUGGEST -- I -- I WOULD

SUGGEST IF YOU WANT TO PUT THOSE NUMBERS ON THE RECORD, YOU CAN.

MR. PALMESANO: THAT'S FINE.

MR. BRONSON: I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

MR. PALMESANO: I WON'T GO THROUGH THEM ALL. I

THINK WE GET THE IDEA.

MR. BRONSON: CAN I -- CAN I FINISH?

MR. PALMESANO: I'M SORRY, YES. ABSOLUTELY. A

HUNDRED PERCENT.

MR. BRONSON: IF YOU WANT TO PUT NUMBERS ON THE

RECORD, YOU CAN. I DON'T HAVE THAT --

206

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.

MR. BRONSON: -- OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, NOR DO I

HAVE NOTES ON IT. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THIS PROGRAM WILL NOT

INCREASE THE COSTS TO RATEPAYERS.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. SO THERE'S NO TOTAL

AMOUNT FOR THE PROGRAM, IT'S COMING FROM NYSERDA THROUGH THE

RATEPAYERS. YOU SAY THERE'S NO INCREASED COST TO THE RATEPAYERS. IS

THERE A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM? LIKE, IS IT 100

MILLION --

MR. BRONSON: (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK)

MR. PALMESANO: -- 20 MILLION?

MR. BRONSON: AS NYSERDA DOES WITH OTHER

PROGRAMS THAT WE AUTHORIZE OR DIRECT THEM TO DO, THEY WORK THROUGH

THEIR REVENUE MECHANISMS TO PAY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY. YOUR BILL MENTIONS

SOMETHING ABOUT IT'S NOT -- IT SHALL NOT -- IT'S NOT INTENDED TO COVER 100

PERCENT OF EXPENDITURES; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. BRONSON: IT COVERS 100 PERCENT OF THE AUDIT

AND 100 PERCENT OF THE INSTALLATION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE MATERIALS

AS WELL AS THE LABOR. AND IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT PREVAILING WAGE WILL BE

PAID, AND IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS WOULD BE

UTILIZED, WHICH WILL BE A SAVINGS TO RATEPAYERS.

MR. PALMESANO: SO THE NYSERDA IS GONNA

DECIDE HOW MUCH MONEY IS GONNA BE SPENT. WHAT ABOUT WHERE THE

MONEY IS GONNA BE SPENT? DOES NYSERDA GET TO DECIDE WHERE THAT

207

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MONEY IS GONNA BE SPENT? IS IT GONNA BE DONE BY REGION? SO THE

SOUTHERN TIER, MONROE COUNTY, LONG ISLAND AND ECON -- DIFFERENT

ZONES, OR IS IT BASICALLY NYSERDA LOOKS AT APPLICANTS AND MAKES A

DECISION?

MR. BRONSON: THE BILL DIRECTS THAT THIS PROGRAM

WILL BE AFFORDABLE TO GRANT APPLICANTS TO INCLUDE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, PUBLIC

HOSPITALS, PUBLIC HOUSING BUILDINGS OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AS DEFINED

IN CURRENT LAW.

MR. PALMESANO: RIGHT. SO JUST WANNA TAKE US

BACK 24 HOURS WHEN -- I KNOW IT'S NOT THIS BILL -- WE WERE DEBATING THE

100-FOOT RULE. I KNOW YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THE DEBATE. OUR

COLLEAGUE AND YOUR SIDE ARGUED THAT IF YOU WANT GAS, YOU CAN HAVE IT.

BUT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. NOW, FOR THE ELECTRIC, THAT WAS PICKED UP

BY THE RATEPAYER. SO IN THIS CASE, IF -- IF A -- IF A PUBLIC HOUSING FACILITY

IN NEW YORK CITY WANTS TO APPLY FOR THIS FUNDING, THEY COULD BE

GRANTED IT, BUT IT WILL BE PAID -- A LOT OF IT WILL BE PAID FOR BY RATEPAYERS

IN STEUBEN COUNTY, HERKIMER COUNTY, MONROE COUNTY. SO I GUESS MY

QUESTION TO YOU, WHY ARE RATEPAYERS -- BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING

IT'S NOT AN INCREASE TO RATEPAYERS, BUT RATEPAYER ARE, IN FACT,

CONTRIBUTING TO THIS PROGRAM WHICH IS FUNDING THIS PROGRAM. WHY

SHOULD THE RATEPAYERS IN STEUBEN COUNTY FUND A PROJECT LIKE THIS FOR

NYCHA? OR WHY SHOULD RATEPAYERS IN HERKIMER -- HERKIMER COUNTY

FUND A -- A HOSPITAL PROJECT IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY? WHAT WAS --

WHAT'S THE -- WHAT'S THE RATIONALE THERE? WHY CAN'T IT BE FUNDED BY THE

HOSPITAL ITSELF OR THE HOUSING COMPLEX ITSELF?

208

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. BRONSON: THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM IS TO

AUTHORIZE ALL OF THE ENTITIES THAT YOU JUST NAMED TO BE APPLICANTS. AND

IF THE AUDIT SHOWS A NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY, THEN

WE HAVE A POLICY HERE THAT WE SOCIALIZE THAT COST OF THAT ENERGY

EFFICIENCY AND THESE PROGRAMS TO NYSERDA IS ABOUT MAKING SURE WE

HAVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

MR. PALMESANO: SO WE WANNA SOCIALIZE THE

COSTS, RIGHT, IS WHAT YOU SAID?

MR. BRONSON: FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENERGY

EFFICIENCY.

MR. PALMESANO: SO -- AND AS MY COLLEAGUE

MENTIONED DURING THE DEBATE ON THE 100-FOOT RULE YESTERDAY, WE'VE

SEEN A NUMBER OF THESE BILLS COME THROUGH WAYS AND MEANS, WE'VE

SEEN A NUMBER OF THESE BILLS COME TO THE FLOOR OR ALMOST TO THE FLOOR.

ONE OF THEM WOULD BE USE NYSERDA DOLLARS TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF

HEAT PUMPS FOR THOSE WHO WANT HEAT PUMPS. ONE WOULD BE THE

PURCHASE REBATES FOR USED ELECTRIC VEHICLES. ONE WOULD BE FOR A NEW

CAR. AND ONE WOULD BE TO SUBSIDIZE AND PURCHASE THE COST OF LAWN

EQUIPMENT. SO AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK. WHY SHOULD THE SENIOR CITIZEN IN

STEUBEN COUNTY, WHY SHOULD THE DISABLED VETERAN IN HERKIMER COUNTY

BE -- HAVE THEIR RATES, THEIR UTILITY BILL CHARGES GO TO PAY FOR WORK BEING

DONE IN NEW YORK CITY OR -- WHERE IS THE RATIONALE? I MEAN, THE RATE --

WE KNOW -- BECAUSE WE HEARD DURING THE DEBATE, EVERYONE

(INDISCERNIBLE) WAS UPSET AT THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR -- FOR THESE

EXORBITANT RATES. BUT THESE SURCHARGES ARE ON THE RATES THAT HAVE BEEN

209

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DIRECTED BY US TO PUT ON THE BILLS THAT THEY COLLECT. SO WHY SHOULD THE

RATEPAYERS -- AGAIN, DISABLED VET -- VETERANS, SENIOR CITIZENS. WHY

SHOULD THEY HAVE TO FUND IF -- A HOSPITAL IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY? OR IF

A NYCHA APARTMENT COMPLEX IN NEW YORK CITY WANTED TO DO

INSULATION AND -- AND WEATHERIZATION. WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR

THAT? CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE ME SOME KIND OF RATIONALE THERE?

MR. BRONSON: WELL, I'M NOT SURE THE COMPARISON

TO THE DEBATE THE OTHER DAY IS -- IS APPROPRIATE. THAT BEING SAID, WHEN

WE HAVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY THAT WILL HOPEFULLY REDUCE THE NEED TO HAVE

ADDITIONAL FACILITIES BUILT AND PLANTS BUILT TO SUPPLY THE UTILITIES. SO

THIS IS ULTIMATELY AND POTENTIALLY COULD BE A SAVINGS TO RATEPAYERS --

MR. PALMESANO: SURE.

MR. BRONSON: -- BECAUSE WE FIND EFFICIENCIES,

AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE OTHER PRODUCTION AND MORE FACILITIES.

MR. PALMESANO: AND IN FAIRNESS TO YOU, MR.

BRONSON -- I'VE BEEN CRITICAL SO FAR -- I AGREE. WEATHERIZATION IS

SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED -- THAT SHOULD BE AN ATTENTION ON

WHAT WE ARE DOING. OUT OF ALL THE BILLS I MENTIONED -- NYSERDA

FUNDING FOR HEAT PUMPS, NYSERDA FUNDING FOR USED ELECTRIC

VEHICLES, FOR LAWN EQUIPMENT -- THIS IS THE ONE I THINK I -- I DON'T WANT

SAY I SUPPORT --

MR. BRONSON: YOU LIKE IT?

MR. PALMESANO: I -- I -- THIS IS THE ONE I DISLIKE

THE LEAST. HOW ABOUT THAT?

MR. BRONSON: THAT -- FAIR ENOUGH.

210

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. PALMESANO: THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH?

NOW WHEN IT COMES TO NYSERDA, WHAT KIND OF

ACCOUNTABILITY DOES NYSERDA HAVE AS FAR AS GIVING US A REPORT ON

THE MONEY THEY HAVE? DO THEY -- DON'T THEY BASICALLY JUST HAVE A BLANK

CHECK THEY CAN SPEND? THEY ASK FOR THE MONEY -- THEY ASK THE PSC FOR

THE MONEY, THEY GET THE MONEY AND THEN THEY SPEND THE MONEY. THAT'S

BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH THESE PROGRAMS, DOESN'T IT? AM I WRONG?

MR. BRONSON: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT NYSA --

NYSERDA DOES HAVE REQUIRED FINANCIAL REPORTING AND THAT THERE IS

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THEIR WEB PAGE.

MR. PALMESANO: IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE

COMPTROLLER HAS NO AUDITING OVER IT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY DON'T

REPORT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CONTROL BOARD. I'M NOT EVEN SURE

ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD AGREE THAT,

YES, THE COMPTROLLER SHOULD HAVE AUDITING AUTHORITY OVER NYSERDA?

YES, THE NYSERDA SHOULD HAVE TO BE REPORTING AND DOCUMENTING TO

THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CONTROL BOARD. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE WITH ME?

IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT SECONDARY TO THIS?

MR. BRONSON: THAT'S A BROADER QUESTION, YOU

KNOW, A POLICY DECISION THAT ONE COULD MAKE. THIS PARTICULAR BILL,

HOWEVER, DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT. THIS BILL WORKS WITHIN THE CURRENT

PARAMETER TO TRY TO HAVE A GRANT PROGRAM -- AND AUDIT PROGRAM AND A

GRANT PROGRAM TO FIND ENERGY EFFICIENCIES SO THAT WE CAN HELP WITH THE

ENERGY ACROSS THE STATE.

MR. PALMESANO: MR. BRONSON, THANK YOU FOR

211

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE OUR CORDIAL CONVERSATION.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

MR. BRONSON: THANK YOU, SIR.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. PALMESANO: MADAM SPEAKER, MY

COLLEAGUES, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION, THE IDEA

BEHIND IT. AND I AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF IT. WE SHOULD BE

PROMOTING WEATHERIZATION. WE SHOULD BE PROMOTING INSULATION.

TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE SHELLS OF THESE PROPERTIES. THAT'S A GOOD THING.

I THINK THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHO IS THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE PAYING FOR

IT? I WILL RELATE BACK TO THE CONVERSATION YESTERDAY WHEN WE WERE

TALKING ABOUT THE 100-FOOT RULE. MY COLLEAGUE AND OTHERS SAID, HEY, IF

YOU WANT NATURAL GAS YOU CAN HAVE IT. BUT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT NOW.

BUT WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE ELECTRIC BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA

SUBSIDIZE NATURAL GAS. AND I WON'T GET INTO THE ARGUMENTS FROM THAT

PERSPECTIVE. SO THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. BUT HERE WE ARE

WITH THE BILL, SAYING, OKAY A NYCHA HOUSING, WHICH WE KNOW HAS

BEEN -- HAVE ISSUES AND WITH PROBLEMS, FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT

PROBLEMS. SO IF A NYCHA HOUSING DEVELOPER OR COMPLEX WANTS TO

COME IN AND ASK FOR FUNDING THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, THEY CAN REQUEST TO

BECOME AN APPLICANT, RECEIVE HOW MUCH MONEY SO THEY CAN COVER UP

TO 100 PERCENT OF INSULATION, 100 PERCENT OF THIS, 100 PERCENT OF THAT.

BUT WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT? YES, THE RESIDENTS IN STEUBEN COUNTY, THE

RESIDENTS IN HERKIMER COUNTY, THE RESIDENTS IN CATTARAUGUS COUNTY,

THE RESIDENTS EVERYWHERE. HOW ABOUT WE USE THAT SAME THINKING? IF

212

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NEW YORK CITY, NYCHA HOUSING WANTS AN INSULATION PROJECT, HOW

ABOUT THEY PAY FOR IT, NOT SUBSIDIZE OR SOCIALIZE, AS THE WORD WAS

MENTIONED, OVER ALL THE OTHER RATEPAYERS. BECAUSE WE HEARD DURING THE

DEBATE YESTERDAY, COUNTLESS SPEAKERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE GET

UP AND YELL, IT'S THE UTILITIES' FAULT. THE UTILITY BILLS ARE OUT OF CONTROL.

I AGREE. THEY ARE. BUT YOU DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH WITH THAT COMMENT

BECAUSE YOU DON'T LOOK IN THE MIRROR. IT'S EASY TO POINT THE FINGER AT THE

UTILITIES AND SAY, IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT. BUT YOU DON'T -- YOU SHOULD NOT BE

POINTING THE FINGER AT THE UTILITIES. REMEMBER, THREE FINGERS ARE

POINTING BACK AT YOU. YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING -- TAKING A HARD LOOK IN

THE MIRROR AND RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S YOUR POLICIES THAT ARE DRIVING UP THE

UTILITY RATES, THE ELECTRIC RATES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. SO WE HAVE

THAT BILL. WE HAD A BILL THAT WOULD SUBSIDIZE LAWN EQUIPMENT, ELECTRIC

LEAF BLOWERS, LAWN MOWERS, WEED WHACKERS. THAT BILL WOULDN'T

SUBSIDIZE -- BE SUBSIDIZED BY RATEPAYERS. IF YOU WANT AN ELECTRIC

LAWNMOWER, GO BUY AN ELECTRIC LAWNMOWER. DON'T ASK THE RATEPAYERS

OF NEW YORK STATE TO PAY FOR IT.

HEAT PUMPS, ELECTRIC HEAT PUMPS AND ELECTRIC USED

AUTOMOBILES. ONE THING AFTER ANOTHER. IF IT COMES OUT OF NYSERDA,

BUT THEY FAIL TO RECOGNIZE HOW MUCH MONEY IS COMING FROM THE

RATEPAYER. I TOLD ONE -- JUST IN THE UTILITY ASSESSMENTS ALONE LAST YEAR,

THEY COLLECTED ABOUT $743 MILLION. YOU TAKE THE RENEWABLE ENERGY

CREDIT PROCEEDS; THEY'RE ABOUT $54 MILLION. YOU HAVE A WHOLE HOST OF

-- THAT'S -- THAT'S WHAT'S RAISING THESE PRICES. WE CONTINUE TO FAIL TO

RECOGNIZE. BECAUSE ON THE BILL, THE BILL IS MADE OF THREE PORTIONS: YOU

213

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HAVE THE TAXES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS. SOME OF THOSE TAXES, FEES AND

ASSESSMENTS ARE LIKE THE SYSTEMS BENEFIT CHARGE. THEY PAY FOR THESE

PROGRAMS, AND THAT'S A TAX -- AN ASSESSMENT ON THE -- THE RATEPAYER.

YOU ALSO HAVE -- THE OTHER PART OF YOUR BILL IS FOR

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERY. THAT'S THE PART OF THE UTILITY BILL WHERE THE

UTILITY GOES TO THE PSC ASKING FOR THE RATE INCREASES FOR THE DELIVERY.

THAT'S FOR THE WIRES, THE POLES, THE SUBSTATIONS, THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT

THEY NEED TO PAY FOR, OR THE TREE TRIMMING THAT THEY NEED TO PAY FOR TO

PUT IN PLACE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO PAY FOR THESE GREEN ENERGY MANDATES

THAT YOU ONCE AGAIN ARE PUTTING ON UPON THEM. SO THEY'RE GETTING HIT

ON THE TAXES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS BY THE PROGRAMS PUT ON THEM IN THIS

HOUSE. THEY'RE GETTING HIT ON THE TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY CHARGES

THROUGH THE UTILITY BILLS THAT ARE PUT ON THEM. AND THEN THEY'RE GETTING

HIT ON THE SUPPLY SIDE. HOW ARE THEY GETTING HIT ON THE SUPPLY SIDE?

THE SUPPLY SIDE IS A PASS-THROUGH, BUT YET THE PSC IS TAKING ACTION TO

SOCIALIZE THOSE COSTS ALSO. FOR EXAMPLE, THE OFFSHORE WIND PROPOSALS

FOR DOWNSTATE. THEY WANT TO SOCIALIZE THOSE COSTS SO IT -- IT WOULD BE

SPREAD OUT OVER THE SUPPLY AND BAKED INTO THE SUPPLY SO EVERYONE'S

PAYING FOR IT. AND WHO DOES THAT BENEFIT? IT ONLY BENEFITS DOWNSTATE.

THE CHAMPLAIN HUDSON EXPRESS [SIC], THE -- THE BIG POWER LINE FROM

QUEBEC -- OH, AND BY THE WAY, QUEBEC DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE THE

POWER TO NEW YORK CITY IF THEY NEED IT IN QUEBEC. WHY WAS THAT PUT

IN PLACE? BECAUSE OF THE BRILLIANCE OF THE FORMER GOVERNMENT --

GOVERNOR WHO SAID, WE'RE GONNA SHUT DOWN INDIAN POINT, WHICH

PROVIDES 25 PERCENT OF THE POWER TO NEW YORK CITY, AND IT WAS AN

214

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

EMISSION-FREE GENERATION, 2,000 MEGAWATTS. SO WE HAD TO SHUT IT

DOWN. WE HAD TO ADDRESS THAT. SO NOW THE CHAMPLAIN HUDSON

EXPRESS [SIC] IS GONNA COME FROM QUEBEC DOWN TO NEW YORK CITY TO

BRING THE POWER. THE ONLY ONE THAT HOOK ON THAT LINE IS NEW YORK

CITY. BUT NEW YORK CITY ISN'T THE ONLY ONE PAYING FOR IT. THE

RATEPAYERS IN STEUBEN COUNTY, THE RATEPAYERS IN HERKIMER COUNTY, THE

RATEPAYERS IN CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY. THEY'RE ALL PAYING FOR IT. THAT'S

WHAT THESE POLICIES CONTINUE TO DO TIME AND TIME AGAIN. IF YOU THINK

THESE POLICIES ARE SUCH A GOOD THING, LET'S BE HONEST AND TRANSPARENT

WITH THE RATEPAYERS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD

LEGISLATION CALLED THE TRANSPAYER [SIC] -- THE RATEPAYER DISCLOSURE AND

TRANSPARENCY ACT. WHAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE IS THAT ON YOUR UTILITY BILL

THEY WOULD LINE OUT ALL THESE SPECIFIC MANDATES, THESE ENERGY CHARGES.

WHETHER IT WAS A -- A SYSTEMS BENEFIT CHARGE. ALL THESE PROGRAMS,

THESE ASSESSMENTS. THESE TAXES, FEES -- I'M ALMOST DONE -- THE -- THAT

WOULD GO ON YOUR BILL. BUT YET THIS HOUSE REJECTED THAT PROPOSAL. YOU

DIDN'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW. YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO KNOW HOW

BAD THIS IS. YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GONNA COST

THEM. THAT'S WHY YOU NEVER DID A COST -- NEVER WENT FOR A TRUE COST-

BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF HOW MUCH IT WAS GONNA COST THEM.

SO HERE WE ARE, WE'RE AT THE END -- NEAR THE END HERE.

AND I TALKED ABOUT THE BILL LAST YEAR -- LAST WEEK -- YESTERDAY YOU WERE

TALKING ABOUT $200 MILLION FOR THAT. BUT NOT A WORD ABOUT A QUARTER-OF-

A-TRILLION DOLLARS TO GREEN ENERGY POLICIES THAT ARE COSTING THE STATE OF

NEW YORK. POLICIES LIKE THIS THAT NYSERDA IS PAYING FOR TO HELP

215

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INSULATION, TO DO THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. YOU DON'T WANNA COVER THOSE.

ONE THING AFTER ANOTHER. AND ON TOP OF IT, THERE'S NO CAP ON CHARGES.

THERE'S NO DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THIS PROGRAM LISTED. WE'RE JUST PUTTING ALL

OUR FAITH IN NYSERDA SAYING, YOU TAKE CARE OF IT. WE TRUST YOU. I

DON'T TRUST NYSERDA, BECAUSE RATES ARE GOING UP. WE OUGHT TO TALK

ABOUT THE RATES. THEY COULD PAY UP TO 100 PERCENT OF THESE COSTS. SO

NO CAP, NO TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT FUNDING LISTED. NO CAP ON COSTS. COULD

DRIVE IT UP TO 100 PERCENT OF THE COVERAGE BASED ON THIS LEGISLATION.

GIVE NYSERDA THE ABILITY TO SAY WHERE'S IT GONNA SPEND. THEY

COULD SPEND IT IN NEW YORK CITY, IN WESTCHESTER AND LONG ISLAND IF

THEY WANT, TO HECK WITH UPSTATE NEW YORK. BUT YET, UPSTATE NEW

YORK RATEPAYERS ARE GONNA BE PAYING FOR THIS. AND NYSERDA HAS NO

ACCOUNTABILITY. THEY'RE BASICALLY GIVEN A BLANK CHECK. THIS HOUSE IS

GIVING THEM A BLANK CHECK. BECAUSE EVERY TIME ON ALL OF THESE BILLS I

MENTIONED, WE SAY NYSERDA CAN FIGURE IT OUT. BUT NYSERDA

DOESN'T REALLY REPORT BACK. THERE'S NO COMPTROLLER AUDITS OF IT. THERE'S

NO -- NO REPORTING BACK TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CONTROL BOARD.

NOTHING FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THIS IS SO PROBLEMATIC IN SO

MANY WAYS. I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO. I'M

GONNA NOT USE MY FULL TIME THERE ON THE SECOND PORTION.

BUT FOR THIS REASON, MADAM SPEAKER, MY COLLEAGUES,

WITHOUT -- EVEN WITH RESPECT I HAVE FOR THE SPONSOR AND HIS INTENTIONS

BEHIND THE BILL, WHICH AGREE WITH THE INTENTIONS. I JUST DISAGREE WITH

HOW IT'S BEING PAID FOR. IF NEW YORK CITY HOUSING WANTS INSULATION,

NEW YORK CITY CAN PAY FOR IT. IF A WESTCHESTER PUBLIC HOSPITAL WANTS

216

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INSULATION, WESTCHESTER CAN PAY FOR IT. DON'T ASK FOR THE RESIDENTS OF

STEUBEN COUNTY, HERKIMER COUNTY, CATTARAUGUS COUNTY, ALLEGANY

COUNTY. SOME OF THE POORER COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. DON'T

ASK THOSE RATEPAYERS TO PAY FOR IT. IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT, IT'S NOT FAIR, AND IT'S

NOT A GOOD THING.

SO FOR THAT REASON, MADAM SPEAKER AND MY

COLLEAGUES, I'M GONNA BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL AND I WOULD URGE MY

COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. ARI BROWN.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. BRONSON: YES, THROUGH YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU, MR. SPONSOR. I

GENERALLY LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THESE TYPES OF BILLS. I JUST NEED SOME

CLARIFICATION, PLEASE.

I NOTICED IN THE SENATE COMPANION BILL THERE WAS A

$20 MILLION CAP. WHY DON'T WE HAVE A SIMILAR CAP IN THE ASSEMBLY

SIDE OF IT?

MR. BRONSON: WE ARE PASSING A SAME-AS BILL WITH

THE SENATE.

217

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. A. BROWN: I -- I APOLOGIZE, I COULDN'T HEAR

YOU.

MR. BRONSON: THE BILL WE'RE PASSING IS THE SAME

AS -- AS THE SENATE, AND TECHNICALLY WE'RE PASSING THE SENATE'S BILL, NOT

THE ASSEMBLY'S BILL.

MR. A. BROWN: OH, MY APOLOGY. I THOUGHT THERE

WAS, LIKE, AN UNLIMITED YOU HAD MENTIONED TO MR. PALMESANO. OKAY.

THAT'S FINE.

WOULD YOU MIND IF WE DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF HOW IT

WORKS? FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THERE IS NO CHARGE TO THE APPLICANT

FOR THE INITIAL AUDIT.

MR. BRONSON: CORRECT.

MR. A. BROWN: AND THEN, I GUESS THE AUDIT'S

CREATED AND IT'S SOMEHOW SENT OVER TO NYSERDA AND THEY WILL MAKE

THE DETERMINATION IF THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT IS WORTHY OF MOVING

FORWARD?

MR. BRONSON: SO, THE AUDITOR WORKS WITH THE

BUILDING OWNER AND NYSERDA. IF THE AUDIT REVEALS THAT THERE IS A

NEED FOR THE INSULATION, THEN THAT APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR

A GRANT.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU. IN -- IN THE -- IN THE

AUDIT I'M ASSUMING THAT THE AUDITOR WILL GIVE A COST ANALYSIS OF WHAT

THE PROJECT WILL COST?

MR. BRONSON: THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.

MR. A. BROWN: OKAY.

218

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

JUST MOVING ON. SO DOES THIS -- I READ THROUGH THE

BILL. I COULDN'T SEE IF THIS APPLIED ONLY TO NEW BUILDINGS OR EXISTING AS

WELL, OR EXISTING AND NEW BUILDINGS.

MR. BRONSON: IT COULD BE EITHER.

MR. A. BROWN: ALL RIGHT. SO -- SO THAT'S WHERE MY

QUESTION LEADS. ON A NEW PROJECT, A GUY DECIDES TO FRAME A BUILDING,

YOU KNOW, STARTS AT 20,000 SQUARE FEET ACCORDING TO THE BILL, HE DOES

THE FRAMING AND HE SAYS TO HIMSELF, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S GONNA COST

ME 20 GRAND TO PUT INSULATION AROUND THESE PARTICULAR PIPES. LET ME

HAVE AN AUDIT DONE AND MAYBE I CAN SAVE THAT OFF THE COST OF THE

CONSTRUCTION OF MY NEW BUILD. IS THERE -- IS THERE ANY LIMITATION SO WE

DON'T SEE DEVELOPERS TRYING TO GO TO NYSERDA FOR AN INHERENT COST

THAT TYPICALLY WOULD HAPPEN ON A REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT?

MR. BRONSON: SO THE WAY THE AUDIT WOULD GO IS

YOU WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE AN EXISTING SYSTEM. SO IF THAT SYSTEM'S NOT

THERE, THERE'S NOT SOMETHING TO EVALUATE YET. AND SO THE IDEA, AGAIN,

WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF FINDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, THAT'S WHERE THE AUDIT

WOULD -- WOULD LOOK AT THE SYSTEM.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK -- THANK YOU, MR. SPONSOR.

SO, I APOLOGIZE IF I WASN'T CLEAR. WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS A DEVELOPER

BUILDS A BUILDING, ERECTS THE STEEL, ENCAPSULATES THE BUILDING, PUTS IN

THE WINDOWS, PUTS IN THE DOORS, PUT IN THE ROOF. ROUGHS ALL OF HIS

PLUMBING WORK, HIS HVAC WORK, THIS IS THE MECHANICAL AND HE SAYS,

YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M NOT GONNA DO MY INSULATION INSPECTION.

EVERYTHING'S IN PLACE, AS YOU HAD MENTIONED JUST NOW. I'M GONNA ASK

219

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FOR THE AUDIT AND MAYBE I CAN SAVE 10-, 15-, 30-, $50,000 ON THE

INSULATION. IT SEEMS THAT WE MAY NEED A LITTLE CLARIFICATION IN THE BILL TO

PROBABLY PROHIBIT THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT WAS PROBABLY, YOU

KNOW, TO DO IT FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS; AM I CORRECT?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. BRONSON: OKAY. SO IN THE BILL IT HAS A

DEFINITION OF MECHANICAL INSULATION, WHICH IS INSULATION MATERIALS,

FACINGS AND ACCESSORY PRODUCTS USED FOR THERMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR

MECHANICAL PIPING AND EQUIPMENT, HOT AND COLD APPLICATIONS, HEATING,

VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING APPLICATION. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD

BE AN AUDIT OF THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND LOOKING TO SEE IF YOU ARE GONNA

PUT MECHANICAL INSULATION IN THEM.

MR. A. BROWN: CORRECT. SO -- SO LIKE -- WE'RE IN

AGREEMENT. SO -- SO NOW THAT THEY SEE THE NEW -- ALL THE NEW

MECHANICALS IN PLACE, THE NEXT STEP IS ALWAYS INSULATION BEFORE THEY

CLOSE THE WALLS. WOULD THIS -- COULD THIS POSSIBLY GET AN AUDIT AND THE

FUNDING ON A NEW BUILDING WITH THESE MECHANICALS ALREADY IN PLACE, AS

YOU HAD JUST MENTIONED?

MR. BRONSON: YEAH, I -- SO THROUGH YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER, THE INTENT HERE -- AND WE AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT NYSERDA TO

PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. SO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL AND THAT LEVEL

OF PROCESS, OUR ANTICIPATION WOULD BE WOULD BE DEALT WITH THROUGH THE

PROMULGATED RULES AND REGULATIONS.

MR. A. BROWN: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. SPONSOR.

I NOTICED ALSO IT MENTIONS -- THE BILL MENTIONS THAT

220

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CERTAIN PRIVATE OWNERS MAY BE ELIGIBLE, BUT THERE WASN'T ANY

CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WHAT -- WHAT WOULD THAT -- WHO WOULD -- WHO

WOULD THOSE PRIVATE OWNERS BE? PRIVATE FOR COMMERCIAL USE OR IS THAT

RESIDENTIAL?

MR. BRONSON: SO -- SO ON ANY OF THESE WHERE WE

ARE INDICATING THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND THE LIKE, IT COULD

BE A PRIVATE OWNER THAT'S BUILDING PUBLIC HOUSING.

MR. A. BROWN: I SEE. THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH.

MR. BRONSON: COULD BE A PRIVATE SCHOOL.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU, MR. SPONSOR,.

ONE OF THE GLARING THINGS THAT I WAS A BIT CONCERNED

WAS EXISTING BUILDINGS. SO THERE ARE -- THE BILL CALLS FOR, AND RIGHTFULLY

SO, SOMEONE WHO'S CERTIFIED TO DO THE AUDIT. HE GOES INTO AN EXISTING

BUILDING, WHETHER A SCHOOL OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF WAREHOUSE OR

STRUCTURE, AND HE LOOKS AT THESE 100-YEAR-OLD PIPES AND HE DISCOVERS

GUESS WHAT'S AROUND THOSE OLD PIPES?

MR. BRONSON: MM-HMM.

MR. A. BROWN: ASBESTOS, THAT MAGIC MINERAL.

DURING THE PROCESS OF HIS AUDIT HE'S GOING TO RECORD THAT HE NOTICED THAT

THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF ASBESTOS AROUND THE PIPING AND AROUND THE CAST

IRON BOILER. AND EVEN SOMETIMES AROUND THE OLD DUCTWORK. HE'S NOW

GONNA BE REPORTING THAT TO NYSERDA. SHOULD THAT HAPPEN, WOULD

THERE BE NOW A LIABILITY TO THE EXISTING BUILDING OWNER TO DO THE

REMEDIATION ON THAT ASBESTOS CAUSING HIM A PROBLEM? IN OTHER WORDS,

COULD THERE BE A LOOK-BACK AND HE ENDS UP NOT ONLY GETTING MONEY

221

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FROM NYSERDA, BUT THERE HAS TO BE REMEDIATION THAT HE DIDN'T

ANTICIPATE SPENDING?

MR. BRONSON: THROUGH YOU, MADAM SPEAKER,

THERE'S ALREADY LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ASBESTOS

ABATEMENT AND WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A BUILDING OWNER IN THAT

REGARD, SO THIS BILL DOESN'T CHANGE THAT IN ANY WAY.

MR. A. BROWN: I APPRECIATE IT. MAYBE IT WAS THE

WAY I EXPLAINED IT. THE ASBESTOS ON THE PIPING IN THE HYPOTHETICAL

BUILDING IS IN A SAFE CONDITION. IT'S NOT IN ANY POWDERY FORM, IT'S NOT

FALLING IN ANY WAY. BUT AS -- AS YOU HAD PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN

GET BETTER -- BETTER INSULATION FACTOR OUT OF A MORE MODERN TYPE OF

INSULATION. HIS BUILDING NOW WOULD GO THROUGH THIS AUDIT AND IT --

NYSERDA AND OTHER ENTITIES WOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE ASBESTOS IN

THE -- IN THE BUILDING. WELL, EVEN IF HE WOULDN'T GET INTO TROUBLE,

SO-TO-SPEAK, ABOUT HAVING THE ASBESTOS BECAUSE IT'S IN SAFE CONDITION, IS

NYSERDA GOING TO PAY FOR NOT ONLY APPLYING THE NEW INSULATION BUT

DOING ALL OF THAT REMEDIATION WHICH IS EXTENSIVE, QUITE EXTENSIVE?

MR. BRONSON: I WOULD THINK THAT IN ANY OTHER --

LIKE IN ANY OTHER SITUATION -- THROUGH YOU, MADAM SPEAKER -- THAT A

BUILDING OWNER WOULD THEN HAVE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL. YOU KNOW,

IF -- IF THE ASBESTOS ISN'T FRIABLE, IT'S NOT AIRABLE, IT'S -- IT'S NOT DANGEROUS

IN ANY WAY, THAT BUILDING OWNER WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, DO I

NOW TRY TO REPLACE IT AND MEDIATE THE SITUATION, OR DO I NOT DO THAT

BECAUSE OF THE COST. IT'S PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE OF THE COST.

MR. A. BROWN: I DO LIKE THAT ANSWER.

222

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. BRONSON: AS LONG AS IT'S SAFE, RIGHT? I MEAN,

IF -- IF IT'S NOT, THEN THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT SITUATION.

MR. A. BROWN: RIGHT. SO -- SO THERE -- THERE LIES

(INDISCERNIBLE). I DO HAPPEN TO LIKE THAT ANSWER, THAT RESPONSE. BUT

AGAIN, IF WE'RE GONNA PUT THE ONUS AND THE BURDEN ON THE OWNER OF THE

BUILDING TO MAKE THAT DECISION, THAT'S OKAY. HE'S GONNA PAY FOR HIS

OWN PROBLEMS. BUT WILL IT END UP FALLING ON NYSERDA, YOU KNOW,

THROUGH A GRANT OR WHATEVER IT IS, TO DO THAT REMEDIATION? IT REALLY

DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THE BILL. AND THE OTHER PART OF THAT QUESTION IS -- THE

OTHER PART OF THAT QUESTION IS, SHOULD HE NOT BE -- IF HE'S HONEST ABOUT IT

AND HE REALLY WASN'T AWARE THAT IT WAS FRIABLE, IT'S IN A POWDER FORM.

HE JUST DIDN'T NOTICE. IT COULD HAPPEN. NOW IT'S OUT IN THE OPEN AND,

BOY, I NOW HAVE A BIG EXPENSE I DIDN'T ANTICIPATE HAVING TO DO. IS

NYSERDA GONNA TAKE CARE OF THAT REMEDIATION, OR DID IT FALL BACK ON

HIM BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HE REALLY WASN'T AWARE OF, IN AN HONEST

WAY?

MR. BRONSON: WELL, THROUGH YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER, THE -- MY EXPECTATION HERE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO OTHER

PROGRAMS WHERE NYSERDA DOES NOT BECOME LIABLE IN THOSE KIND OF

SITUATIONS. IT'S STILL THE BUILDING OWNER WHO'S RESPONSIBLE. AND IF -- IF

THERE'S A NEED TO MEDIATE ASBESTOS, THEN THAT BUILDING OWNER IS GONNA

HAVE TO DO THAT. THAT DOESN'T GET TRANSFERRED TO NYSERDA MERELY

BECAUSE WE'RE CREATING A GRANT APPROACH REGARDING MECHANICAL

INSULATION.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK -- THANK YOU FOR THAT

223

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ANSWER.

ONE LAST QUESTION, IF I MAY. SO WE TALK ABOUT THE

MEPS; MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND THIS IS WHERE THE

ENCAPSULATION IS. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE DUCTWORK ASPECT, THERE

REALLY ISN'T A WAY OF BRINGING THAT DUCTWORK UP TO CODE WITH TODAY'S,

YOU KNOW, INSULATING FACTORS. THE OLD STEEL DUCTWORK WOULD HAVE TO

BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH R8 DUCTWORK, R8. HOW -- HOW WOULD

THIS PROGRAM WORK? WOULD NYSERDA END UP PAYING FOR A MASSIVE

PROGRAM LIKE THAT AS WELL?

MR. BRONSON: THROUGH YOU, MADAM SPEAKER,

YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA TO PLEAD. I'M A LAWYER. I -- I -- YOU KNOW, I'M

NOT INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION TRADE, AS YOU ARE. SO THAT LEVEL OF

DETAIL, I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO AND -- AND DO IT WITH A

STRAIGHT FACE, IF YOU WILL. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS NYSERDA HAS THE

EXPERTISE -- YOU KNOW, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HIRE AUDITORS AND CONTRACTORS

WHO ARE EXPERTS. AND I WILL DEFER TO THEIR EXPERTISE IN THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF A VERY BASIC BILL THAT SAYS WE AUDIT AND IF THERE'S A

NEED FOUND, THEN THERE'S A GRANT APPROACH THAT WILL HELP THAT -- THE

OWNER OF THAT BUILDING, WHETHER IT BE A PUBLIC OWNER OR A PRIVATE

OWNER.

MR. A. BROWN: THAT'S -- THAT'S A FAIR ANSWER. JUST

GETTING BACK TO MY INITIAL QUESTION, THOUGH. IS IT GONNA BE CAPPED AT

THE 20 MILLION LIKE THE SENATE COMPANION BILL OR WOULD IT BE

UNLIMITED?

MR. BRONSON: THERE IS NO CAP IN THE CURRENT BILL.

224

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YOU MAKE BE LOOKING AT AN EARLIER VERSION OF THE BILL.

MR. A. BROWN: (INDISCERNIBLE)

MR. BRONSON: THERE'S NO CAP ON THE BILL -- SENATE

BILL 2457-B.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU --

MR. BRONSON: THE BILL THAT WE'RE DEBATING TODAY.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERS, MR.

SPONSOR.

MR. BRONSON: THANK YOU.

MR. A. BROWN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

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. DAIS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. DAIS: I'LL BE BRIEF. I WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR.

MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1901. I HAVE A CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND. MY

HOUSE HAS VERY POOR INSULATION. I HAVE SOLAR PANELS, HEAT PUMPS. A

HEAT PUMP FOR MY WATER HEATER. I'M DOING EVERYTHING TO LOWER MY

CARBON FOOTPRINT. BUT WHAT I REALIZED WITH MY HEAT PUMPS, I NEED

INSULATION IN MY WALLS. SO I WILL BE USING THIS PROGRAM MYSELF, AND I

WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE IN MY COMMUNITY KNOW ABOUT IT.

BECAUSE IF WE CAN LOWER THEIR ENERGY BILLS BY MAKING SURE THAT WE

225

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HAVE INSULATION THAT -- THAT LOWERS OUR ENERGY USAGE IN MY DISTRICT, AND

THAT'S GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE ACROSS THE STATE AND I'M HOPING THAT

THIS PROGRAM WILL BE WIDELY USED IN ALL OF OUR DISTRICTS.

THANK YOU, AND I'LL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DAIS IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 17, RULES REPORT NO. 762, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08034-A, RULES REPORT

NO. 762, SENATOR RAMOS (A08590-A, BRONSON, LASHER, JACOBSON,

VALDEZ). AN ACT TO AMEND THE LABOR LAW, IN RELATION TO DISPUTES

BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND RECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MR. BRONSON.

MR. BRONSON: YES, THROUGH YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. THIS BILL WOULD AMEND THE LABOR LAW TO REQUIRE THE PUBLIC

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD TO PROMPTLY CERTIFY EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING

REPRESENTATION AND UNITS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED BY ANOTHER STATE OR

FEDERAL AGENCY. ANY TERMS OR CONDITIONS AGREED BETWEEN EMPLOYERS

AND SAID EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES WOULD REMAIN IN FULL

FORCE AND EFFECT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. SEMPOLINSKI.

226

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR

SOME QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. BRONSON: YES, THROUGH YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: I APPRECIATE THE SPONSOR FOR

YIELDING, ESPECIALLY I APP -- APPRECIATE HIM BEING WILLING TO DO TWO

BILLS IN A ROW. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND AS YOU MENTIONED IN THE

LAST DEBATE, YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY. I'M NOT. SO THE FIRST OF MY QUESTIONS IS

JUST GONNA BE SORT OF WALKING THROUGH CURRENT LAW TO MAKE SURE I

UNDERSTAND IT AND THE FOLKS BACK HOME UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY WHAT

THIS DOES AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO SOME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AT -- AT

THE END.

AM I CORRECT THAT THIS BILL AMENDS SECTION 715 OF THE

LABOR LAW, WHICH IS A PORTION OF ARTICLE 12 -- I'M SORRY, NOT ARTICLE

12, ARTICLE 20, WHICH IS THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR -- LABOR LAW?

MR. BRONSON: THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SO ARTICLE 20 OF THE NEW

YORK LABOR RELATIONS ACT, IN GENERAL -- AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG

ABOUT ITS GENERAL PURPOSE -- PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS TO ORGANIZE

AND COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN. THAT IS THE BROAD PURPOSE OF THAT EXISTING

ARTICLE 20 OF THE LABOR LAW.

MR. BRONSON: I'M SORRY, COULD YOU ASK THAT

227

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

QUESTION AGAIN?

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OH, SORRY. THIS IS AN

AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 20 OF LABOR LAW, THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR

RELATIONS ACT. AM I CORRECT THAT THAT ARTICLE, ARTICLE 20, THE EXISTING

LAW, BROADLY IS PUT IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS TO ORGANIZE

AND COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN AND REGULATE THOSE PARTICULAR MATTERS?

MR. BRONSON: YOU ARE CORRECT. THAT LAW WAS PUT

IN PLACE TO IMPLEMENT OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, SECTION -- OR

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 17, WHICH GRANTS WORKERS THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND

TO SELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: THANK YOU. AND THE SECTION

BEING AMENDED IN THIS BILL, SECTION 715, THE PURPOSE OF THAT EXISTING

SECTION IS TO DETERMINE TO WHOM THE BROADER ARTICLE 20 APPLIES.

MR. BRONSON: IT -- INDEED, IT DOES.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. AND SO IT CURRENTLY

APPLIES TO --- AND I'LL READ FROM THE STATUTE -- EMPLOYEES AND ANY

EMPLOYER WHO CONCEDE TO AND AGREE WITH THE BOARD -- AND THAT IS A

BOARD THAT IS CONSTRUCTED EARLIER IN THE ARTICLE -- THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES

ARE SUBJECT TO AND PROTECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS ACT OR FEDERAL RAILWAY LABOR ACT. SO IT EXEMPTS -- CURRENT

LAW EXEMPTS THOSE TWO CATEGORIES FROM THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 20 OF

THE LABOR LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

MR. BRONSON: THAT IS CORRECT.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. AND THEY WOULD THEN

FALL UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION AS OPPOSED TO STATE JURISDICTION UNDER

228

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CURRENT LAW.

MR. BRONSON: THAT IS CORRECT.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE CHANGE WOULD BE INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT ANYONE

SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS -- THE -- THE CURRENT LAW

DOES NOT APPLY. IT SAYS THE CURRENT LAW DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SUCCESSFULLY ASSERTS JURISDICTION VIA AN

ORDER BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. THAT IS YOUR CHANGE TO THE LAW.

MR. BRONSON: THAT IS A CORRECT READING OF THE

LEGISLATION.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: ALL RIGHT. SO AM I CORRECT THAT

PRIOR, THE CURRENT LAW, YOU'RE SORT OF ASSUMED TO BE UNDER NLRB

JURISDICTION IF EVERYBODY SORT OF AGREES, AND NOW YOU NEED A CONCRETE

COURT ORDER.

MR. BRONSON: YOU NEED THE BOARD TO

SUCCESSFULLY ASSERT JURISDICTION.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SO IT'S A -- AM I CORRECT THIS IS

SORT OF GOING FROM -- THERE -- THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE OF AN AFFIRMATIVE

ACT TO ASSERT JURISDICTION UNDER THE NEW STATUTE?

MR. BRONSON: YOU ARE CORRECT.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND THEN SUBSECTION 2, COULD YOU WALK ME THROUGH

HOW THAT WOULD WORK IN PRACTICAL TERMS DAY-TO-DAY?

MR. BRONSON: SO IF INDEED THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATION [SIC] ACT IS NOT SUCCESSFULLY ASSERT -- ASSERTED AND THE

229

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

JURISDICTION'S NOT ASSERTED, THEN THESE CASES WOULD BE DEALT WITH

THROUGH OUR CURRENT PERB, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS BOARD.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. AND IT SORT OF -- AM I

CORRECT THAT THE -- THE LANGUAGE SORT OF TALKS ABOUT STUFF THAT IS

PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED? DOES THIS PROVIDE FOR ANY NEW CERTIFICATIONS THAT

ARE NOT ALREADY PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. BRONSON: YES. THEY -- IT WOULD PROVIDE FOR

NEW CERTIFICATION AS WELL, BECAUSE THAT'S IN A DIFFERENT SECTION.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. SO IF -- IF THERE WAS

SOME SORT OF PROBLEM WITH THE NLRB BEING UNABLE TO ASSERT AUTHORITY

THROUGH A COURT ORDER, THEN YOU COULD -- YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO CERTIFY

EXISTING AND NEW CERTIFICATIONS.

MR. BRONSON: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS -- SINCE WE'RE IN A SORT OF

STATE/ FEDERAL SECTION OF THE LAW WHERE WE'RE NEGOTIATING OUR

RELATIONSHIP WITH FEDERAL LABOR AUTHORITIES, ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS

ABOUT CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW IF THIS WENT INTO PLACE?

MR. BRONSON: THERE'S NOT A CONCERN ABOUT

CONFLICT. I WILL -- I WILL SHARE WITH YOU HOW THIS BILL CAME ABOUT.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SURE. PLEASE DO.

MR. BRONSON: THIS BILL IS THE RESULT OF MANY

ATTORNEYS, LABOR ATTORNEYS FROM OUR AREA, ATTORNEYS FROM CORNELL

INDUSTRIAL LABOR RELATIONS SCHOOL, ATTORNEYS FROM NYU WAGNER

230

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SCHOOL OF -- OF LABOR [SIC]. ATTORNEYS, INDEED, FROM ACROSS THIS -- THE

COUNTRY. LATE LAST YEAR, THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, I BEGAN TO HAVE

REGULAR MEETINGS WITH CHAIRS OF LABOR COMMITTEES AT STATE LEGISLATURES

ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND OTHERS, TO DISCUSS WHAT WE WOULD DO AS STATES

TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT OUR WORKERS AND THEIR RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. AS I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER DURING THE DEBATE,

THAT IS ENSHRINED IN OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION. SO WHAT ARE WE

GONNA DO SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN'T EXERCISING THAT OVERSIGHT

AND, YOU KNOW, THE -- THE PROCEDURES UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS BOARD? AND, INDEED, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN

STEPS NOT TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THE WORKERS' RIGHTS TO ORGANIZE AND

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND THEY'VE DONE THAT IN -- IN SEVERAL WAYS.

THEY HAVE DONE THAT BY, ONE, THE REMOVAL OF A BOARD MEMBER --

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WOULD THAT BE A -- A QUORUM

ISSUE?

MR. BRONSON: YES. SO THERE'S BEEN A REMOVAL OF

A BOARD MEMBER. THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN TWO VACANCIES. THE

SUPREME COURT HAD EARLIER RULED THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE A QUORUM, YOU

NEEDED TO HAVE THREE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD -- OF THE FIVE-MEMBER

BOARD YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE THREE FOR A QUORUM. WE CAN'T HAVE A QUORUM

BECAUSE THOSE VACANCIES HAVE NOT BEEN FILLED. SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE ITS

OBLIGATION TO PROTECT WORKERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE REDUCED THE STAFF LEVEL

AT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BY 45 PERCENT. NUMBER THREE,

REASON THAT THEY HAVE PREVENTED THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS THROUGH THE

231

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BECAUSE THERE'S A FEDERAL MEDIATION PROGRAM

THAT HAS ALSO BEEN UNDERSTAFFED AND GUTTED.

SO THE PROBLEM IS THIS: WE HAVE A NEW YORK STATE

CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND THE RIGHT

TO SELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: YES.

MR. BRONSON: WE HAVE A SCENARIO UNDER CURRENT

LAW WHERE THOSE RIGHTS ARE CURRENTLY ENFORCED THROUGH THE NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BUT

THEY'RE NOT ACTING. SO WHAT THIS IS DOING --

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: JUST TO -- JUST TO --

MR. BRONSON: LET ME JUST FINISH.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY.

MR. BRONSON: SO WHAT THIS BILL IS DOING IS PUTTING

IN PLACE A MECHANISM THAT'S STILL DEFERRED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

BUT IF THEY DO NOT EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION THEN PERB WILL KICK IN

AND ENFORCE THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT NEW YORK WORKERS HAVE.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SO WITH THAT, COULD I WRAP THAT

UP AS YOU HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE LABOR POLICY OF THE CURRENT FEDERAL

ADMINISTRATION?

MR. BRONSON: I CERTAINLY DO.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT

MULTISTATE EMPLOYERS?

MR. BRONSON: I'M SORRY?

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: I'M SORRY. HOW WOULD THIS

232

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AFFECT MULTISTATE EMPLOYERS?

MR. BRONSON: IF THE WORKERS ARE IN NEW YORK

STATE, IT WOULD BE -- THE JURISDICTION WOULD BE OVER THOSE WORKERS IN

NEW YORK STATE.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. I'M -- IN SECTION 2, I'M

ON LINE 14, WHEN THE STATE BOARD ACTS IT IS TOLD TO PROMPTLY CERTIFY. IS

THERE A CONCERN, A DUE PROCESS CONCERN THERE AS FAR AS IT'S SAYING

WHATEVER WAS DONE, YOU HAVE TO CERTIFY IT IN THE PAST. IT'S SORT OF -- IT

SOUNDS LIKE A RUBBER STAMP SORT OF THING.

MR. BRONSON: THROUGH YOU, MADAM SPEAKER,

AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AS A LAWYER I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONCERN WITH

THE USE OF THE WORD "PROMPTLY." COURTS WOULD -- COURTS WOULD LOOK AT

THAT SCENARIO AND IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES

WHAT'S PROMPT AND WHAT'S NOT PROMPT.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: PROMPT IS NOT MY CONCERN. IT'S

CERTIFIED THAT'S MY CONCERN. BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THE ACTION, YOU MUST

CERTIFY WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE. WHAT IF THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THAT

CERTIFICATION? WHAT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO APPEAL THAT? I CERT -- SO

PROMPT, I'LL CONCEDE, I LIKE PROMPT THINGS JUST IN GENERAL. BUT THE SORT

OF PRESUMPTION AS TO WHAT THEIR ACTION WOULD BE IS SORT OF A DUE

PROCESS CONCERN I HAVE.

MR. BRONSON: I THINK THERE -- AGAIN, THIS WOULD

BE DETERMINED POSSIBLY THROUGH THE CASE ITSELF IN PERB; HOWEVER, I

AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT HAS

CERTIFIED BARGAINING UNITS HAVE DONE THAT IN AN ERRONEOUS OR UNLAWFUL

233

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WAY. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT AT ALL. IF THAT SCENARIO WERE TO COME UP,

THEN I THINK PERB COULD LOOK AT IT. THERE'S NOTHING THAT -- THAT

EXPRESSLY REQUIRES THEM TO DO THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THEIR

PURVIEW. BUT I -- YOU KNOW, I -- I DON'T WANT TO SUGGEST ON THE RECORD

THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAVING

WRONGFULLY CERTIFIED SOME BARGAINING UNIT.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. AND I -- I -- I

UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THAT. I WAS JUST SAYING THAT IT

SORT OF, IN MY READING OF IT, IT PRESUMED A PARTICULAR DETERMINATION AND

ACTION. THAT WAS MY CONCERN.

THE CURRENT LAW THAT'S BEING AMENDED WITH THIS BILL,

HOW -- HOW OLD IS IT?

MR. BRONSON: OH, GOODNESS. I -- I KNOW THAT THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS ENACTED IN 1935 BY CONGRESS. THE

-- WHAT IS IT? 1967.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. SO --

MR. BRONSON: I KNEW -- I KNEW THOSE -- THOSE

VERY MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE ATTORNEYS THAN ME IN THIS AREA WHO GAVE ME

MY NOTES WOULD HAVE THAT IN THERE AND, INDEED, THEY DID.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: BUT WOULD -- WOULD YOU

CONCEDE IT IS A LONGSTANDING STATE STATUTE THAT WE ARE AMENDING?

MR. BRONSON: I CERTAINLY WOULD. BUT I ALSO

WOULD RECOGNIZE FOR THE RECORD AND THROUGH MADAM SPEAKER THAT THESE

ARE UNCHARTERED TIMES. THE WORLD IS VERY DIFFERENT. AND WITH ALL DUE

RESPECT, UNDER PROJECT 2025 AND UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND

234

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ITS HOSTILITY TOWARD WORKERS' RIGHTS. SO YES, THE LAW HAS BEEN IN PLACE

FOR A VERY LONG TIME; HOWEVER, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED OVER THE LAST FIVE

MONTHS.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WELL, THAT'S WHERE I WAS SORT

OF GOING. AM I CORRECT THAT IN 2012 THERE WAS ALSO A QUORUM ISSUE

WITH THE NLRB DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT SOME RECESS APPOINTMENTS FROM

PRESIDENT OBAMA?

MR. BRONSON: YOU -- YOU MAY BE RIGHT. I DON'T

KNOW.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: AND -- AND MY POINT I'M

GETTING TO IS, OVER THAT LONG PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE LAW HAS BEEN IN

PLACE THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE THERE WOULD BE

PROCEDURAL CONCERNS WITH WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

YET NEW YORK STATE DID NOT CHANGE THIS STATUTE REGARDING PREVIOUS

ADMINISTRATIONS.

MR. BRONSON: THROUGH YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, I

THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. CERTAINLY, WE EXPERIENCE HERE IN NEW YORK

STATE WHERE THERE'S VACANCIES ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND THINGS

OF THAT NATURE, AND THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A TIMELY OR AN IMMEDIATE

FILLING OF THOSE VACANCIES. THAT OCCURS IN GOVERNMENT. IT'S NOT

INFREQUENT IN GOVERNMENT.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY.

MR. BRONSON: THE DIFFERENCE -- THE DIFFERENCE IS

WE HAVE A DOCUMENT, A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THIS ADMINISTRATION WANTS

TO ATTACK THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. AND EVEN MORE SO, WE

235

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HAVE ACTIONS. WE HAVE CASES AND NUMEROUS JURISDICTIONS IN CIRCUIT

COURTS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WHERE THIS GOVERNMENT, THIS FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO PROVE THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS WE HAVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY

A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT SAYS, LOOK, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO,

THAT'S THEIR POLICY DECISION. I HAPPEN TO THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING. WE HAVE A CONFLICT HERE IN NEW YORK

STATE. AND I KNOW YOU SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK

STATE, AS I DID AND ALL OF US IN THIS ROOM.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SURE. YES, SIR.

MR. BRONSON: AND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW

YORK STATE THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HONOR A WORKER'S RIGHT TO

ORGANIZE AND TO SELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. AND SO WHAT THIS BILL IS

DOING IS SAYING WE'LL GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO

LOOK, IF THOSE VACANCIES GET FILLED, IF STAFFING COMES BACK AND THINGS OF

THAT NATURE AND THEY ASSERT JURISDICTION, THIS BILL DOESN'T COME INTO PLAY.

BUT IF THEY DON'T DO THAT, IF THEY DON'T DO THAT, NEW YORK STATE IS GOING

TO STAND BY THE WORKERS OF NEW YORK STATE, AND WE ARE GOING TO

CONTINUE TO PROTECT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND

COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: I -- I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION.

MR. BRONSON: YES.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WOULD YOU -- AND THIS HAS

BEEN A WORD THAT'S BEEN THROWN AROUND A LOT OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS --

WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THIS AS TRUMP-PROOFING?

236

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. BRONSON: SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE?

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THIS

BILL AS TRUMP-PROOFING?

MR. BRONSON: I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS BILL,

THROUGH YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, AS US FULFILLING OUR DUTY TO IMPLEMENT

THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK STATE.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: I'M GONNA GO ON THE BILL.

MR. BRONSON: THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I -- AS

SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY AND CERTAINLY NOT A LABOR ATTORNEY

LIKE THE SPONSOR, I APPRECIATE YOU GOING THROUGH IN DETAIL WITH ME ALL

OF THE -- THE DETAILS OF THE BILL. I -- I THANK THE SPONSOR VERY MUCH FOR

THAT.

WE DID END UP WHERE I WAS CONCERNED WE MIGHT END

UP. AND THE REASON I VOTED AGAINST THIS IN COMMITTEE IS CLEARLY BASED

ON THE SPONSOR'S WORDS AND RATIONALE LAID OUT IN DETAIL. HE IS VERY

CONCERNED ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND -- AND IS -- IS NEGATIVE

ON THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS BILL AS QUOTE,

UNQUOTE, "TRUMP-PROOFING." AND I GET VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CHANGING

STATE LAW THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR DECADE UPON DECADE SIMPLY

BECAUSE CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THIS BODY DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT

ADMINISTRATION THAT IS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SO BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE I AM AGAINST, QUOTE,

UNQUOTE, "TRUMP-PROOFING" AND BECAUSE I THINK A LAW THAT HAS BEEN IN

237

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PLACE FOR THIS LONG THROUGH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATION

THROUGH CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN WASHINGTON FROM -- FROM

THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT, I -- I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT MAKING THIS

CHANGE.

I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. BUT I GREATLY

APPRECIATE MY QUESTIONS BEING ANSWERED.

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. BRONSON TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. BRONSON: YES, MADAM SPEAKER. I ABSTAIN

FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPLAINING MY VOTE. AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO

REITERATE HOW IMPORTANT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS. WE HAVE A

CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS A WORKER HAS THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, THE RIGHT TO

SELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN. AND

WE HAVE TO FULFILL THAT RESPONSIBILITY, AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO VITALLY

IMPORTANT. BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING IT.

SECOND OF ALL, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LAW WAS PUT

IN PLACE IN 1967. WELL, WE'VE CHANGED THAT LAW A COUPLE OF TIMES. IN

2010 THE MISSION OF PERB WAS EXPANDED TO ENCOMPASS ADMINISTRATION

OF THE NEW YORK STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT. ALSO, IN 2019 WE

CHANGED THE LAW SO THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY WOULD

238

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BE COVERED UNDER PERB. SO WE'VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS LAW.

BUT I JUST THINK THAT WE -- WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE

TAKE CARE OF THESE WORKERS. I WANT TO THANK MICAH --

ASSEMBLYMEMBER MICAH LASHER FOR HELPING ME ON THIS BILL. I WANT TO

THANK CATHY CREIGHTON FROM CORNELL INDUSTRIAL LABOR RELATIONS. TERRI

GERSTEIN FROM NEW YORK WAGNER SCHOOL OF LAW, AND THE MANY OTHER

STATE LEGISLATORS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS

SITUATION.

MADAM SPEAKER, I AM VERY PLEASED TO VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE AND I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. BRONSON IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. I ACTUALLY SIMPLY WANT TO RISE AND COMMEND THE MANNER IN

WHICH THE SPONSOR NOT ONLY INTRODUCED THE BILL, BUT DEBATED THE BILL ON

THE FLOOR SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF WHAT WE HAVE HAD TO

DO HERE TODAY HAS BEEN ABOUT TRYING TO PROTECT OUR STATE, AND THAT'S

WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS. AND I IMAGINE THAT THERE WILL HAVE TO BE

MORE OF THINGS -- MORE THINGS LIKE THIS TO PROTECT OUR STATE. WE DO

HAVE RIGHTS AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OUR STATE (INDISCERNIBLE).

I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE SPONSOR FOR HIS WORK ON THIS

PIECE OF LEGISLATION AND I'M PLEASED TO BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MRS. PEOPLES-

STOKES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

239

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

MS. WALSH FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN INTRODUCTION.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. SO WE

HAVE GUESTS IN OUR CHAMBER TONIGHT, ON THIS LONG DAY THAT WE'VE DONE

SO MUCH WORK. WE'RE PLEASED TO BE JOINED AND ON BEHALF OF

ASSEMBLYWOMAN JODI GIGLIO, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE A NICE FAMILY THAT

HAS COME TO VISIT THE CAPITOL: MICHELLE MORREY, DANNY MORREY, LILA

-- LAYLA MORREY AND KAYLIN MORREY, WHO ARE HERE ALL THE WAY FROM

BREVELENCE, CALIFORNIA. KAYLIN IS PLAYING IN A BASEBALL TOURNAMENT IN

COOPERSTOWN THIS -- IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS, AND THEY WANTED TO

KIND OF TIE IN A VISIT TO THE STATE'S CAPITOL WHILE THEY WERE HERE AND

LEARN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE DO THINGS. AND WE CERTAINLY DO TALK A

LOT ABOUT CALIFORNIA IN HERE, DON'T WE? BUT WE'RE VERY, VERY HAPPY TO

HAVE THEM JOIN US AND, MADAM SPEAKER, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE EXTEND TO

THEM ALL THE CORDIALITIES OF THE HOUSE.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: YES. ON BEHALF OF

MS. WALSH, MS. GIGLIO, THE SPEAKER AND ALL MEMBERS, WE WELCOME THE

MORREY FAMILY TO THE ASSEMBLY, THE SPEAKER'S [SIC] HOUSE AND EXTEND

YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR. WELCOME ALL THE WAY FROM CALIFORNIA.

WE DO HOPE YOU HAVE ENJOYED THE PROCEEDINGS THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO

HEAR. GOOD LUCK IN COOPERSTOWN. IT'S A FABULOUS PLACE; YOU'LL HAVE A

WONDERFUL TIME. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

240

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(APPLAUSE)

PAGE 18, RULES REPORT NO. 787, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S04505, RULES REPORT NO.

787, SENATOR GOUNARDES (A05346, ROZIC, SEAWRIGHT, TAYLOR, STECK,

HEVESI, ALVAREZ, LUNSFORD, LASHER, TORRES). AN ACT TO AMEND THE

GENERAL BUSINESS LAW AND MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, IN RELATION TO

REQUIRING WARNING LABELS ON ADDICTIVE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS.

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.)

MS. ROZIC TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. ROZIC: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. JUST VERY

QUICKLY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I RISE TODAY TO SUPPORT THIS BILL THAT BRINGS

LONG-OVERDUE TRANSPARENCY TO ONLINE PLATFORMS THAT SHAPE OUR LIVES,

OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE MENTAL HEALTH OF OUR KIDS.

WE STARTED THIS JOURNEY LAST YEAR WITH MY SAFER KIDS

ACT, BUT WE KNOW THAT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE KNOW NOT JUST FROM

PARENTS AND TEACHERS, BUT FROM PEDIATRICIANS, NEUROSCIENTISTS AND EVEN

THE U.S. SURGEON GENERAL HIMSELF, THAT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE NOT

PASSIVE TOOLS. THEY'RE ENGINEERED TO BE ADDICTIVE AND POWERED BY

ALGORITHMS AND DESIGN FEATURES THAT OVERTAKE THE BRAIN'S REWARD SYSTEM,

241

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ESPECIALLY IN KIDS WHOSE EMOTIONAL REGULATION IS STILL DEVELOPING.

THIS BILL DOES NOT ACTUALLY BAN PLATFORMS, IT DOES NOT

LIMIT SPEECH. BUT IT CERTAINLY ADDS A LAYER OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND

TRANSPARENCY. AND SO JUST LIKE WE LABEL CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL, THIS BILL

WOULD REQUIRE THAT PLATFORMS USING ADDICTIVE DESIGN FEATURES TO CARRY A

CLEAR, SCIENCE-BASED WARNING LABEL.

SO WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I'M JUST PROUD TO VOTE

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. ROZIC IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. WALSH TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

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

BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL, AS I DID THE SAFER KIDS ACT LAST YEAR. BUT I

WOULD KIND OF NOTE THAT SOMETIMES I THINK WE CAN OVERESTIMATE THE

VALUE OF A WARNING LABEL LIKE THIS. I MEAN, I -- I GUESS IT REALLY CAN -- IT

CAN'T DO ANY HARM TO PUT IT OUT THERE. BUT, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE -- I'M JUST

BASING THIS ON BEING THE -- THE PARENT TO A FEW KIDS THAT ARE REALLY,

REALLY ADDICTED TO THEIR PHONES; TO THEIR PHONES. AND I THINK I KNOW A

FEW ADULTS WHO ARE, TOO. AND I -- I DO QUESTION, YOU KNOW, DO YOU

REALLY -- IF YOU'RE TRULY ADDICTED TO YOUR PHONE, DO YOU NEED A WARNING

TO TELL YOU SO? AND IF YOU SAW A WARNING, WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING TO

ADJUST YOUR BEHAVIOR IN A RESPONSE? SO -- AND I SAY THIS AS I READ THIS

OFF MY PHONE.

SO ANYWAY, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS AND I DO THANK THE

SPONSOR FOR HER CONTINUING EFFORTS IN THIS AREA. I WILL BE IN THE

242

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WALSH IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 19, RULES REPORT NO. 832, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08416, RULES REPORT NO.

832, SENATOR COMRIE (A08427-A, LASHER, DINOWITZ, SEAWRIGHT,

FORREST, WEPRIN, SCHIAVONI, STECK, SIMON, SHIMSKY, VALDEZ,

GALLAGHER, TORRES, P. CARROLL, HEVESI, EPSTEIN, R. CARROLL, ROSENTHAL,

REYES, ALVAREZ, RAJKUMAR, BURROUGHS, SIMONE, GLICK, SOLAGES,

COLTON, GONZ LEZ-ROJAS, LUNSFORD, TAPIA, TAYLOR, CUNNINGHAM,

O'PHARROW, DE LOS SANTOS, MITAYNES, CLARK, LEVENBERG, BORES, GIBBS,

CRUZ, STIRPE, WIEDER, PAULIN, MCMAHON, MEEKS, LEE, SHRESTHA,

WRIGHT, JACKSON, BRONSON, CONRAD, ROMERO, BURDICK.) AN ACT TO

AMEND THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, IN RELATION TO ENACTING THE

"FOSTERING AFFORDABILITY AND INTEGRITY THROUGH REASONABLE (FAIR)

BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT."

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MR. LASHER.

MR. LASHER: THANK YOU. THROUGH YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. IN 1970, THIS LEGISLATURE ENACTED AND GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER

SIGNED INTO LAW SECTION 349 OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW TO AUTHORIZE

243

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST DECEPTIVE BUSINESS

PRACTICES. TEN YEARS LATER, THE LEGISLATURE GAVE NEW YORKERS

INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED POWER TO SUE WHEN THEY ARE VICTIMIZED BY THESE

PRACTICES. OVER THE LAST 55 YEARS, OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY HAS GROWN

DRAMATICALLY MORE COMPLICATED. WE HAVE SEEN MASSIVE CORPORATE

CONSOLIDATION, TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION, AND THE COMPLETE REINVENTION

OF COMMERCE. CONSUMERS FACE A DIZZYING ARRAY OF PRODUCTS AND

SERVICES AND WAYS OF PAYING FOR THEM. BUT IN ALL THAT TIME WE HAVE

DONE NOTHING TO MODERNIZE OUR LAWS TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS FROM

BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, AND TO ENABLE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TAKE

ACTION AGAINST CORPORATE MISCONDUCT. WE ARE, IN EFFECT, ASKING THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS IN 2025 WITH TOOLS BUILT IN

1970.

THIS LEGISLATION, THE FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT,

AIMS TO CATCH UP WITH THE TIMES. IT WOULD DO SO IN SEVERAL BASIC WAYS;

TO THE CURRENT PROHIBITION OF DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, IT WOULD ADD

A PROHIBITION OF UNFAIR PRACTICES WHICH ARE PROHIBITED IN 42 OTHER STATES

AND UNDER FEDERAL LAW. IT WOULD PROHIBIT ABUSIVE PRACTICES WHICH ARE

PROHIBITED BY A NUMBER OF OTHER STATES AND ALSO UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

AND IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE OBSTACLES TO ACTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED OVER DECADES BY A HAPPILY-NAMED, BUT

COMPLETELY HAPHAZARD AND CONTRADICTORY LINE OF CASE LAW KNOWN AS THE

CONSUMER-ORIENTED STANDARD. THIS DOCTRINE HAS KILLED PUBLIC

ENFORCEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND AT TIMES LED TO RESULTS THAT

ARE AT ODDS WITH THE CLEAR PURPOSE OF GBL 349.

244

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE BILL USES DEFINITIONS OF "UNFAIR" AND "ABUSIVE"

PRACTICES DRAWN, RESPECTIVELY, FROM THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S

DEFINITION IN PLACE SINCE 1980 AND ADOPTED BY CONGRESS IN 1994, AND

FROM THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT OF -- OF 2010, PART OF THE

DODD-FRANK REFORMS. THESE ARE LEGAL CONSTRUCTS THAT BUSINESSES ARE

WELL-ACCUSTOMED TO.

I SHOULD NOTE -- AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON THE

SENATE DEBATE ON THIS MATTER THAT I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY, THAT THE DEFINITION

OF UNFAIRNESS REQUIRES SHOWING THAT AN ACT OR PRACTICE HAS CAUSED OR IS

LIKELY TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL INJURY AND THAT HARMS ARE NOT OUTWEIGHED BY

BENEFITS. THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST DECEPTIVE

OR ABUSIVE PRACTICES, WHICH ARE FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT TRICKING PEOPLE

AND ARE, THEREFORE, INHERENTLY HARMFUL.

I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THIS BILL AS AMENDED DOES NOT

AFFECT IN ANY WAY THE ABILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL NEW YORKERS TO TAKE LEGAL

ACTION WHEN THEY ARE VICTIMIZED. THE CURRENT LAW IS EXTREMELY LIMITED

IN THIS REGARD, AND HAS BEEN HEMMED IN BY THE AFOREMENTIONED

CONSUMER-ORIENTED DOCTRINE IN THE COURTS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS A

BIG STATE TO LOOK AFTER, AND INEVITABLY WILL BE UNABLE TO RESPOND TO

MANY, IF NOT MOST, INDIVIDUAL CASES OF DECEPTIVE, UNFAIR OR ABUSIVE

BUSINESS PRACTICES.

WE JETTISONED PORTIONS OF THIS BILL IN RESPONSE TO

FIERCE AND BAD-FAITH LOBBYING THAT WOULD HAVE FILLED IN THIS GAP BY

STRENGTHENING THE LEGAL RECOURSE AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUAL NEW YORKERS.

I HOPE WE CAN CORRECT THAT IN THE FUTURE.

245

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE NEED TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS FROM FRAUD AND

ABUSE HAS NEVER BEEN GREATER. ACCORDING TO THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL

PROTECTION BUREAU, CONSUMER COMPLAINTS FILED BETWEEN JANUARY AND

MAY OF THIS YEAR MORE THAN DOUBLED FROM THE SAME PERIOD IN THE

PREVIOUS YEAR. THE HIGHEST REGIONAL INCREASES WERE IN THE FINGER

LAKES, THE HUDSON VALLEY AND CENTRAL NEW YORK. NEW YORK CITY

SAW A MORE THAN TWO-FOLD INCREASE; 119 PERCENT. AND YET AT THIS VERY

MOMENT, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS DISMANTLING THE ENTIRE FEDERAL

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVOTED TO PROTECTING CONSUMERS. THEY ARE DROPPING

NEW CASES EVERY DAY.

IF WE ARE DISTURBED BY NEW YORKERS HAVING THEIR

HOMES STOLEN RIGHT OUT FROM UNDER THEM THROUGH DEED-THEFT SCHEMES; IF

WE ARE DISTRESSED ABOUT LOANS THAT STRUCTURED IN WAYS THE LENDER KNOWS

ARE PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR BORROWERS TO PAY BACK; AND IF WE ARE

CONCERNED ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY BEING

TOLD ONE THING IN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE AND PRESENTED WITH A CONTRACT

THAT SAYS ANOTHER; AND FUNDAMENTALLY, IF WE CARE, WE TRULY CARE ABOUT

AFFORDABILITY, WE SHOULD, AFTER 55 YEARS OF STASIS AND AT A TIME OF

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWAL FROM THE FIELD, PASS THIS BILL TO PROTECT

NEW YORKERS AND THEIR POCKETBOOKS.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WALSH.

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

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

246

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YIELD?

MR. LASHER: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MS. WALSH: I GOT TIRED OF STANDING THERE FOR A LITTLE

BIT. THAT WAS A LONG EXPLANATION, BUT I APPRECIATE IT. YOU KIND OF TOOK

MY FIRST QUESTION FROM ME, WHICH WAS WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL.

SO LET'S JUST SKIP TO THE SECOND QUESTION.

THE BILL REMOVES "CONSUMER", THE TERM CONSUMER

FROM THE STATUTE. WHY IS THAT?

MR. LASHER: BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON THAT A

SMALL BUSINESS SHOULD BE NOT PROTECTED FROM ABUSE, DECEPTION OR

UNFAIRNESS.

MS. WALSH: BUT AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO BE

PROTECTING CONSUMERS?

MR. LASHER: WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THE

PEOPLE AND ENTITIES THAT ARE DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

MS. WALSH: NO, THAT'S TRUE. IT'S JUST THAT THAT WORD,

"CONSUMERS" WAS REMOVED AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY. YOU

DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S NECESSARY ANYMORE? I MEAN, WHEN YOU GAVE

YOUR EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE BILL DID YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NEED

TO PROTECT CONSUMERS, AND THEN IT WILL ELIMINATE THAT WORD.

MR. LASHER: I THINK IF A -- IF A LENDER TAKES

ADVANTAGE OF SMALL BUSINESSES ALL AROUND THE STATE, I -- I WOULD

IMAGINE YOU WOULD WANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH

THAT.

247

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH: SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. SO THIS -- IN

WHAT WAYS WOULD YOU SAY DOES THIS BILL EXPAND THE POWER OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL?

MR. LASHER: FUNDAMENTALLY, THIS IS BUILDING ON AN

EXISTING AUTHORITY THAT THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW GRANTS TO THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TAKE ACTION ON BEHALF OF NEW YORKERS WHEN THEY

ARE VICTIMIZED UNDER THE CURRENT LAW BY DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.

THIS WOULD ADD TO THAT BUSINESS PRACTICES THAT ARE ABUSIVE OR UNFAIR.

AND IT WOULD, AS I MENTIONED, ADDRESS THIS SORT OF HAPHAZARD DOCTRINE

THAT HAS BEEN -- SPRUNG UP IN THE COURTS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF

DECADES.

MS. WALSH: WELL, WHAT -- WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF

ACTS OR PRACTICES THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CANNOT PURSUE NOW

THAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO -- BECAUSE THIS ISN'T IT A -- THIS IS A BILL THAT

THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT YOU'RE CARRYING, CORRECT? IT'S ONE OF THEIR

PROGRAM BILLS.

MR. LASHER: THIS IS -- THIS IS A PROGRAM BILL FROM

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MS. WALSH: YEAH. SO WHAT -- WHAT TYPES OF ACTS

OR PRACTICES THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CANNOT PURSUE NOW THAT

THEY ARE LOOKING TO UNDER THE EXPANSION IN YOUR BILL?

MR. LASHER: LET ME GIVE YOU, IF I MAY, A FEW

EXAMPLES --

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU. YES.

MR. LASHER: -- OF -- I'LL USE SOME FROM THE

248

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INSURANCE SPACE WHERE THESE ARE ACTUAL CASES WHERE RELIEF UNDER 349

WAS DENIED. ADOPTING A BLANKET POLICY OF DENYING INSURANCE COVERAGE

FOR DENTAL RECONSTRUCTION SURGERY DESPITE PROMISING TO COVER SUCH

SURGERIES. AN INSURANCE COMPANY FRAUDULENTLY INDUCING A CONSUMER

WITH VERY LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY INTO SIGNING AWAY HIS RIGHTS

WHEN HE WAS HIT BY A CAR THE COMPANY INSURED. A GROSSLY NEGLIGENT OIL

SPILL CLEANUP THAT SPREAD CONTAMINATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THANKS TO

AN INSURANCE COMPANY TRYING TO SKIMP ON PLAYING CLAIMS. AN

INSURANCE COMPANY DENYING MULTIPLE CLAIMS BASED ON AN "ENGINEER'S

REPORT", QUOTE, UNQUOTE, FROM A PERSON WHO WAS NOT, IN FACT, AN

ENGINEER. BACKDATING LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES TO AVOID PAYING CLAIMS TO

GRIEVING FAMILY MEMBERS. THOSE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES. THOSE ARE

REAL NEW YORK CASES WHERE RELIEF UNDER THE EXISTING 349 WAS DENIED

BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR DECEPTION UNDER THE CURRENT

LAW.

MS. WALSH: SO IS IT -- BECAUSE -- I HAVE TO ASK THIS,

BECAUSE ALL OF THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU GAVE HAD TO DO WITH THE INSURANCE

INDUSTRY. WOULD YOU SAY THAT ONE OF THE REASONS OR ONE OF THE PRIMARY

REASONS FOR THIS BILL IS TO BE ABLE TO GO AFTER INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR

THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT?

MR. LASHER: WELL, I WILL SAY THAT THIS BILL IS -- IS

ABOUT PROTECTING NEW YORKERS FROM DECEPTIVE, UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE

BUSINESS PRACTICES NO MATTER WHO THE PERPETRATOR IS. AND I WOULD SAY

-- I'LL GIVE YOU SOME MORE EXAMPLES: DISMANTLING EQUIPMENT AND

REFUSING TO REASSEMBLE IT UNTIL THE CONSUMER PAYS EXTRA. A BUSINESS

249

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THAT REFUSED TO TAKE BASIC SECURITY PRECAUTIONS WITH SENSITIVE CUSTOMER

DATA, DESPITE NOT ONE, BUT THREE SECURITY BREACHES. A SELF-STORAGE

FACILITY THAT SOLD A TENANT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR PAST DUE RENT WITHOUT

PROVIDING ANY NOTICE. I MEAN, WE -- THE LIST IS LONG, IT IS VARIED, AND IT

COVERS MANY INDUSTRIES.

MS. WALSH: SO WHY NOT JUST HAVE US DO OUR JOBS

AND DRAFT LEGISLATION -- SPECIFIC LEGISLATION TO TARGET THOSE PRACTICES?

MR. LASHER: AS CREATIVE AND PROLIFIC A LEGISLATURE

AS WE ARE, I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR IMAGINATION THAT THE

MANY INCIDENTS OF FRAUD WOULD REQUIRE.

MS. WALSH: WELL, I MEAN, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE

SAYING THERE, BUT I -- IT'S ALWAYS BEEN -- IT'S -- IT'S OUR ROLE AS LEGISLATORS,

I THINK, TO DEVELOP LEGISLATION. I KNOW THAT THIS IS LEGISLATION. BUT IN A

WAY, AREN'T WE JUST KIND OF EMPOWERING, GIVING GREATER POWER TO THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL TO JUST, YOU KNOW, ROOT OUT THESE PRACTICES AS -- IN

THIS CASE, AND THE CURRENT AG BEING A WOMAN, AS -- AS THEY OR SHE SEES

FIT?

MR. LASHER: I -- I WOULD SAY WE'D BE FOLLOWING

THE WISDOM OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH ENACTED THE FEDERAL

TRADE COMMISSION ACT IN 1914. WE'D BE FOLLOWING THE WISDOM OF 42

OTHER STATES THAT PROHIBIT UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES. AND WE'D BE

BUILDING ON THE 55-YEAR HISTORY OF THIS LAW IN NEW YORK. WE HAVE

SIMPLY LAGGED BEHIND THE TIMES. WE HAVE BEEN STUCK IN A LAW THAT IS

OUTMODED, OUTDATED AND INSUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF NEW

YORKERS.

250

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH: NOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE

42 OTHER STATES THAT ARE DOING THIS?

MR. LASHER: YES.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. DID --

MR. LASHER: I SHOULD SAY -- LET ME BE PRECISE.

THERE ARE 42 OTHER STATES THAT PROHIBIT UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES.

MS. WALSH: AND IS THAT A UNIFORM DEFINITION OF

WHAT AN UNFAIR PRACTICE IS THAT WE'VE ADOPTED IN THIS LEGISLATION?

MR. LASHER: I'M -- I'M REALLY GLAD YOU ASKED THAT.

IT IS -- IN FACT --

MS. WALSH: I'M HERE TO HELP.

MR. LASHER: YES. NO. IN FACT, MOST OF THOSE

STATES EMPLOY A DEFINITION THAT IS -- THAT IS BROADER THAN THE ONE THAT

THIS BILL EMPLOYS.

MS. WALSH: REALLY? WOW.

MR. LASHER: THIS BILL RELIES ON THE DEFINITION

ADOPTED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IN 1980, ENACTED BY

CONGRESS IN 1994. AND IT IS A NARROWER DEFINITION THAN MANY, IF NOT

MOST, OTHER STATE LAWS HAVE, WHICH PREDATED THAT FEDERAL ACTION.

MS. WALSH: SO, I SEE THAT THIS -- THIS BILL IS IN AN

A-PRINT, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING -- ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T EXACTLY TRACK THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BILL -- THAT WE WENT FROM, I WAS TOLD, LIKE AN 11-

PAGE BILL TO, LIKE, A THREE-PAGE BILL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. CAN YOU

TALK ABOUT HOW THE BILL HAS EVOLVED? YOU -- YOU SAID THAT IT WAS A

RESPONSE TO SOME -- WHAT DID YOU SAY? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU USED THE

251

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WORD "DISINGENUOUS." I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT --

MR. LASHER: DISINGENUOUS, BAD FAITH, PERNICIOUS.

MS. WALSH: BAD FAITH.

MR. LASHER: GREEDY.

MS. WALSH: BAD FAITH LOBBYING EFFORTS. SO DID

THOSE BAD FAITH LOBBYING EFFORTS RESULT IN AMENDING THE BILL IN SUCH A

WAY AS TO SHRINK IT UP QUITE A BIT?

MR. LASHER: I THINK WE ARE PASSING A BILL THAT

WOULD BE A MEANINGFUL AND HISTORIC IMPROVEMENT ON THE STATE'S LAW IN

THIS REGARD. BUT IT LEAVES OUT ANY EXPANSION -- OR DOES NOT AFFECT IN

ANY WAY, I SHOULD SAY, THE RIGHTS THAT EXIST UNDER THE LAW FOR

INDIVIDUALS TO SUE WHEN THEY ARE VICTIMS OF THOSE PRACTICES. I THINK THE

BETTER LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ADDRESS THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT PORTION

OF THE STATUTE. BUT CREATING A STATUTE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT

KEEPS UP WITH THE TIMES IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I ACCEPT THAT

EXPLANATION.

SO WHAT IS -- IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN A DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE OR UNFAIR ACT OR PRACTICE AND AN

ABUSIVE ACT OR PRACTICE? BECAUSE THERE -- THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE

DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. SO COULD YOU JUST GIVE EXAMPLES OF EACH KIND?

MR. LASHER: A DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE IS ONE

THAT RELIES ON A DECEPTION. AND THERE IS EXTENSIVE CASE LAW TO THAT

EFFECT. I BELIEVE JUST YESTERDAY THE -- WELL, I GUESS THAT WAS A CASE

BROUGHT UNDER UNFAIRNESS, SO I'M NOT GONNA CITE THAT. BUT THERE -- THERE

252

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ARE -- THE TRUMP UNIVERSITY CASE, I BELIEVE, WHICH IS AN ATTORNEY

GENERAL CASE FROM SOME TIME AGO IN WHICH THE NOW-PRESIDENT, THE

THEN-ENTREPRENEUR ADVERTISED --

MS. WALSH: TRUMP UNIVERSITY? THAT ONE?

MR. LASHER: -- ADVERTISED HIS OFFERING AS A

UNIVERSITY. THAT WAS A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE. UNFAIRNESS -- AND

LET ME MOVE TO ABUSIVE NEXT. ABUSIVE AS DEFINED UNDER THE STATUTE IS

AN ACT OR PRACTICE THAT MATERIALLY INTERFERES WITH THE ABILITY OF A PERSON

TO UNDERSTAND A TERM OR CONDITION. A MATERIAL -- A MATERIAL INTERFERING

WITH A PERSON'S UNDERSTANDING OF TERMS OR CONDITIONS -- OR I SHOULD SAY

-- LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY: THIS IS BASED, I SHOULD SAY, ON THE CONSUMER

FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT, AS I MENTIONED. AND THE CFP DEFINITION OF

ABUSIVE CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS PROHIBITING THE OBSCURING IMPORTANT

FEATURES OF A GOOD OR A SERVICE, OR EXPLOITING THE WEAKNESS OR TRUST OF

ANOTHER TO TAKE UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGE OF THEM, OR BOTH.

MS. WALSH: AND THIS IS -- THAT'S THE ABUSIVE ONE?

I'M SORRY.

MR. LASHER: THAT'S ABUSIVE.

MS. WALSH: ABUSIVE.

MR. LASHER: AND THAT'S A PARAPHRASE OF WHAT'S IN

THE BILL.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. AND BEFORE YOU GO BACK -- I --

I KNOW THE THIRD ONE WAS UNFAIR, WHICH I KNOW THAT YOU'RE GONNA

ADDRESS NEXT. BUT ON -- ON THE ABUSIVE ACT OR PRACTICE, YOU MENTIONED

THAT 47 OTHER STATES --

253

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. LASHER: NO.

MS. WALSH: HOW MANY? FORTY-TWO?

MR. LASHER: NO. UNFAIRNESS IS ON THE BOOKS IN 42

MS. WALSH: FORTY-TWO.

MR. LASHER: -- OTHER STATES.

MS. WALSH: WHAT ABOUT ABUSIVE? IS THAT ALSO IN --

IN THE STATUTES FOR THOSE OTHER STATES WELL?

MR. LASHER: ABUSIVE -- AND I SHOULD NOTE AGAIN,

ABUSIVE IS PROHIBITED UNDER FEDERAL LAW, AND SO BUSINESSES UNDER NEW

YORK STATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMMITTING -- ENGAGING IN ABUSIVE

BUSINESS PRACTICES PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL, EITHER. THEY'D BE

IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MR. LASHER: BUT ABUSIVE PRACTICES ARE PROHIBITED

EXPLICITLY BY INDIANA, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY AND CALIFORNIA; AND IN

EFFECT BY ARKANSAS, MICHIGAN, KANSAS, OKLAHOMA, OHIO, AND NEVADA,

AS WELL AS UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

MS. WALSH: THAT'S AROUND, I DON'T KNOW, I CAN'T

COUNT THAT FAST. BUT WAS THAT, LIKE, AROUND TEN MAYBE?

MR. LASHER: SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

MS. WALSH: TEN STATES THAT DO SOME VERSION OF

THAT? OKAY.

SO, WHAT -- WHAT SPECIFIC -- SO, ABUSIVE -- AND I KNOW

WE'RE GONNA -- WE'RE STILL GONNA GO BACK TO UNFAIR. I'M NOT FORGETTING

254

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ABOUT THAT. BUT ABUSIVE; IT IS HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE, I THINK. WHEN ASKED

DURING -- AND YOU -- YOU SPOKE ABOUT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DURING YOUR

EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SENATE FLOOR DEBATE. THE SENATE SPONSOR

ADMITTED THAT WHAT IS ABUSIVE TO ONE MIGHT BE -- MIGHT NOT BE ABUSIVE

TO ANOTHER, AND THAT IT COULD BE WIDE OPEN -- QUOTE, "WIDE OPEN FOR

MANY PEOPLE", CLOSED QUOTE, AND THAT, QUOTE, "20 DIFFERENT PEOPLE

COULD GIVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS OR ISN'T ABUSIVE." WHAT

-- WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO THAT?

MR. LASHER: I THINK WHAT I WOULD SAY, JUST AS A

GENERAL MATTER, THAT THE SENATE DEBATE WAS HELD AT 2:30 IN THE MORNING,

AS WE DO SOMETIMES AROUND HERE. AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY

TO CLARIFY CONFUSION THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED AND CREATE A CLEAR

RECORD. BECAUSE I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME INTENTIONAL EFFORT

TO OBSCURE THE RECORD DURING THE SENATE DEBATE. I -- I WOULD SIMPLY

SAY THAT FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY, GENERALLY,

THE FUNDAMENTAL WAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONDUCTS BUSINESS IS TO

INVESTIGATE, TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER IN THE VIEW OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL, A -- AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THE LAW, TO PURSUE AN

ENFORCEMENT ACTION WHICH IS ADJUDICATED BY THE COURTS. JUST AS IN ANY

CIVIL ACTION. AND THAT IS THE COURSE THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE

INSTANCE OF AN ABUSIVE ACT OR PRACTICE. SO THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A DULY-

ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COURTS TO ADJUDICATE

THESE MATTERS.

MS. WALSH: SO -- BUT DECIDING WHAT THE AG'S

OFFICE IS GOING TO GO AFTER UNDER THIS -- THE ABUSIVE HEADING OR THAT

255

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DEFINITION, THERE -- IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE IT IS A PRETTY

WIDE -- IT'S A PRETTY OPEN DEFINITION, ISN'T IT?

MR. LASHER: I THINK I WOULD REJECT THE PREMISE

THAT THERE'S ANYTHING UNIQUE HERE. PROSECUTORS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF

THE STATE AND OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE MAKING JUDGMENTS EVERY DAY

ABOUT WHETHER A VIOLATION OF A LAW HAS OCCURRED AND WHAT THE NATURE OF

THE VIOLATION IS AND WHAT THE APPLICABLE LAW IS. THAT'S TRUE IN CRIMINAL

VIOLATIONS AND IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE IN CIVIL VIOLATIONS. SO I THINK THIS IS

NO DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING ELSE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MR. LASHER: AND -- AND -- AND THE STATUTE SPELLS

OUT A CLEAR DEFINITION WHICH, AGAIN, IS BORROWED FROM THE CONSUMER

FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 14 YEARS,

WHICH NEW YORK STATE BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN LIVING UNDER AND

OPERATING.

MS. WALSH: NO, THAT'S TRUE. WELL, I THINK WE CAN

PROBABLY AGREE TO DISAGREE ABOUT THE -- THE ACTUAL DEFINITION AND HOW

TIGHT THAT DEFINITION IS. I -- I DON'T -- I DON'T WANT TO SPEND ANYMORE

TIME ON THAT.

BUT WHAT WOULD YOU SAY -- OH, LET'S GO BACK, ACTUALLY

-- I PROMISED I WOULD -- TO WHAT AN UNFAIR ACT OR PRACTICE IS AS

DISTINGUISHABLE FROM A DECEPTIVE OR ABUSIVE ACT OR PRACTICE. AND COULD

YOU PROVIDE A DISTINCT EXAMPLE OF AN UNFAIR ACT OR PRACTICE?

MR. LASHER: SURE. AN UNFAIR ACT OR PRACTICE IS

ONE THAT CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL INJURY OR IS LIKELY TO CAUSE -- IS LIKELY TO

256

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CAUSE INJURY, AND IN WHICH THE -- THAT INJURY IS NOT OUTWEIGHED BY

BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS OR TO COMPETITION.

MS. WALSH: BUT -- SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND

THIS. SO -- BUT WHEN AN AG BRINGS A CASE, THEY DON'T NEED TO SHOW THAT

IT IS CONSUMER-ORIENTED ANYMORE UNDER THIS BILL, CORRECT?

MR. LASHER: SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.

MS. WALSH: PLEASE.

MR. LASHER: THE -- THE WORDS

"CONSUMER-ORIENTED" IS A SHORTHAND, AND I THINK A POOR SHORTHAND, FOR A

LINE OF MANY CASES GOING BACK, I THINK, TO 1980, THAT HAVE NARROWED

THE -- IN -- IN WAYS THAT ARE EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY THE APPLICATION OF

THIS STATUTE. IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY FIRST CASE ON THE CONSUMER-

ORIENTED STANDARD, WHICH INVOLVED A, I THINK, A BIZARRE DISPUTE OVER A

COUNTRY MUSIC CONCERT AT-THEN SHEA STADIUM. IN THAT VERY FIRST

DECISION, ALL OF A SUDDEN THE COURT INTRODUCES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A

VIOLATION WAS RECURRING. HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT'S A

CONSUMER OR NOT, WHETHER IT'S RECURRENT. AND OVER TIME THERE'S BEEN AN

ACCUMULATION OF COURT CASES SORT OF GETTING AT THIS NOTION, SHORTHANDED

AS CONSUMER-ORIENTED, BUT BASICALLY, WHETHER OR NOT THIS STATUTE

APPLIES. I'LL JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF KIND OF THE CONTRADICTIONS THAT

-- THAT HAVE OCCURRED. IN THE DESA REALTY CASE IN 2019, LENDER

FALSIFYING --

(BUZZER SOUNDS)

ARE WE OUT OF TIME?

MS. WALSH: WE'RE -- WE'RE GONNA KEEP GOING.

257

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. LASHER: OKAY.

MS. WALSH: I WOULD NEVER WANT TO CUT YOU OFF

MID-SENTENCE.

MR. LASHER: I APPRECIATE THAT. LENDER FALSIFYING

CONSUMER'S DETAILS FOR HOME LOAN WAS NOT CONSUMER-ORIENTED BECAUSE

THEY WERE SPECIFIC TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IN SALTIEL, REFUSING TO ISSUE

A REVERSE MORTGAGE FOR A CONSUMER'S HOME WAS CONSUMER-ORIENTED. IN

SILVER V. CITY MORTGAGE, SALE OF A HIGH-COST -- SALE OF HIGH-COST HOME

LOANS CONSUMERS NOT CONSUMER-ORIENTED BECAUSE EACH LOAN CONCERNED

AN INDIVIDUAL HOME. HSBC BANK, 2021, MISLEADING CONSUMER

REGARDING HIGH-COST HOME LOAN WAS CONSUMER-ORIENTED EVEN THOUGH

EACH LOAN ONLY CONCERNED A SINGLE HOME. AND SO THE -- AND I HAVE A

STACK OF THESE.

MS. WALSH: YEAH, BUT --

MR. LASHER: BUT THE GOAL HERE -- THE GOAL HERE --

MS. WALSH: YEAH.

MR. LASHER: -- IS THE LAW IS THE LAW, AND WE ARE

RETURNING TO THE BASIC MEANING OF THE LAW, AND IF PEOPLE ARE SUBJECT TO

THESE PRACTICES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN TAKE ACTION, PERIOD.

MS. WALSH: YEAH. I -- I -- I -- I RECOGNIZE WHAT

YOU'RE SAYING BUT, I MEAN, ISN'T THAT REALLY HOW LAW EVOLVES AND

DEVELOPS? YOU'VE GOT -- YOU'VE GOT A SERIES OF CASES OVER 45 YEARS THAT

IS DEVELOPED, AND EACH CASE PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, A PRECEDENT, A LINE OF

CASES FOR THE CASES THAT FOLLOW. THAT'S HOW THE LAW EVOLVES AND

DEVELOPS. AND AREN'T YOU, BY DRAFTING THIS BILL IN SUCH A WAY THAT JUST

258

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

STRIKES OUT THE TERM "CONSUMER-ORIENTED", JUST SAYING, YEAH, I DON'T

LIKE THE WAY THAT THAT DEVELOPED. I'M JUST GONNA CHUCK THAT OUT AND

WE'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING ELSE.

MR. LASHER: WELL, AGAIN, I HAVE TO TAKE ISSUE WITH

THE CHARACTERIZATION. WE'RE NOT STRIKING OUT THE WORDS "CONSUMER-

ORIENTED." WE'RE NOT STRIKING OUT A PROVISION OF THIS STATUTE. WE ARE,

AS LEGISLATURES DO, PASSING A LAW THAT -- IT WILL GO ON TO BE INTERPRETED

BY THE COURTS. AND WE ARE MAKING IT VERY CLEAR THAT FOR PURPOSES OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTION, THE VARIOUS SUNDRY AND OFTEN CONTRADICTORY

LIMITATIONS OF THIS LAW THAT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY THE COURTS OVER MANY

YEARS, THAT THAT DOES NOT REFLECT THE FORWARD-GOING INTENT OR DESIRE OF

THIS LEGISLATURE.

MS. WALSH: SO -- OKAY, I MIGHT BE MISTAKEN. I --

IS THE TERM "CONSUMER-ORIENTED" STILL IN THE STATUTE?

MR. LASHER: AGAIN, THE TERM "CONSUMER-ORIENTED"

IS NOT IN THE STATUTE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MR. LASHER: THE TERM CONSUMER -- IT IS IN THIS BILL

SO AS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THAT DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO ATTORNEY

GENERAL ACTION.

MS. WALSH: RIGHT.

MR. LASHER: BUT WAS A DOCTRINE THAT EVOLVED AS AN

OUTGROWTH OF THE STATUTE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. BUT SO DOES IT -- DOES THAT

SITUATION WHERE NOW WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO

259

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BRING ACTIONS WHETHER OR NOT THAT ACTOR PRACTICE IS CONSUMER-ORIENTED,

DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE AG CAN BRING AN ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT

MATTERS BETWEEN A BUSINESS AND EMPLOYEES, OR A BUSINESS AND A

CONTRACTOR OR FOR COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH?

CAN A -- CAN AN ATTORNEY GENERAL GET INVOLVED IN A CONTRACT DISPUTE?

MR. LASHER: AS IS CURRENTLY THE CASE UNDER THE

CURRENT LAW WITH DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES, YOU MAY WELL HAVE A

SITUATION THAT IS VIOLATIVE OF GBL 349 AND VIOLATIVE OF SOME OTHER LAW

OR VIOLATIVE OF A CONTRACT. AND THERE MAY BE -- THERE MAY BE OVERLAP

OR THERE MAY NOT BE, AND THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE. BUT AT THIS MOMENT,

THE COURT OF APPEALS IS TAKING A NEW CASE EVERY YEAR ON THE QUESTION

OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS AMORPHOUS CONSUMER-ORIENTED STANDARD -- AND

AGAIN, I USE THOSE WORDS WITHOUT ASCRIBING THE MEANING TO THEM THAT

YOU MIGHT LOGICALLY THINK -- WHETHER IT APPLIES. AND THIS BILL CLARIFIES

THAT THE LAW IS THE LAW. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THIS AUTHORITY. THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL IS DULY-ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE TO EXERCISE

IT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS BILL.

MS. WALSH: DOES THIS -- DOES THIS BILL ALLOW THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROSECUTE CASES AGAINST BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUALS

WHO ARE NOT IN NEW YORK STATE?

MR. LASHER: THE -- THIS LAW WOULD ENABLE THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST VIOLATIONS THAT OCCUR IN WHOLE

-- IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. SO IF -- IF SOMEBODY IS

THE VICTIM OF A PRACTICE THAT IS PROHIBITED BY THIS LAW AND THEY ARE IN

NEW YORK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD GO AFTER IT. IF SOMEBODY

260

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PERPETRATES AN ACT OR PRACTICE AND THEY ARE BASED IN NEW YORK, THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN GO AFTER IT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO JUST -- WHEN YOU SAID

"THEY." SO THE -- THE INJURED PARTY NEEDS TO BE IN NEW YORK?

MR. LASHER: NO.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. THE -- THE COMPANY OR ENTITY

THAT CREATED THE DAMAGE OR -- OR THE PROBLEM HAS TO BE IN NEW YORK?

MR. LASHER: THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE --

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MR. LASHER: -- HAS TO, IN SOME PART, TAKE PLACE IN

NEW YORK. THAT CAN MEAN THE PERPETRATOR OF A CONDUCT IS BASED IN

NEW YORK, THE VICTIM OF THE CONDUCT IS BASED IN NEW YORK, OR SOME

PART OF THE TRANSACTION OCCURS IN NEW YORK.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. WELL, DOES THAT REALLY -- IS THAT

DIFFERENT FROM WHAT OUR EXISTING LAW IS AS FAR AS NEXUS IN ORDER TO BRING

A SUIT?

MR. LASHER: THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL SAYS.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO COULD THE AG

NOW BRING AN ACTION AGAINST AN OUT-OF-STATE BUSINESS BECAUSE OF A TERM

OR A CONDITION THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH AND PERCEIVE TO BE ABUSIVE?

MR. LASHER: IF AN OUT-OF-STATE BUSINESS IS ENGAGED

IN A DECEPTIVE, UNFAIR OR ABUSIVE ACT OR PRACTICE THAT -- THAT CAN HAVE AN

EFFECT OR IS HAVING AN EFFECT ON NEW YORKERS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

CAN CERTAINLY TAKE ACTION.

MS. WALSH: WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR

261

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ANSWERS. I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.

AND MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

MR. LASHER: THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK

THAT THE WAY THAT THIS BILL HAS BEEN DRAFTED, IT -- I THINK IT IS -- I -- I

THINK IT'S LESS BAD THAN THE ORIGINAL VERSION. I -- I DO THINK THAT ALL OF

THAT BAD FAITH LOBBYING DID PROBABLY RESULT IN SOMETHING THAT IT'S A LITTLE

BIT MORE PALATABLE TO ME ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE. BUT I STILL THINK THAT

IF ANY OF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE AMOUNT OF DISCRETION AND

AUTHORITY AND POWER THAT OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL CURRENTLY HAS, THIS BILL

WILL ONLY BE ADDING TO IT. AND SOME OF US ARE NOT OKAY WITH THAT. YOU

KNOW, IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THIS BILL IS BEST DESCRIBED AS AN

EXPANSION OF THE AG'S POWERS TO POLICE BUSINESS PRACTICES IN NEW

YORK STATE THAT SHE FINDS OBJECTIONABLE. YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE,

"UNFAIR" OR "ABUSIVE", AND THOSE -- I KEEP USING AIR QUOTES AS I'M

SAYING THAT BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THOSE ARE DEFINED IS, SOME WOULD SAY,

I WOULD SAY, IS KIND OF WIDE OPEN USING THE NEW STANDARDS WHICH ARE

MORE SUBJECTIVE AND DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE TIED TO CONSUMER

ACTIVITY.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN RECENT CASES THAT HAVE BEEN

BROUGHT AND THEN DISMISSED IN NEW YORK STATE AND NEW YORK CITY,

ALLEGING CLAIMS AGAINST THE EXISTING SECTION 349 OF THE GENERAL

BUSINESS LAW AND SIMILAR NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

PROVISIONS. I WON'T LIST THEM ALL. I MEAN, THERE -- THERE ARE -- I HAVE A

262

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BUNCH OF THEM. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE TO ME IS THAT I THINK THAT IF THIS

LAW IS ADOPTED IT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AVENUES BY WHICH THE AG

COULD BRING CLAIMS AGAINST BUSINESSES OR PEOPLE THAT THE AG FINDS

OBJECTIONABLE IN THE FUTURE, ENSURING OR TIPPING THE SCALES IN -- IN HER

FAVOR AND MAKING IT EASIER TO BRING OR MAINTAIN AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I BELIEVE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ALREADY HAS PLENTY OF POWER AND AUTHORITY UNDER OUR EXISTING LAW AND

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING IT INCREASE. SO FOR THOSE REASONS I WILL BE

VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS BILL AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY

COLLEAGUES TO DO SO AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: THANK YOU.

MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

MR. LASHER: YES.

MR. RA: THANK YOU. SO JUST TO PICK UP WITH REGARD

TO WHAT SITUATIONS THIS APPLIES TO. SO THE TERM "UNFAIR" HAS, I GUESS,

THREE PRONGS TO IT; IT CAUSES OR IS LIKELY TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL INJURY

WHICH IS NOT REASONABLY AVOIDABLE AND IS NOT OUTWEIGHED BY

COUNTERVAILING BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS OR COMPETITION. THE TERM

"SUBSTANTIAL INJURY", MY UNDERSTANDING IS MEANT TO HAVE THE SAME

MEANING AS IT DOES UN -- UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT, CORRECT?

MR. LASHER: YES.

MR. RA: BUT AM I CORRECT THAT THAT DOESN'T REALLY

263

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DEFINE IT? ARE WE -- ARE WE LOOKING AT WHAT IT'S BEEN HELD TO MEAN BY

THE COURTS AS OUR DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INJURY?

MR. LASHER: UM...

(PAUSE)

MR. RA: BECAUSE MY UNDER -- UNDERSTANDING IS THE

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT DOESN'T HAVE A -- A FULL STATUTORY

DEFINITION OF THAT TERM, SUBSTANTIAL INJURY.

MR. LASHER: THERE IS EXTENSIVE CASE LAW ON THE

QUESTION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL INJURY, AND THE FTC'S 1980

POLICY STATEMENT ADDRESSES IT SPECIFICALLY, AND I COULD JUST READ. "THE

COMMISSION IS NOT CONCERNED WITH TRIVIAL OR MERELY SPECULATIVE HARMS.

IN MOST CASES A SUBSTANTIAL INJURY INVOLVES MONETARY HARM, AS WHEN

SELLERS COERCE CONSUMERS INTO PURCHASING UNWANTED GOODS OR SERVICES,

OR WHEN CONSUMERS BUY DEFECTIVE GOODS OR SERVICES ON CREDIT BUT ARE

UNABLE TO ASSERT AGAINST THE CREDITOR CLAIMS OR DEFENSES ARISING FROM

THE TRANSACTION. UNWARRANTED HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS MAY ALSO SUPPORT

A FINDING OF UNFAIRNESS. EMOTIONAL IMPACT AND OTHER MORE SUBJECTIVE

TYPES OF HARM, ON THE OTHER HAND, WILL NOT ORDINARILY MAKE A PRACTICE

UNFAIR." THAT IS -- THERE ARE DECADES OF CASE LAW EXPANDING ON THIS,

AND THAT IS WHAT THIS LAW RELIES ON.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIMARILY

FINANCIAL HARM, BUT NOT -- NOT NECESSARILY ONLY FINANCIAL HARM.

(INDISCERNIBLE)

MR. LASHER: YEAH, I THINK YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE

ECONOMIC HARM; IT COULD BE MONEY AND TIME; YOU HAVE PHYSICAL HARM;

264

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YOU HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL INJURY; LOSS OF PRIVACY;

POTENTIALLY REPUTATIONAL; WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO SOMEBODY'S CREDIT

REPORTS.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO A LOT OF THAT SOUNDED LIKE

SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A CONSUMER. WHAT

-- WHAT DO YOU TAKE THAT TO MEAN IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION

WHERE IT'S NOT A CONSUMER TRANSACTION, BUT RATHER A

BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS TRANSACTION?

MR. LASHER: I THINK IT IS PROBABLY MORE LIKELY THAT

IF A BUSINESS WERE THE VICTIM OF AN UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE OR ABUSIVE

PRACTICE THAT THE HARM WOULD BE ECONOMIC IN NATURE, BUT NOT

NECESSARILY EXCLUSIVELY.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT -- THAT

WE HAVE WITH THIS IS THAT SOMETHING THAT SEEMINGLY WAS DESIGNED TO

DEAL WITH BUSINESS -- OR I'M SORRY, CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS NOW CAN GO

INTO THE BUSINESS REALM. AND I CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND WHAT

YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES.

CERTAINLY WE WANT SMALL BUSINESSES TO BE PROTECTED UNDER OUR LAWS AND

HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH ANY HARM THAT IS DONE TO THEM,

WHETHER IT'S BY A LARGER BUSINESS OR MAYBE ANOTHER SMALL BUSINESS. BUT

WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH TWO BUSINESSES, SAY, WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO

WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE LEGALLY CALL AN ARM'S-LENGTH TRANSACTION; THEY --

THEY MAY BE, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTED BY -- BY ATTORNEYS AND THE WHOLE

NINE YARDS. COULD THERE BE A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING, HEY, SOMETHING UNFAIR HAPPENED HERE, OR,

265

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SOMETHING ABUSIVE HAPPENED HERE, AND -- AND SHE'S GONNA SUE FOR THE

HARM FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES?

MR. LASHER: I THINK YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT THE

-- THE FOUNDATIONAL IDEA, GOING BACK CENTURIES IN COMMON LAW, BEHIND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS THAT THEY ARE THE PEOPLE'S LAWYER. WE

ELECT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. WE VEST IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BROAD

LEGAL POWER AND DISCRETION WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL IS GONNA USE THAT DISCRETION IN THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST. THERE IS

AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PRIORITIZING AND TRIAGING THAT GOES ON, AND I

THINK YOU WOULD FIND -- I -- I IMAGINE, ALTHOUGH I HAVEN'T DONE THE

RESEARCH, THAT YOU WILL NOT IN THE 42 OTHER STATES OR OTHER STATES WHERE

THESE REMEDIES ARE NOT LIMITED TO INDIVIDUALS, ATTORNEY GENERALS USING

UDAP STATUTES TO INTERVENE IN LARGE TWO-COMPANY SOPHISTICATED

COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS.

MR. RA: YEAH. I'M --I -- SURE --

(INDISCERNIBLE/CROSSTALK)

-- IT HASN'T HAPPENED IN MOST OF THE OTHER STATES, BUT I

-- I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT IT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS STATE AND THAT'S THE

PROBLEM. I DO AGREE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO WHAT THE FOUNDATIONS OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS. BUT YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH THIS, BUT

IN MY OPINION WE HAVE HAD IN NEW YORK STATE FOR DECADES ATTORNEY

GENERALS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN INTERESTED IN THAT BEING THEIR ROLE; RATHER

THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO SET UP WHATEVER THEIR NEXT POLITICAL OFFICE IS.

WE HAVE -- WE'VE HAD ATTORNEY GENERALS THAT CHASE HEADLINES MORE SO

THAN JUSTICE, IN MY OPINION. I'M SURE YOU -- YOU WOULD PROBABLY

266

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT -- BUT THAT'S WHAT I SEE FROM OUR ATTORNEY

GENERALS GOING BACK THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES. THEY SEEM TO -- THERE

WAS A TIME THAT IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS, I'M THE NEXT GOVERNOR AND I'M

JUST WAITING TO MAKE MY MOVE AND I'M GONNA -- I'M GONNA PURSUE THE

CASES THAT SET ME UP BEST FOR THAT.

MR. LASHER: I CAN'T IMAGINE WE'D FIND SUCH

POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS IN ANY ROOM IN THIS BUILDING.

MR. RA: I'M SHOCKED TO FIND THERE'S GAMBLING GOING

ON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT.

YEAH, SO CERTAINLY THIS IS AN ELECTED OFFICE, SO I -- I

APPRECIATE THAT. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH

EXPANDING THE AUTHORITY OF THAT OFFICE WITH REGARD TO -- I -- I THINK THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS AND IS WELL-SUITED TO TRYING TO HELP

CONSUMERS IN THIS STATE. AND -- AND I'LL TELL YOU ONE OF THE FIRST JOBS I

HAD THAT WAS LEGAL IN NATURE WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL, I WORKED IN THE

REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND WE DEALT WITH

CONSUMER SITUATIONS, CONSUMER FRAUD. I WORKED IN THE CONSUMER

FRAUD BUREAU, AND PEOPLE WOULD WRITE TO US WITH THEIR ISSUES AND WE'D

TRY TO SEE WHAT WE COULD DO TO HELP THEM. I WAS -- I THINK I WAS A

MEDIATOR WAS -- WAS THE TITLE. AND WE'D TRIED TO ASSIST WITH THESE

SITUATIONS. AND SOMETIMES JUST THE WEIGHT OF THE FACT THAT EVEN IF WE,

YOU KNOW, YOU WEREN'T THREATENING LEGAL ACTION, PER SE, BUT JUST THE FACT

THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS SAYING, HEY, WE'RE TAKING A LOOK

AT WHAT YOU DID HERE AND WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, MEDIATE THIS

DISPUTE USUALLY GOT THE JOB DONE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT GOES, I THINK,

267

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WELL BEYOND THE CONSUMER REALM, AND THAT'S -- AND THAT'S WHAT OUR

CONCERN IS.

SO LET ME SHIFT TO THAT SECOND PART, "ABUSIVE." RIGHT?

WE'RE GOING FROM A STANDARD THAT WAS CONSUMER -- EVEN JUST THE TITLE OF

-- OF THE SECTION, CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR -- FROM -- I'M SORRY,

DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES. SO WE'RE SAYING UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE. SO

DOES ABUSIVE REQUIRE SOME TYPE OF CONTINUING ACT OR COULD IT BE JUST

ONE -- ONE THING THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN TWO PARTIES?

MR. LASHER: AS A TECHNICAL MATTER -- AND THIS IS

NOT JUST LIMITED TO ABUSIVE -- A SINGLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW IS A VIOLATION

OF THE LAW ENFORCEABLE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER,

THE LEGISLATURE CREATED THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION TEN YEARS AFTER THE

LAW WAS FIRST ENACTED GIVING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY,

BECAUSE OF A RECOGNITION THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT HAVE THE

CAPACITY TO PROTECT AND ENFORCE AGAINST EVERY INDIVIDUAL VIOLATION OF

THE LAW AND THAT THAT WAS BETTER SUITED TO INDIVIDUAL LEGAL RECOURSE. SO

BY AND LARGE, PERHAPS ALMOST WITHOUT EXCLUSION, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ENFORCEMENT OF GBL 349 OVER THE YEARS AS IT

EXISTS, YOU WILL FIND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKING ACTION AGAINST

PRACTICES THAT OCCUR INVOLVING MANY VICTIMS. BUT AGAIN, I WANT TO

STRESS THAT THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW. AND TO THE EXTENT IT IS

PROPPED AGAIN IN THIS CONSUMER-ORIENTED STANDARD, IT WILL NO LONGER BE

A REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW UPON PASSAGE OF THIS BILL.

MR. RA: YES. SO -- SO THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IS

-- IS LIMITED TO THE -- BASICALLY THE PRIOR DEFINITION.

268

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. LASHER: THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IS

UNTOUCHED BY THIS BILL.

MR. RA: THANK YOU.

MR. LASHER: AND I SHOULD SAY, AS LONG AS THE TOPIC

HAS COME UP --

MR. RA: SURE.

MR. LASHER: -- THAT JUST AS I THINK THAT THE

CONSUMER-ORIENTED STANDARD AS READ INTO THE LEGISLATION BY THE COURTS

OVER THE YEARS IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. I DO NOT BELIEVE -- AND THIS BILL AND ITS LACK

OF ACTION ON THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION SIDE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, AND

WE SHOULD NOT ASCRIBE ANY STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO THE CONSUMER-ORIENTED

STANDARD AS RELATES TO PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION, AND CERTAINLY NOT SIMPLY

BECAUSE THE BILL DOESN'T ELIMINATE IT THERE. WE MADE -- THE INTENT OF

THIS BILL IS SIMPLY TO EXPAND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY, AND WE

HAVE LEFT TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS OF HOW THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION

SHOULD BE HANDLED.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO I -- I GUESS LASTLY, WITH -- WITH

REGARD TO THIS NEW STANDARD, OBVIOUSLY ANY TIME YOU HAVE A LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, WHETHER -- WHETHER'S IT'S A LOCAL DA, WHETHER IT'S

AN ATTORNEY GENERAL, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF DISCRETION AS TO

DETERMINING THE TYPES OF CASES THEY'RE GONNA BRING IN -- IN ANY CONTEXT,

RIGHT? SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CAN LOOK AT A SITUATION AND

DECIDE IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE AND THEN BRING AN

ACTION. NOW, IN THE CONSUMER REALM I THINK THAT'S FAIRLY OBVIOUS THAT,

269

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YOU KNOW, THERE'S KIND OF DAVID AND GOLIATH. THERE'S -- THERE'S MAYBE

THE BIG CORPORATION AND -- AND THE CONSUMER THAT WAS TRYING TO BUY A

GOOD, TRYING TO BUY A SERVICE AND WAS HARMED BY -- BY THE UNFAIR OR

ABUSIVE ACT. IN THE SITUATION WHERE IT'S A BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS

TRANSACTION, WHAT ROLE DOES, SAY, THE AGGRIEVED BUSINESS HAVE WITH

REGARD TO AN ACTION THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DECIDES TO BRING?

MR. LASHER: NO -- NO FORMAL LEGAL ROLE. THEY --

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. AND AGAIN, THAT MAY -- THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL MAY TAKE AN ACTION -- MAY INVOLVE THE OFFICE IN A -- IN AN

ENFORCEMENT ACTION WHERE THERE HAS BEEN CONDUCT THAT IS ALSO SUBJECT

TO A BREACH OF CONTRACT. BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OBLIGATION AND JOB

IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, AND THAT --

THAT WOULD BE THE CASE IN ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN UNDER GBL

349.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE

DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN -- IN THAT BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS SITUATION WE

DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SOMETHING GOING ON THAT REALLY WAS UNFAIR,

DECEPTIVE, VERSUS ONE SIDE JUST MADE A BAD DEAL?

MR. LASHER: SO I THINK IN A COUPLE WAYS. I MEAN,

THE -- THE SHORT ANSWER OBVIOUSLY IS THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COURTS TO

ADJUDICATE THESE MATTERS. BUT I THINK THE LINE OF QUESTIONING, IF I MAY

SAY RESPECTFULLY, RELIES ON TWO ILLOGICAL -- TWO LOGICAL FALLACIES. THE

FIRST IS THE NOTION THAT THIS SORT OF HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM YOU'RE

ENVISIONING DOESN'T EXIST IN THE REALM OF THE CURRENT STATUTE, THAT YOU

270

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

COULDN'T HAVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN A BUSINESS AND AN INDIVIDUAL, THAT IS

NOT A GOOD USE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S TIME OR RESOURCES AND IS

BETTER SUITED TO A PRIVATE CIVIL ACTION. AND THAT -- THAT PRESUMABLY

EXISTS, AND THE WISDOM OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR 55 YEARS, THE LAWS WE'VE

OPERATED UNDER, IS TO CREATE AN INCLUSIVE STATUTE THAT RELIES ON THE

JUDGMENT OF THE DULY-ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPLY IT IN THE

PEOPLE'S INTEREST. AND SO, TOO, WOULD BE THE CASE HERE. AND I THINK THE

QUESTION REALLY THAT THIS GETS AT IS DO YOU HAVE A STATUTE THAT IS SO

INCREDIBLY NARROW THAT IT WOULD EXCLUDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM

TAKING ACTION TO PROTECT SMALL BUSINESSES IN THEIR ENTIRETY, IN ANY

CIRCUMSTANCE, IN A VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE, OR DO WE EXPAND THE STATUTE

IN A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THAT IT TREATS INDIVIDUALS TO

ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPLY THAT SAME DISCRETION AND PROTECT

SMALL BUSINESSES OR LARGER BUSINESSES WHEN IT IS IN THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST

TO DO SO. AND I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS BILL IS TO DO THAT.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. LASHER.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: ON THE BILL.

MR. RA: SO, QUICKLY, I -- I CERTAINLY TAKE AT FACE

VALUE THE -- THE INTENT OF THE SPONSOR WITH REGARD TO THIS. I AM

UNCOMFORTABLE EXPANDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WE'VE HAD SO MANY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS WEIGH IN WITH REGARD TO

THIS, EVERYTHING FROM THE INSURANCE SIDE OF THINGS TO REALTORS TO JUST

GENERAL BUSINESS INTERESTS, CONCERNED THAT THIS IS ANOTHER THING THAT WILL

MAKE NEW YORK STATE A MORE DIFFICULT PLACE TO DO BUSINESS; EXPOSE

271

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BUSINESSES TO INCREASED LAWSUITS WHICH INCREASES COST, INCREASES THE

NEED FOR THEM TO DO -- USE THEIR TIME ON THINGS OTHER THAN BUSINESS.

AND -- AND I THINK THIS IS TOO EXPANSIVE AND TOO VAGUE TO ENTRUST TO THE

JUDGMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: THANK YOU.

MR. MOLITOR.

MR. MOLITOR: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

MR. LASHER: YES.

MR. MOLITOR: THANK YOU, MR. SPONSOR. SO, I

DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRACTICAL OR PRAGMATIC ISSUES OR

POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH THIS BILL. I WANT TO FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON LANGUAGE

AND DRAFTING OF THIS BILL. AND I WANT TO FOCUS ON LINES 45 THROUGH 52

WHICH DEFINE SUBSTANTIAL INJURY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE SAME ON YOURS.

MR. LASHER: LET'S SEE. YUP.

MR. MOLITOR: OKAY. SO, I BELIEVE YOU TOLD MY

COLLEAGUE THAT THIS STATUTE DEFINES SUBSTANTIAL INJURY AS THE DEFINITION OF

SUBSTANTIAL INJURY AS REFERENCED BY 15 USC, SECTION 41.

MR. LASHER: CORRECT.

MR. MOLITOR: BUT YOU TOLD THEM THAT 15 USC,

SECTION 41 DOES NOT -- THAT -- THAT FEDERAL STATUTE DOES NOT ACTUALLY

CONTAIN A DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INJURY?

272

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. LASHER: NO, I -- IF I SAID THAT, I MAY HAVE

MISSPOKEN.

MR. MOLITOR: OKAY. SO, THAT FEDERAL STATUTE

ACTUALLY CONTAINS -- SORRY. THAT FEDERAL STATUTE ACTUALLY CONTAINS A

DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INJURY?

(PAUSE)

MR. LASHER: SO, I WAS -- I GUESS I WAS CORRECT

EARLIER. THE -- THE -- THE TERM IS USED IN THE FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION ACT AND IT IS FLUSHED OUT IN CASE LAW OVER MANY YEARS.

MR. MOLITOR: OKAY. SO, IF WE ENACT THIS BILL -- IF

WE PASS THIS BILL TODAY AND IT'S GETS SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE GOVERNOR,

THEN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WILL HAVE TO USE A DEFINITION THAT IS

REFERENCED BY A FEDERAL STATUTE BUT ACTUALLY DEFINED BY FEDERAL CASE

LAW?

MR. LASHER: I THINK, IF I MAY -- THE -- THE SHORT

ANSWER, MR. MOLITOR, IS YES, AND I -- I THINK WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH

THIS, IF I MIGHT PRESUME, IS THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW A CIRCUITOUS OR

UNPREDICTABLE WAY OF DEFINING IT AND I THINK IT'S QUITE THE OPPOSITE,

BECAUSE THE -- THE REASON FOR THE BILL TO BE DRAFTED IN THIS WAY IS THAT

THIS IS THE DEFINITION AND THE CASE LAW THAT BUSINESSES HAD BEEN RELYING

ON FOR MANY YEARS. AND IN FACT, BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THAT -- THAT HAS BEEN THE LAW,

EFFECTIVELY, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR YEARS AND WE HAVE MADE AN

EFFORT IN DRAFTING THIS BILL IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT

WE'VE GOTTEN, TO ESTABLISH DEFINITIONS THAT REFLECT THE -- THE STATUTORY

273

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AND FRAMEWORK AND JURISPRUDENCE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN LIVING

WITH FOR YEARS. AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD WAS THAT THE CREATION OF A NEW

DEFINITION WOULD CREATE, I THINK, THE -- THE INSTABILITY THAT I THINK WE

BOTH DO NOT WANT TO CREATE.

MR. MOLITOR: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ACTUALLY, I'M

GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. I THINK THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL VIOLATES

ARTICLE III, 16 OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROHIBITS

LAWS PASSED BY THIS BODY FROM REFERENCING OTHER LAWS WITHOUT

CONTAINING THE FULL TEXT OF THAT OTHER LAW. I ACTUALLY THINK IT GOES ONE

STEP FURTHER IN VIOLATING THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT

DOESN'T ACTUALLY VIOLATE -- OR DOESN'T ACTUALLY CONTAIN THE TEXT OF

ANOTHER STATUTE, IT ACTUALLY IS REFERENCING FEDERAL CASE LAW. SO, THAT'S

WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT.

MR. LASHER: I -- I THINK I WOULD SAY, I TAKE THE

COMMENT AS DULY NOTED AND AM ADVISED WITH -- BY PEOPLE WITH GREATER

WISDOM OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION THAN I HAVE, THAT THAT IS INCORRECT, BUT

I IMAGINE THAT THAT IS A MATTER THAT CAN BE EXPLORED FURTHER IN EITHER THE

EXECUTIVE REVIEW OF THIS BILL, OR POTENTIALLY IN SOME LITIGATION.

MR. MOLITOR: OR A CHAPTER AMENDMENT --

MR. LASHER: OR A CHAPTER AMENDMENT.

MR. MOLITOR: THANK YOU, MR. LASHER.

ON THIS BILL.

MR. LASHER: I SHOULD SAY --

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: ON THE BILL.

MR. LASHER: MA'AM --

274

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. MOLITOR: YEAH, WE CAN GO BACK TO THIS.

MR. LASHER: I -- I JUST -- I -- I WOULD SAY MY

UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE -- THAT THE PROVISION THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF,

DOES NOT APPLY TO FEDERAL LAW. THAT'S WHAT I'M -- THAT'S WHAT I AM TOLD.

SO, AGAIN, WE CAN --

MR. MOLITOR: THE -- THE PROVISION THAT -- THE

PROVISION THAT IS REFERENCED IN THE STATUTE DOESN'T APPLY TO FEDERAL LAW?

MR. LASHER: CORRECT.

MR. MOLITOR: OR THE PROVISION I'M REFERENCING IN

THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION --

MR. LASHER: THE PROVISION THAT YOU'RE

REFERENCING.

MR. MOLITOR: OKAY. YOU'RE -- SO YOU'RE SAYING

IT'S OKAY FOR NEW YORK STATE TO REFERENCE OTHER LAWS WITHOUT

CONTAINING THE TEXT OF THOSE LAWS SO LONG AS IT'S A FEDERAL LAW --

MR. LASHER: THAT IS MY -- THAT IS MY

UNDERSTANDING.

MR. MOLITOR: OKAY.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: ON THE BILL.

MR. MOLITOR: SO, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S REALLY BAD

POLICY TO PUT IN A LAW THAT WE'RE GOING TO PASS IN THE STATE THAT IS GOING

TO AFFECT BUSINESSES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND FUTURE

LITIGATION WITHOUT ADEQUATELY DEFINING OUR TERMS. THAT'S A LAWYER'S

DREAM SCENARIO BECAUSE IT CREATES ALL SORTS OF WONDERFUL LITIGATION, BUT

275

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IT IS A NIGHTMARE FOR CERTAINTY, FOR BUSINESSES AND OUR -- OUR

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. I THINK IT'S EVEN MORE PROBLEMATIC THAT WE'RE

REFERENCING NOT ANOTHER FEDERAL STATUTE, BUT FEDERAL CASE LAW AND AS

WE ALL KNOW, CASE LAW CAN CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF, YOU

KNOW, FUTURE LITIGATION. SO, WE'RE CREATING A STANDARD BY -- BY VOTING

YES ON THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, WE'RE TOTALLY

COMFORTABLE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK POTENTIALLY BEING

MODIFIED BY FEDERAL LITIGATION, AND THAT MAKES ME VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE

EVERYONE TO VOTE NO ON THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION JUST TO AVOID, YOU

KNOW, ALL THE CHAPTER AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PASS

NEXT YEAR.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: READ THE

LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 60TH

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: A PARTY

VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

MINORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS BILL, BUT IF YOU

WANT TO VOTE YES, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO THAT AT YOUR SEATS.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: MAJORITY

276

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

LEADER PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. THE MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL,

HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE SOME THAT WOULD DESIRE TO BE AN EXCEPTION.

THEY SHOULD FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: THE CLERK

WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. LASHER TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. LASHER: I JUST WANTED TO FIRST THANK THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HER EXTRAORDINARY TEAM AND SENATOR COMRIE FOR

THEIR LEADERSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP ON THIS BILL AND TO ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES

WHO HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF IT. AND I JUST WANT TO CLOSE WITH TWO

COMMENTS. FIRST, JUST TO MR. MOLITOR'S LAST POINT, MANY BILLS THAT WE

PASS ARE SUBJECT TO LITIGATION AND INTERPRETATION. THAT'S THE NATURE OF

LAWMAKING AND THE NOTION THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW EXCEPTIONAL AND THAT IT

MAY -- IT HAS BEEN, GBL 349, HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO LITIGATION, I'M SURE IT

WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE'VE GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO -- TO RELY ON

LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS THAT REFECTS WELL-SETTLED LAW IN AN EFFORT TO

LIMIT THAT. AND I THINK ANY OTHER DIRECTION WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE

PROBLEM HE AIMS TO AVOID.

AND FINALLY, I WOULD JUST SAY AND -- AND THIS CAME UP

IN MY DISCUSSION WITH MR. RA, MARKETS FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY WHEN

PEOPLE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THEM. WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THERE IS ONE SET

OF RULES FOR EVERYONE, THAT THEY WILL NOT BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, THAT

277

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THEY CAN BE CONSUMERS, THAT THEY CAN SPEND MONEY, THAT THEY CAN

ENGAGE IN COMMERCE WITH CONFIDENCE. THAT IS HOW YOU CREATE A

THRIVING ECONOMY, AN ECONOMY THAT PEOPLE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN. THAT'S

THE KIND OF ECONOMY WE SHOULD HAVE IN NEW YORK, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS

BILL AIMS TO ADVANCE.

AND WITH THAT, I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: MR. LASHER

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. STECK TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. STECK: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I WILL BE

VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS BILL. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UPDATE

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND PROTECTION OF FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE

STATE, BUT I THINK WE'VE TAKEN A WRONG TURN AND THERE'S ANOTHER AREA

THAT NEEDS UPDATING AND THAT IS THE PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION. WE CANNOT

CONTINUE TO GIVE OVER ENFORCEMENT ONLY TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ENFORCE EVERY

ASPECT OF THE LAW. WE NEED TO MODERNIZE AND ENHANCE THE PRIVATE

ATTORNEY GENERALS TO ENFORCE THE LAW, SO THAT MORE -- MORE THINGS ARE

COVERED. THE LAW IS NOT JUST FOR BIG CORPORATE LAW FIRMS IN MANHATTAN.

WE NEED OUR AVERAGE EVERYDAY LAWYERS ALL OVER THE STATE TO BE

EMPOWERED TO ENGAGE IN CONSUMER PROTECTION.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: MR. STECK

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

278

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

MAJORITY LEADER PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, IF WE

COULD NOW BRING OUR ATTENTION TO THE A-CALENDAR AGAIN ON DEBATE.

WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH RULES REPORT NO. 871 BY MS. LEVENBERG,

RULES REPORT NO. 856 BY MR. DINOWITZ AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO

BACK TO THE MAIN CALENDAR AND TAKE UP RULES REPORT NO. 744 BY MR.

SIMONE.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: PAGE 6,

RULES REPORT NO. 871, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S07111-A, SENATOR -- OH,

EXCUSE ME, RULES REPORT NO. 871, SENATOR HARCKHAM, (A07862-A,

LEVENBERG, SHRESTHA, ANDERSON). AN ACT TO AMEND THE ELECTION LAW,

IN RELATION TO PERMIT POLITICAL PARTIES TO PERFORM CERTAIN FUNCTIONS

WITHOUT FORMING COUNTY COMMITTEES.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: AN

EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. LEVENBERG.

MS. LEVENBERG: THANK YOU, MS. SPEAKER. THE

PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO PERMIT POLITICAL PARTIES TO PERFORM CERTAIN

FUNCTIONS WITHOUT FORMING COUNTY COMMITTEES. ELECTION LAW,

16-102 CURRENTLY PROVIDES A PROCESS BY WHICH A VOTER'S ENROLLMENT IN

THE PARTY MAY BE CANCELLED UPON A DETERMINATION THAT THE VOTER IS NOT

IN SYMPATHY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PARTY. HOWEVER, THIS PROCESS

279

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

REQUIRES THE PARTY TO HAVE FORMED A COUNTY COMMITTEE WHICH HAS LEFT

SOME MINOR PARTIES WITHOUT RECOURSE. THIS BILL WOULD AMEND 16-11

-- 110 OF THE ELECTION LAW TO PROVIDE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A COUNTY

COMMITTEE, THE STATE COMMITTEE MAY ELECT A PERSON TO HOLD A HEARING

AND MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT WOULD GO TO A JUDGE THAT A VOTER'S

REGISTRATION WITH THE PARTY BE CANCELLED DUE TO THE VOTER NOT BEING IN

SYMPATHY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THAT PARTY.

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: MR.

SEMPOLINSKI.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR

SOME QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER BUTTENSCHON: WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

MS. LEVENBERG: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: I APPRECIATE IT AND AGAIN,

WE'VE GOT THE ANGLE FROM --

MS. LEVENBERG: GOT THE ANGLE.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

MS. LEVENBERG: IT'S OKAY.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU SAID

THE CERTAIN ACTIONS AND SO YOU -- YOU REITERATED THOSE IN YOUR

EXPLANATION, BUT THE ACTION THAT IS BEING AUTHORIZED IS THE REMOVAL OF

SOMEONE'S CHOSEN ENROLLMENT WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

MS. LEVENBERG: THEY -- THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE A

VOICE IN THE PROCESS. THERE IS A PROCESS CURRENTLY IN PLACE, THIS DOES

280

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NOT CHANGE THE PROCESS.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WELL, IT --

MS. LEVENBERG: THE PROCESS IS ALREADY

SOMETHING THAT'S IN PLACE.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT THE

PROCESS DOES CHANGE, AS CURRENTLY IT'S HANDLED -- I HAVE SOME CONCERNS

WITH THAT THE PROCESS EXISTS PERIOD. BUT, CURRENTLY IT'S HANDLED LOCALLY

BY A COUNTY CHAIRMAN AND THIS WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE BUMPED TO THE

STATE LEVEL; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. LEVENBERG: IF THERE ARE NO COUNTIES -- IF

THERE'S NOT A COUNTY COMMITTEE IN PLACE. RIGHT NOW ELECTION LAW

DOESN'T ACTUALLY REQUIRE COUNTY COMMITTEES, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE A STATE

COMMITTEE. SO, THE STATE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPOINT SOMEBODY TO FILL IN

FOR THE ROLE OF THE COUNTY COMMITTEE IF THAT WERE NOT -- NOT APPOINT,

BUT ELECT. I'M SORRY, THE STATE COMMITTEE COULD ELECT BY MAJORITY OF

THE STATE COMMITTEE A PERSON TO HEAR COMPLAINTS.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SO, YOU COULD HAVE -- SO,

THERE'S SORT OF TWO DIFFERENT MECHANISMS IN YOUR LAW -- OR YOUR BILL.

ONE IS IT GETS BUMPED TO THE -- A MAJORITY VOTE. A -- A PERSON -- SORRY.

A PERSON ELECTED BY THE MAJORITY VOTE, OR THE STATE COMMITTEE, OR THE

STATE COMMITTEE COULD HAVE A STANDING PERSON THAT HANDLES THIS TYPE OF

MATTER. IS THAT KIND OF HOW -- HOW IT WORKS?

MS. LEVENBERG: NO, I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE

PROCESS AND THE PROCESS IS THAT THE STATE COMMITTEE COULD HOLD AN

ELECTION TO APPOINT SOME -- CHOOSE SOMEBODY BY ELECTING SOMEBODY

281

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THAT COULD BE -- SERVE THE SAME ROLE AS THE COUNTY COMMITTEE CHAIR.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WELL, THERE'S TWO SECTIONS.

SO, THE -- THE FIRST ONE SAYS, SORT OF IN THE ABSENCE OF A COUNTY

COMMITTEE, A PERSON ELECTED FOR SUCH PERSON -- PURPOSE BY MAJORITY

VOTE OF THE STATE COMMITTEE, THEN FILLS IN WHAT THE LAW ALREADY

CONTEMPLATES FOR A COUNTY CHAIRPERSON. BUT THEN, YOU HAVE A NEW

SECTION THAT YOU'VE WRITTEN THAT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE -- THEY APPOINT A

PERSON TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS. I AM INTERPRETING THAT -- AM I CORRECTLY

INTERPRETING THAT AS THE FIRST IS FOR A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE AND THE

SECOND IS TO HAVE A STANDING PERSON FOR CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THEY

MAY DEVELOP?

MS. LEVENBERG: IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY STANDING

PERSON. I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A -- A

COMPLAINT BY A VOTER, THAT THEN THE STATE COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE THE

OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT BY MAJORITY VOTE, OR A SPECIAL MEETING AT WHICH

QUORUM IS PRESENT, A PERSON OR PERSONS TO RECEIVE THOSE COMPLAINTS,

HOLD HEARINGS AND INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH IS THE SAME THING THAT

THE PARTIES THAT DO HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES ARE ALLOWED TO DO. IT

DOESN'T CHANGE THE PROCESS AT ALL. THE ONLY THING IT CHANGES IS IF THEY

DON'T HAVE A COUNTY COMMITTEE.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SO, THEY WOULD -- THEY WOULD

HAVE A SITUATION WHERE STATE COMMITTEE HAS MET AND JANE DOE IS THE

PERSON THAT RECEIVES THESE COMPLAINTS AND THEN LATER DOWN THE ROAD IN

-- IN CASES WHERE THERE IS NOT THE COUNTY CHAIRPERSON, WHO WOULD BE

THE STANDING PERSON TO RECEIVE THESE TYPE OF COMPLAINTS FROM SOMEONE

282

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THAT'S THE PERSON THEY GET DIRECTED TO, THEY CONDUCT THE HEARING AND

THEN IT GETS DIRECTED TO THE JUDGE. AM -- AM I CORRECT ON THAT?

MS. LEVENBERG: YES.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, AS I SAID,

SOME OF MY -- I HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS WITH THIS. FIRST, THE COUNTY

CHAIRPERSON IS LOCAL. THE COUNTY CHAIRPERSON, ALTHOUGH COUNTIES ARE

-- YOU HAVE COUNTIES THAT ARE VERY, VERY SMALL. YOU HAVE COUNTIES THAT

ARE VERY, VERY BIG. BUT I WOULD SAY A COUNTY CHAIRPERSON IS FAR MORE

LIKELY TO KNOW THE NUANCES OF A PARTICULAR SITUATION POLITICALLY IN THEIR

AREA THAN A STATE COMMITTEE. AM I INCORRECT ON THAT?

MS. LEVENBERG: IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE

PARTY, PROBABLY. YOU KNOW, SMALLER PARTIES ARE PROBABLY MORE IN TUNE

WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN ALL OF THEIR COUNTIES. AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE

COUNTIES -- IF THEY DON'T HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES BECAUSE IT IS A COSTLY

AND CUMBERSOME PROCESS TO FORM THEM, THEN THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO

USE THEIR STATE COMMITTEE TO APPOINT AGAIN -- OR -- OR ELECT SOMEBODY.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: SO, JUST TO USE AN EXAMPLE, A

HYPOTHETICAL: I REPRESENT CATTARAUGUS, ALLEGANY AND A PORTION OF

STEUBEN COUNTY; AN AREA THAT'S VERY FAR REMOVED FROM ALBANY, NEW

YORK CITY, WHERE A STATE CHAIRMAN MIGHT PRESUME TO BE BASED, OR A

STATE COMMITTEE MIGHT PRESUME TO BE BASED. THIS WOULD ALLOW

SOMEBODY WHO HAS ENROLLED IN SOME PARTICULAR PARTY AND CHOSEN TO

ENROLL IN THAT PARTICULAR PARTY, TO BE REMOVED AS A MEMBER OF THAT

PARTICULAR PARTY BY STATE PARTY LEADERSHIP FROM NEW YORK CITY,

ALBANY, WHEREVER THEY HAPPEN TO BE.

283

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. LEVENBERG: RIGHT. SO, THEY'RE NOT REMOVED

BY PARTY LEADERSHIP, THEY'RE REMOVED BY A JUDGE IN THAT JURISDICTION.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: WELL, TO BE CLEAR AND THIS IS

EXISTING LAW, IT DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T SEEM TO GIVE A LOT OF DISCRETION TO

THE JUDGE. IT SAYS, "SHALL DIRECT". THE JUDGES "SHALL" AND THAT'S EXISTING

LAW. SO, CAN THE JUDGE OVERRULE THE PARTY, OR ARE THEY JUST A LEGAL

MECHANISM?

MS. LEVENBERG: I THINK THAT THE JUDGE CAN

OVERRULE THE PARTY AND AGAIN, THE JUDGE IS -- WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE

JURISDICTION WHERE THE VOTER WAS -- WAS REGISTERED.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. HE HAS TO DETERMINE

WHETHER IT IS JUST? THAT'S -- THAT'S THE MANDATE ON THE JUDGE?

MS. LEVENBERG: YES.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY

CONCERNS ON THE EFFECT THIS WOULD HAVE ON DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT AND

DIVERSITY OF OPINION WITHIN OUR POLITICAL STRUCTURE?

MS. LEVENBERG: I DON'T BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS

PROCESS HAS BEEN IN PLACE AND IN -- AND HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY PARTIES

THAT HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES IN PLACE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT IT'S INTENDED

TO DO, WHICH IS TO CHALLENGE ANYBODY WHO'S SIGNING UP OR REGISTERING TO

BE A MEMBER OF A PARTY AS A ROGUE OR RENEGADE VOTER.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: DO YOU FEEL THIS WOULD

CONSTITUTE A STATE LEVEL LOYALTY TEST?

MS. LEVENBERG: NO.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: NO. OKAY.

284

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

I'M GOING TO GO ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: I -- I -- I HAVE A LOT OF

PROBLEMS WITH THIS. ONE, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE UNDERLYING LAW. I

THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR WHATEVER POLITICAL PARTY THEY

WANT TO SIGN UP FOR AND YOU HAVE -- IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE SOMEBODY WHO

DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE POLITICAL PARTY OF WHICH YOU'RE A

MEMBER, YOU KNOW, THAT'S -- THAT'S YOUR RIGHT. THIS IS AMERICA. YOU

SHOULD BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, EXPRESS YOUR BELIEFS AND SIGN UP FOR A

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. OBVIOUSLY, THE PARTICULAR OPINIONS OF OUR

POLITICAL PARTIES ON PARTICULAR ISSUES HAVE SHIFTED AND CHANGED OVER

TIME. COALITIONS HAVE BEEN BUILT, COALITIONS HAVE FALLEN APART. I, YOU

KNOW, THINK THAT'S A HEALTHY PART OF OUR DEMOCRACY. I THINK DIVERSITY OF

THOUGHT IS A HEALTHY PART OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND I DON'T LIKE A SITUATION

WHERE SOMEBODY CAN BE KICKED OUT OF A POLITICAL PARTY FOR WRONG

THINK.

THEREFORE, I URGE ALL MEMBERS TO VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DURSO.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. LEVENBERG: ABSOLUTELY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MS. LEVENBERG. SO -- AND

285

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

JUST TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND THIS, IS THIS FOR ALL PARTIES OR MINOR PARTIES

ONLY?

MS. LEVENBERG: ALL PARTIES THAT DO NOT HAVE

COUNTY COMMITTEES.

MR. DURSO: SO, THIS WOULD BE FOR THE LARGER

PARTIES, WHETHER IT'S DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, CONSERVATIVE?

MS. LEVENBERG: THEY ALL HAVE COUNTY

COMMITTEES.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. SO, REALLY THIS IS FOR MINOR

PARTIES THEN THAT DON'T HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES.

MS. LEVENBERG: YES.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. AND REALLY, WHAT'S THE GENESIS

OF THIS BILL? WHY ARE WE DOING THIS NOW?

MS. LEVENBERG: I BELIEVE IT'S TO LEVEL THE PLAYING

FIELD. WE KNOW THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW CONSERVATIVE PARTY HAS

AFFECTIVELY PURGED PEOPLE FROM THEIR REGISTRATION ROLES USING THIS

PROCESS. OTHER MINOR PARTIES WHO HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES HAVE, BUT

NOT ALL PARTIES HAVE -- HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES. SO, THOSE THAT DO NOT

HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES WHO WANT TO HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH

-- WITH THE REST OF THE PARTIES, ARE, YOU KNOW, DESERVE TO HAVE THAT.

MR. DURSO: UNDERSTOOD. SO, YOU JUST SAID -- YOU

SAID THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S DONE THIS TO PURGE THEIR ROLES?

MS. LEVENBERG: YES.

MR. DURSO: ARE THOSE VOTERS STILL -- I MEAN, ARE

THOSE JUST VOTERS THAT HAVE PASSED AWAY THAT ARE NO LONGER REGISTERED

286

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

VOTERS IN NEW YORK STATE?

MS. LEVENBERG: NO.

MR. DURSO: SO, WHAT -- WHAT EXACTLY -- JUST PEOPLE

THAT THEY FEEL THAT DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR PARTY LINE?

MS. LEVENBERG: ARE USING THEIR REGISTRATION FOR

-- FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. SO, YOU'RE SAYING WE ALREADY

HAVE A THING -- WE ALREADY HAVE A LAW IN PLACE THAT ALLOWS THIS FOR

MAJOR PARTIES AND AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS,

MAJOR PARTIES THAT HAVE A COUNTY COMMITTEE. THIS IS REALLY, I MEAN,

OBVIOUSLY FOR MINOR PARTIES THAT DON'T HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES. SO,

AS YOU SAID, SOMEONE DOESN'T ESSENTIALLY HIGHJACK, RIGHT, THAT -- THAT --

MS. LEVENBERG: IN YOUR WORDS, YES.

MR. DURSO: WHY IS THAT IF -- IF THEY DO -- IF THESE

MINOR PARTIES DON'T HAVE A COUNTY COMMITTEE, WHY ARE WE SO

CONCERNED WITH WHO IS REGISTERED IN THAT PARTY? AND AGAIN, IF THE

PARTY'S NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO HAVE A COUNTY COMMITTEE IN THOSE AREAS,

WHY WOULD WE NEED TO DO LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THEM? THEY CAN'T

PROTECT THEMSELVES AND CREATE A COUNTY COMMITTEE, SO WHY SHOULD WE

DO IT FOR THEM HERE?

MS. LEVENBERG: AGAIN, SOME OF THESE MINOR

PARTIES EITHER DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, OR ARE -- THEY FIND THAT THE PROCESS

IS CUMBERSOME AND THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD STILL HAVE AN

OPPORTUNITY, JUST AS THE MAJOR PARTIES DO, TO CHALLENGE VOTER

REGISTRATION IF, AGAIN, IF IT'S BEING USED TO HIGHJACK A -- A -- A LINE.

287

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: CAN YOU GIVE ME ANY EXAMPLES?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. LEVENBERG: IT'S -- IT'S AN EQUITY ISSUE AND I

DON'T KNOW THAT -- THAT AN EXAMPLE IS -- IS NECESSARY.

MR. DURSO: WELL, I UNDERSTAND IT'S AN EQUITY ISSUE,

BUT USUALLY WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS POP UP, THERE'S AN EXAMPLE IN PLACE.

SO, SOMEONE WENT ON A PARTY LINE THAT SOMEONE FEELS LIKE THEY DON'T

DESERVE. AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE MINOR PARTIES, AGAIN,

THAT DON'T -- AND -- AND AS YOU SAID, THE MAJOR PARTIES ALL HAVE COUNTY

COMMITTEES. WHICH AGAIN, MEANS THAT THE PARTIES HAVE GROWN, THEY'RE

-- THEY'RE KIND OF SET IN WHAT THEY DO AND PERSON -- TO BE PERFECTLY

HONEST WITH YOU, I MEAN, MAYBE IT'S JUST WHERE I'M FROM, I'VE NEVER

HEARD OF ANYBODY GETTING PURGED OUT OF THE PARTY. BUT, IF A MINOR PARTY

COMMITTEE WANTS TO DO THAT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE MAY JUST CHANGE

THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THE PARTY

DOES. THAT'S UP TO THE VOTER, THAT'S UP TO THE PERSON THAT REGISTERS. WHY

ARE WE ALLOWING A MINOR PARTY WHO CAN'T EVEN GET A COUNTY COMMITTEE

GOING DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN HAVE SOMEONE IN THEIR PARTY?

MS. LEVENBERG: I JUST, YOU KNOW, WANT TO

HIGHLIGHT A CASE --

MR. DURSO: YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEVENBERG: -- FROM 2022 WHICH IS THE

MATTER OF MAZZULLO V BARNETT IN WHICH THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DID

FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE TO PURGE THEIR VOTER ROLLS, AND I -- I -- I JUST GOT

THIS, SO I'M NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH IT. SO --

288

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS?

MS. LEVENBERG: IT WAS THE SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE DIVISION, 4TH DEPARTMENT, JULY 8, 2022 DECISION.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. WELL, I WAS JUST INFORMED IT

WAS ACTUALLY MONROE COUNTY.

MS. LEVENBERG: OH, SORRY.

MR. DURSO: DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THAT

CASE AND WHY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AT THAT POINT DECIDED TO PURGE

THEIR ROLL OF ONE PERSON?

MS. LEVENBERG: THE COMPLIANT [SIC] ALLEGED THAT

RESPONDENTS WERE FROM THE SAME TOWN, HAD NEWLY REGISTERED IN THE

CONSERVATIVE PARTY CLOSE TO THE DEADLINE FOR CHANGING PARTY

REGISTRATION, HAD LARGELY BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOCAL DEMOCRATIC

PARTY, AND HAD THEN DESIGNATED -- THEN DESIGNATED THREE RESPONDENTS AS

CONSERVATIVE PARTY CANDIDATES FOR LOCAL OFFICE. AND ALLEGED THAT THE

RESPONDENTS HAD NOT JOINED THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY TO ENDORSE OR

EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE PARTY, BUT INSTEAD TO FURTHER ULTERIOR POLITICAL

PURPOSES. SO, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, AN EXAMPLE OF WHY A

PARTY WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO DO THIS IF THEY BELIEVE THAT IT

WAS BEING DONE AGAIN TO HIGHJACK AS YOU POINTED OUT THE LINE.

MR. DURSO: I -- I SAID HIGHJACK, YOU --

MS. LEVENBERG: IN THIS -- THIS WAS -- IN THIS -- IN

THIS CASE, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE DECISION WAS RENDERED -- AGREED THAT

THAT WAS BEING USED BY THE -- THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO TRY TO GET

REGISTRANTS FOR THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY LINE.

289

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: SO, YOU SAID -- WHAT YEAR WAS THAT

CASE, MA'AM?

MS. LEVENBERG: 2022.

MR. DURSO: WHAT YEAR IS THIS NOW?

MS. LEVENBERG: 2025.

MR. DURSO: WHY THREE YEARS LATER ARE WE DOING

THIS BILL?

MS. LEVENBERG: I GUESS THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

DIDN'T APPROACH YOU?

MR. DURSO: THEY APPROACHED YOU?

MS. LEVENBERG: NOT --

MR. DURSO: OH.

MS. LEVENBERG: THEY DIDN'T APPROACH ME, BUT

THEY -- I GUESS THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T DO IT THEN.

MR. DURSO: SO WHO APPROACHED YOU TO PUT A BILL

LIKE THIS? WHOSE IDEA WAS THIS?

MS. LEVENBERG: I -- I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS NOT

THAT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. I -- I'M JUST GOING BACK AGAIN TO SAY THAT --

THAT MANY, YOU KNOW, OTHER PARTIES ARE ABLE TO USE IT AND -- AND THE --

WE SHOULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR ALL PARTIES TO BE ABLE TO DO SO.

MR. DURSO: UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. SO, AGAIN, WHAT

YOU'RE SAYING IS SO IN A -- IN A CASE LIKE YOU GAVE ME, THE EXAMPLE OF

THAT WAS THE COUNTY COMMITTEE --

MS. LEVENBERG: RIGHT.

MR. DURSO: -- RIGHT, THAT DECIDED --

290

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. LEVENBERG: AND -- AND THAT'S WHY IT DIDN'T

COME UP THEN, BECAUSE THEY HAD A COUNTY COMMITTEE FORMED SO THEY

WERE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

MR. DURSO: RIGHT. SO AND AGAIN, THIS IS FOR MINOR

PARTIES THAT DO NOT HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES. SO THEY'RE EITHER NOT

LARGE ENOUGH OR DON'T HAVE THE MONEY AS YOU SAID, RIGHT, TO -- TO BE A

MAJOR PARTY.

MS. LEVENBERG: OR THEY -- RIGHT, YES. THEY

EITHER -- THEY EITHER DON'T HAVE THE MONEY OR DON'T HAVE THE

INFRASTRUCTURE OR DON'T BELIEVE THAT FORMING COUNTY COMMITTEES IS

NECESSARY FOR THEIR -- TO -- TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR GOALS.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. AND I UNDERSTAND IT AND -- AND

I -- I -- AGAIN, IT'S ALREADY IN LAW FOR THE MAJOR PARTIES, BUT AGAIN, MY

CONCERN IS THIS SEEMS VERY TARGETED AND -- AND AS I ASKED THIS, YOU

KNOW, AGAIN, WHEN -- WHEN WE DO LEGISLATION IN HERE, WHETHER WE'RE

TALKING LABOR LAW WE CAN POINT TO A SPECIFIC CASE. IF WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT A SPECIFIC CASE. THIS

JUST SEEMS VERY TARGETED. I WAS JUST KIND OF WONDERING, WAS THERE A

SPECIFIC PARTY THAT THIS WAS BEING DONE FOR A SPECIFIC CASE THAT IS IN THE

WORKS CURRENTLY?

MS. LEVENBERG: I -- I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S

ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE WORKS CURRENTLY.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. LEVENBERG.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR NOW.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. TAGUE.

291

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. TAGUE: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. LEVENBERG: SURELY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. TAGUE: I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED HERE

BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A LAW ON THE BOOKS FOR PARTIES THAT ARE NOT

OFFICIAL PARTIES IN COUNTIES. IT'S CALLED THE INTERIM PARTY SYSTEM WHERE

A COUNTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE A COMMITTEE AND I WILL USE THE WORKING

FAMILY [SIC] PARTY AND THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AS AN EXAMPLE. THEY

CAN DO AN INTERIM PARTY TO NOMINATE INDIVIDUALS FOR CERTAIN OFFICES

EVERY YEAR. THEY DON'T HAVE TO -- THEY CAN EITHER CONTINUE ON AND TRY

TO GET IN AS A COUNTY PARTY, OR THEY CAN STAY INTERIM AND THEN AFTER A

CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME THEY LOSE THEIR INTERIM PARTY DESIGNATION.

SO, I'M JUST WONDERING WHY WE NEED THIS WHEN WE

CAN ALL -- WE CAN ALREADY GO BACK AND DO THAT.

MS. LEVENBERG: I THINK THAT'S FOR A DIFFERENT

PROCESS WITHIN THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE.

MR. TAGUE: NO, IT'S NOT. I'M A COUNTY CHAIRMAN

IN MY HOME COUNTY FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. I -- BEFORE OUR COUNTY

HAD A COUNTY COMMITTEE, THEY HAD WHAT THEY CALL THE INTERIM PARTY.

THEY HAD TWO MEMBERS AND THAT'S HOW THEY DESIGNATED THEIR

CANDIDATES -- DESIGNATED THEIR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIONS. SO, THE

INDEPENDENCE PARTY DID IT FOR YEARS UNTIL WE NO LONGER HAD AN

292

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INDEPENDENCE PARTY.

MS. LEVENBERG: BUT THIS ISN'T FOR DESIGNATING

CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION.

MR. TAGUE: WHAT IS THIS FOR THEN?

MS. LEVENBERG: IT'S FOR IF -- IT'S FOR CHALLENGING

VOTER REGISTRATIONS.

MR. TAGUE: BUT HOW -- VOTER -- HOW DO YOU

CHALLENGE -- YOU -- YOU CAN CHALLENGE ANYBODY'S VOTER REGISTRATION.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF A PARTY TO CHALLENGE ANYBODY'S VOTER

REGISTRATION. YOU CAN GO TO THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS TOMORROW AND YOU

CAN CHALLENGE SOMEBODY'S REGISTRATION.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. LEVENBERG: IT'S -- YEAH, BUT VOTERING -- VOTER

REGISTRATION FOR PARTY AFFILIATION. THAT'S -- THAT'S WHAT I MEAN,

SPECIFICALLY.

MR. TAGUE: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN PARTY

AFFILIATION? IF I'M A REPUBLICAN AND I WANT TO RUN AS A REPUBLICAN, I

CAN GO TO THE COUNTY COMMITTEE, I -- I GO TO THE CAUCUS, IF I'M CHOSEN

I FILL OUT A -- A PETITION AND HAVE -- AND PASS THE PETITION AROUND. IT'S

THE SAME THING. YOU CAN'T GO TO THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AND BE A

DEMOCRAT OR A MEMBER OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OR A REPUBLICAN

WITHOUT A WILSON-PAKULA TO BE -- TO BE ABLE TO RUN ON ONE OF THEIR

LINES. AND YOU SURELY CAN'T BE FROM ANOTHER PARTY AND BE A MEMBER OF

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OR THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY, YOU HAVE TO BE

ONE OR THE OTHER. AS LONG AS YOU FILL OUT YOUR REGISTRATION AND YOUR

293

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

REGISTRATION IS VALID BEFORE THE CUT-OFF DATE, THEN YOU ARE NOW A

MEMBER OF THAT PARTY. I MEAN, YOU CAN GO OUT AND GET PETITIONS SIGNED

AND IF YOU HAVE A REGISTRATION FORM WITH YOU AND SOMEBODY FILLS OUT

THAT REGISTRATION FORM IN FRONT OF YOU AND THEY WERE A CONSERVATIVE BUT

NOW THEY'RE REREGISTERED AS A REPUBLICAN, THEY CAN ACTUALLY LEGALLY SIGN

THAT PETITION AS A REPUBLICAN. SO, I -- I -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE

HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BILL. THIS TAKES AWAY LOCAL CONTROL OF OUR

POLITICAL PARTIES. OKAY? AND IT'S NOT THE FAULT -- LISTEN, IF SOMEBODY'S

SMART ENOUGH WHEN THEY GO GET THEMSELVES NOMINATED UNDER A PARTY

THAT THEY'RE NOT, THEN IT'S SHAME ON THE PEOPLE THAT ALLOWED IT TO

HAPPEN.

I THINK THAT THIS BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I DON'T THINK

THAT IT WILL SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN THE COURT SYSTEM.

MS. LEVENBERG: I'M SORRY, WAS THERE A QUESTION?

MR. TAGUE: YEAH, THERE WAS. I WANT YOUR ANSWER

TO MY QUESTION: HOW IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL, HOW IS IT LEGAL AND WHY ARE

WE WASTING OUR TIME AT THE END OF SESSION ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

MS. LEVENBERG: AGAIN, THE PROCESS IS ALREADY

LAW AS WE KNOW, IT'S PART OF ELECTION LAW. THE QUESTION IS IF THERE'S A

COMMITTEE -- IF THERE'S A PARTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES,

WHAT IS THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROCESS? RIGHT

NOW, THERE'S NO WAY FOR THEM TO DO THAT --

MR. TAGUE: THERE MOST CERTAINLY IS.

MS. LEVENBERG: -- AND THE -- THE PIECES THAT YOU

IDENTIFIED WERE DIFFERENT THAN CHALLENGING -- CHALLENGING VOTER

294

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AFFILIATION.

MR. TAGUE: YOU CAN CHALLENGE ANYBODY'S

REGISTRATION, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY PARTY. YOU CAN

CHALLENGE ANYBODY'S REGISTRATION IN A COURT OF LAW OR WITH THE BOARD OF

ELECTIONS.

MS. LEVENBERG: AGAIN, THIS IS --

MR. TAGUE: I'VE DONE IT BEFORE.

MS. LEVENBERG: -- AFFILIATION, NOT -- NOT

REGISTRATION.

MR. TAGUE: WELL, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE

SOMEBODY'S AFFILIATION? IF I FILL OUT A REGISTRATION FORM AND I WANT TO

BE A DEMOCRAT, HOW CAN YOU TELL WHETHER I'M A DEMOCRAT OR NOT?

MS. LEVENBERG: AGAIN, THROUGH THE CURRENT

PROCESS AND AGAIN, YOU -- YOU KNOW, I -- I REFER YOU TO THE DECISION OF

THE APPELLATE DIVISION, 4TH DEPARTMENT FROM JULY 8, 2022 AND YOU CAN

ACTUALLY READ THE DECISION RIGHT THERE WHICH WAS HOW THEY DETERMINED

FOR THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY THAT THOSE VOTERS WERE NOT AFFILIATED WITH --

OFFICIALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALIGNED WITH THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

MR. TAGUE: SO, NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT WHEN

PEOPLE ARE BORN WE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE -- WHAT PARTY THEY'RE AFFILIATED

WITH OR THROUGHOUT LIFE WE KNOW WHAT PARTY THEY'RE AFFILIATED WITH?

MS. LEVENBERG: I -- I DON'T THINK IT'S ABOUT --

MR. TAGUE: I KNOW PEOPLE IN THIS -- I KNOW PEOPLE

IN THIS ROOM THAT WERE REPUBLICANS AT ONE TIME, NOW THEY'RE

DEMOCRATS. I KNOW PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM THAT WERE DEMO -- THAT -- THAT

295

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WERE REPUBLICANS THAT ARE NOW DEMOCRATS. PEOPLE CHANGE THROUGHOUT

THEIR LIFE.

MS. LEVENBERG: WELL, THERE'S -- THERE'S AN

OPPORTUNITY -- THERE'S A HEARING THAT NEEDS TO BE HELD AND THERE'S AN

OPPORTUNITY TO -- FOR A -- A VOTER TO PRESENT TO THE -- TO THE JUDGE AND TO

THE -- AND TO THE APPOINTED OR ELECTED PERSON, EITHER THE COUNTY

COMMITTEE OR -- OR THE -- THE STATE-ELECTED PERSON TO PRESENT WHY THEY

BELIEVE THAT THEIR AFFILIATION IS CORRECT AND THERE'S A PROCESS BY WHICH TO

MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

MR. TAGUE: I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT PROCESS

BECAUSE I --

MS. LEVENBERG: AGAIN, THAT PROCESS IS ALREADY IN

LAW. THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THAT PROCESS.

MR. TAGUE: BUT -- BUT WHERE -- WHERE IN THE LAW IS

IT AND WHAT IS IT -- HOW IS IT DEFINED --

MS. LEVENBERG: I -- I ALREADY -- I -- I ALREADY --

MR. TAGUE: HOW IS IT DEFINED --

MS. LEVENBERG: I QUOTED IT -- I QUOTED IT ALREADY.

MR. TAGUE: HOW DOES IT DEFINE WHAT SOMEONE'S

BELIEFS ARE AND WHETHER THEY'RE A REPUBLICAN, A DEMOCRAT, A

CONSERVATIVE, A LIBERAL? I -- I -- THIS IS -- THIS IS RIDICULOUS. SO YOU'RE

TELLING --

MS. LEVENBERG: IT'S AGAIN, ARTICLE 16 OF ELECTION

LAW 16-110 IS WHERE IT IS DESCRIBED IN THE LAW.

MR. TAGUE: WELL, WHAT'S THE LANGUAGE IN THAT?

296

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. LEVENBERG: IN A PROCEEDING LAUNCHED BY A

DULY-ENROLLED VOTER OF A PARTY, A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OR A COUNTY

COURT JUDGE WITHIN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY SHALL CANCEL THE

ENROLLMENT OF A VOTER IF ANY MATERIAL STATEMENT IN THE DECLARATION OF

VOTER WHEN ENROLLING IS FALSE, THE VOTER DIED OR THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

IS WRONG. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY COMMITTEE OF A PARTY WITH AT

LEAST ONE VOTER IS ENROLLED IN SUCH COUNTY, MAY, UPON A WRITTEN

COMPLAINT BY AN ENROLLED MEMBER OF SUCH PARTY IN SUCH COUNTY AND

AFTER A HEARING HELD BY HIM OR BY A SUB-COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY HIM

UPON AT LEAST TWO DAYS' NOTICE TO THE VOTER, PERSONALLY OR BY MAIL,

DETERMINE THAT THE VOTER IS NOT IN SYMPATHY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF SUCH

PARTY. THE SUPREME COURT OR A JUSTICE THEREOF WITHIN THE JUDICIAL

DISTRICT, IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY A DULY-ENROLLED VOTER OF THE PARTY

AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE A PRIMARY ELECTION, SHALL DIRECT THE ENROLLMENT

OF SUCH VOTER TO BE CANCELLED IF IT APPEARS FROM THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE

SUCH CHAIRMAN OR SUB-COMMITTEE, AND OTHER PROOFS, IF ANY, PRESENTED,

THAT SUCH DETERMINATION IS JUST

THIS IS THE LAW. I'M READING YOU THE LAW.

MR. TAGUE: WELL, I'M GOING TO SPEAK ON THE BILL

BECAUSE --

MS. LEVENBERG: THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. TAGUE: -- THIS IS -- THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST

RIDICULOUS THINGS I'VE EVER HEARD THAT WE NOW -- PEOPLE ARE GOING MAKE

DECISIONS ON WHETHER PEOPLE ARE REGISTERED REPUBLICANS OR REGISTERED

297

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DEMOCRATS. I -- I -- I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING LIKE THIS WOULD EVEN

BE CONSTITUTIONAL. I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. WHAT THIS IS, IS

THIS IS A POWER PLAY AGAIN, AGAIN A POWER PLAY OF POLITICS HERE IN THE

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY. CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? FOR A MAJOR STATE

PARTY TO TAKE CONTROL OF SMALLER COUNTY PARTIES. UNBELIEVABLE. HERE

WE ARE, EIGHT O'CLOCK AT NIGHT ON THE LAST DAY OF SESSION AND WE'RE

DEBATING A RIDICULOUS BILL ON THIS LIKE THERE'S AN ELECTION TOMORROW. I

JUST DON'T GET IT. WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE STARVING, THAT CAN'T CLOTHE AND

FEED THEIR CHILDREN, HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY PROBLEM. A $254 BILLION

BUDGET IN THIS STATE AND WE'RE SITTING HERE DEBATING SOME

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION LAW BILL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. WHERE THE

HELL ARE OUR PRIORITIES? WHERE THE HELL ARE OUR PRIORITIES? AND THIS BILL

JUST GOT SNUCK IN THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. THIS BILL WASN'T EVEN

SCHEDULED TO COME TO THE FLOOR. WE GOT MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO

WORRY ABOUT THIS.

I VOTE NO AND I HOPE THE REST OF YOU WILL, TOO.

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. LEVENBERG: YES, OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. RA: THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, CAN YOU TELL ME --

298

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YOU -- YOU MENTIONED A CASE WHICH I THINK WAS IN MONROE COUNTY --

MS. LEVENBERG: YES.

MR. RA: -- PREVIOUSLY REGARDING THE CONSERVATIVE

PARTY. BUT, IS THERE -- AND -- AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY AS YOU'VE SAID,

PURSUANT TO EXISTING LAW WHICH ALLOWS COUNTY CHAIR PEOPLE TO INSTITUTE

THESE PROCEEDINGS. BUT, IS THERE A SPECIFIC INSTANCE YOU HAVE SEEN THAT

LEAD YOU TO INTRODUCE THIS BILL?

MS. LEVENBERG: I -- I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S

RELEVANT. I HEAR -- I HEAR YOUR QUESTION AND IT'S BEEN ASKED THREE OR

FOUR TIMES AND I SUGGEST THAT IT'S NOT RELEVANT.

MR. RA: WELL, I -- WELL, I THINK RELEVANT IN TERMS OF,

YOU KNOW, WHY A BILL IS BEFORE US OR REALLY WHAT THE PROBLEM WE'RE

SEEKING TO -- TO SOLVE.

SO, LET'S -- LET'S BACK UP FOR A SECOND. SO IF YOU

CURRENTLY HAVE A PARTY AND WE KNOW, RIGHT, MOSTLY THE -- THE MAJOR

PARTIES HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES, BUT SAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE OF

THE MINOR PARTIES AND THEY DON'T HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES OR MAYBE --

I DON'T KNOW, ARE THERE PARTIES THAT HAVE MAYBE COUNTY COMMITTEES IN

SOME COUNTIES AND THEY DON'T IN OTHER COUNTIES? OR THEY -- OR -- OR AS

-- OR IS IT USUALLY THEY EITHER HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES OR THEY DON'T?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. LEVENBERG: IT'S USUALLY ALL OR NOTHING.

MR. RA: IT'S USUALLY ALL OR NOTHING. SO, I MEAN TO

MY KNOWLEDGE, THEN THE PARTIES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE ESTABLISHED BALLOT

LINES, WHICH AS WE KNOW GETS ESTABLISHED EACH EVEN YEAR, WHETHER IT'S A

299

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OR A GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION BY GETTING A CERTAIN

NUMBER OF VOTES AND WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THIS AND WE'VE, YOU KNOW,

UPPED THAT NUMBER IN RECENT YEARS AND SOME OF THE PARTIES THAT MAYBE

SOME OF US HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR IN THE PAST OR RUN -- EVEN RUN ON THEIR

LINES HAVE CEASE TO EXIST IN RECENT YEARS. SO REALLY WE'RE TALKING TO --

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CORE NUMBER OF PARTIES. SO THE ONLY ONE THEN, IF

IT'S ALL OR NOTHING, THE ONLY ONE I KNOW OF IS THE WORKING FAMILIES

PARTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE BECAUSE I -- I -- THE OTHER ONES AS FAR AS I KNOW

HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES.

MS. LEVENBERG: OKAY.

MR. RA: SO --

MS. LEVENBERG: I -- I THINK THE GREEN PARTY

MAYBE. I'M NOT -- I'M NOT -- I'M NOT FAMILIAR. I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME

OTHER MINOR PARTIES THAT THEY COME AND THEY GO. AGAIN, THIS IS THE --

THE NOTION THAT -- THAT ALL PARTIES WHO HAVE VOTERS ENROLLED SHOULD HAVE

THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT VOTERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THEIR PARTY

ARE -- ARE -- ARE ALIGNED WITH THEIR PRINCIPLES.

MR. RA: OKAY. I -- BUT I -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT, YOU

KNOW, THERE -- THERE ARE THESE PARTIES THAT HAVE COME AND GONE, BUT I

THINK CURRENTLY BASED ON THE LAST ELECTION, IT SEEMS -- IT SEEMS TO ME

THAT WORKING FAMILIES WOULD BE THE -- THE ONE THAT THIS APPLIES TO

BECAUSE IT'S --

MS. LEVENBERG: OKAY --

MR. RA: -- IT DOESN'T APPLY IN A SITUATION, RIGHT, IF IT'S

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, IF IT'S THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THEY HAVE LOCAL

300

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

COMMITTEES, THIS DOESN'T SAY NOW WE'RE TAKING THE POWER AWAY FROM

THE LOCAL COMMITTEES AND GIVING IT TO THE STATE, CORRECT?

MS. LEVENBERG: SO, AT THIS MOMENT I WOULD SAY

YES, BUT IN THE FUTURE THAT MIGHT CHANGE. WE MAY SEE -- SEE A --

ANOTHER PARTY GET INTRODUCED.

MR. RA: OKAY. WITH REGARD -- WITH REGARD TO WHICH

PARTIES THIS APPLIES TO? THAT'S WITH REGARD TO MY PREVIOUS QUESTION,

THAT ANSWER WOULDN'T --

MS. LEVENBERG: AND I SAID YES.

MR. RA: YES. SO, BUT I -- BUT WITH REGARD TO A PARTY;

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

THAT CURRENTLY HAS COUNTY COMMITTEES, THIS DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THAT

FOR THEM? THEY -- THE AUTHORITY WOULD STILL REST WITH THE COUNTY

COMMITTEE?

MS. LEVENBERG: CORRECT. THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN

IN PLACE. THIS -- I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT. I KNOW THAT THE

-- THE COMPLAINT WAS ABOUT THIS PROCESS. THE PROCESS ITSELF IS IN PLACE.

THIS ISN'T QUESTIONING THE PROCESS THAT'S IN LAW, IT'S ONLY AMENDING IT TO

ALLOW FOR COMMITTEES THAT -- FOR PARTIES THAT DO NOT HAVE ESTABLISHED

COUNTY COMMITTEES TO PARTAKE IN THE SAME PROCESS THAT THE OTHER

PARTIES DO.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. RA: SO WE'VE DONE A NUMBER OF ELECTION LAW

301

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CHANGES, I TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK ON ANOTHER THING WE DID. AND

WE -- WE GET OURSELVES IN THESE SITUATIONS WHERE EVERYBODY IN THE

ROOM KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT IT'S LIKE WE CAN'T SAY IT.

SOMETIMES IT'S FOR LEGAL REASONS WE CAN'T SAY IT, SOMETIMES IT'S FOR

OTHER REASONS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO CLAIM ON ITS FACE THAT IT'S

ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT'S ABOUT. THIS BILL IS ABOUT THE

CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN IN THE HUDSON VALLEY LAST YEAR. EVERYBODY IN

THIS ROOM KNOWS WHAT THAT -- WHAT -- THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT AND

IT ONLY APPLIES IN A VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES THAT

WASN'T ABLE TO KICK SOMEBODY OFF THE BALLOT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY,

WE TALK ABOUT DEMOCRACY ALL THE TIME, THIS INDIVIDUAL REGISTERED IN A

PARTY AND WON A PRIMARY AND THEY APPEARED ON A BALLOT LINE. IT'S SEEMS

TO ME THAT THE SOLUTION WAS TO GET MORE VOTES FOR THE OPPONENT SO THAT

THAT PERSON WOULD'VE REPRESENTED THE PARTY ON THE BALLOT LINE.

SO AGAIN, WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. WE

SHOULD REJECT IT. WE HAVE TO STOP THINKING JUST BECAUSE ONE PARTY

CONTROLS THIS STATE THAT THEY SHOULD EVERY CHANCE THEY GET IF THEY SEE

SOMETHING GOING ON THEY SHOULD CHANGE THE RULES TO BENEFIT THE

DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THIS IS ABOUT NOT SMALL D DEMOCRACY, LARGE D

DEMOCRACY. I VOTE NO. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: READ THE LAST

SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A SLOW ROLL CALL HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

302

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE)

MR. LAVINE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. LAVINE: I WITHDRAW.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DAIS TO EXPLAIN

HIS VOTE.

MR. DAIS: I -- I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE CONCERNS

AND ARGUMENTS THAT WAS [SIC] MADE ON BOTH SIDES, BUT I WOULD OFFER -- I

WOULD OFFER A DIFFERENT VANTAGE POINT. LET'S SAY I HAD MY OWN PARTY,

THE LANDON IS THE BEST PARTY, AND I HAD SOME PEOPLE WHO REGISTERED

UNDERNEATH MY POLITICAL PARTY WHO I THOUGHT BELIEVED IN WHO -- IN OUR

POLITICAL VANTAGE POINTS. AND THEN A MEMBER OF MY PARTY WENT OUT

AND COMMITTED AN ACT OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE. WOULD I WANT THAT PERSON

REPRESENTING MY PARTY ANY LONGER? WOULD YOU WANT THAT PERSON TO

REPRESENT YOUR PARTY ANY LONGER? OR WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO BE

EXPELLED FROM YOUR PARTY? REGARDLESS IF FOUND GUILTY OR INNOCENT, THE

FACT THAT THAT CAN DIMINISH YOUR PARTY AND YOUR IDEALS, YOU SHOULD HAVE

A MECHANISM TO EXPEL SOMEONE FROM YOUR PARTY IN A MANNER THAT'S

ALREADY BEEN LEGALIZED FOR THE MAJOR PARTIES. SO A DEMOCRAT CAN DO IT,

A REPUBLICAN CAN DO THAT. BUT IF THE LANDON DAIS IS GREAT PARTY

CANNOT DO THAT AND THAT WOULD DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE PARTY THAT I'M

TRYING TO BUILD AND THE VALUES THAT I BELIEVE IN, THIS IS GIVING ME A

MECHANISM TO DO SUCH. THIS IS ABOUT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD TO ALLOW

THE SMALLER PARTIES IN THOSE AREAS TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS A MAJOR

PARTY. AND IF WE DO NOT DO THAT, ONE WOULD ARGUE THAT THERE GOES THE

303

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BIG PARTIES NOT LISTENING TO THE THIRD PARTIES IN OUR COUNTRY.

SO, THEREFORE, THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE,

AND THAT'S -- THAT'S MY REASONING FOR SUPPORTING THIS BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DAIS IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. SEMPOLINSKI: YEAH, I'M GONNA BE VOTING IN

THE NEGATIVE. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FREE COUNTRY. YOU'RE SUPPOSED

TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF POLITICALLY AS YOU SEE FIT. AND AN AREA

THAT'S GONNA BE LESS LIKELY TO HAVE A COUNTY COMMITTEE IS GONNA OFTEN

BE PERHAPS A RURAL AREA. SO A PERSON SIGNS UP TO JOIN A POLITICAL PARTY.

MAYBE THEY THINK LIKE THE FOLKS IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, BUT THEY DON'T

THINK LIKE SOMEONE AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND THE IDEA OF A RURAL PERSON

BEING CALLED BEFORE SOME SORT OF PARTY INQUISITION IN ALBANY OR NEW

YORK CITY BECAUSE THEY THINK WRONG COMPARED TO HOW THE PARTY

LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE LEVEL THINKS IS ODIOUS TO ME. IT'S ODIOUS TO A

FREE SOCIETY.

I VOTE NO.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. SEMPOLINSKI IN

THE NEGATIVE.

MR. REILLY TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN LUCY PULLING THE BALL

AWAY FROM CHARLIE BROWN WHEN HE'S ABOUT TO KICK IT, THINKING THAT THE

FIELD GOAL IS RIGHT THERE. CONSTANTLY MOVING THE GOAL POST. THAT'S WHAT

304

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HAPPENS HERE. IT'S SHAMEFUL.

I VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. REILLY IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MR. DURSO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. AGAIN,

HAVING THIS BILL IN STATUTE ALREADY FOR LARGER PARTIES, AGAIN, WHEN THEY

HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES AND THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THIS. THIS IS FOR SMALL

PARTIES THAT DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS, BUT ALSO THEY DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE

THAT ARE INVOLVED. THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY BEHIND THEM. AND

UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU HAVE SMALLER PARTIES LIKE THIS THAT, AS MY

COLLEAGUE SAID, ARE -- YOU KNOW, HAVE ROGUE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THEM,

THERE -- THERE'S NO MECHANISM IN PLACE FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT JOIN THOSE

PARTIES AND THEN THE PARTY ITSELF CHANGES. THEY'RE WORRIED SO MUCH

ABOUT THE PERSON CHANGING, NO ONE HAS MECHANISM IN PLACE FOR THE

CHANGE IF THE PARTY WAS TO CHANGE. AND OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A VERY

TARGETED BILL, AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT GONNA STOP THEM ANYWAY.

SO I VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DURSO IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MS. LEVENBERG TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. LEVENBERG: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

AGAIN, THE POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT TO WHAT'S ALREADY IN STATE STATUTE IS

TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, AS MY COLLEAGUE ACROSS THE AISLE JUST -- JUST

SAID. IT'S -- HE ACTUALLY MENTIONED THAT IT'S NOT -- IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE

305

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PEOPLE INVOLVED OR YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY BEHIND THEM. SO SMALLER

PARTIES ARE, THEREFORE, AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE

SAME ACCESS TO A PROCESS TO QUESTION IF THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN SYMPATHY

WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PARTY SHOULD BE REGISTERED WITH -- WITH THAT

PARTY ALIGNMENT. THIS WOULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD SO THAT BIG MONEY

DOESN'T NECESSARILY WIN OUT AND WIN THE DAY, AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE

INVOLVED IN THE PARTY AND DO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES ARE THE ONES WHO

WOULD BE RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND WOULD BE, AGAIN, ALIGNED WITH THE

PARTY AS THERE SHOULD BE. AND THIS WOULD GIVE A PROCESS IN PLACE TO

QUESTION OR CHALLENGE THOSE WHO ARE NOT BY VOTERS OF THE PARTY

THEMSELVES.

SO I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. LEVENBERG IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. TAGUE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. TAGUE: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I RISE TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I -- I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, THIS COMING FROM THE

PARTY THAT HAS RANK CHOICE VOTING. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME

WHY -- WHY WE WOULD EVEN BE SITTING HERE TONIGHT VOTING ON A BILL LIKE

THIS. I MEAN, DON'T WE REALLY CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY? DON'T WE -- DON'T

WE WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR WHO THEY WANT TO VOTE FOR? IT JUST DOESN'T

-- DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I MEAN, WE REALLY KNOW WHAT THIS BILL ALL --

IS ALL ABOUT. IT'S ABOUT THE CONGRESSIONAL RACE IN NEW YORK 17. WE

KNOW WHAT THAT'S ABOUT. YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S OVER THERE SMIRKING.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THIS ISN'T ABOUT DEMOCRACY. THIS ISN'T ABOUT

306

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FREEDOM OF ELECTIONS. THIS IS ABOUT A CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL SEAT THAT

ANOTHER PARTY HAS BEEN SMARTER AND WORKED HARDER IN THE LAST TWO

ELECTION CYCLES AND WON. THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. AND AGAIN,

WE POLITICIZE LEGISLATION AND IT GOES BACK ON THE VOTERS OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK. WHAT A SHAME. WHAT AN ABSOLUTE SHAME.

I VOTE NO.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. TAGUE IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MR. PALMESANO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. PALMESANO: YES, MADAM SPEAKER. I KNOW

THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, WHAT -- WHAT WAS THIS -- THE GENESIS FOR THIS

BILL? THE ORIGINAL SPONSOR'S MEMO THAT WAS INTRODUCED SAYS IN 2024,

NEW YORK 17 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION ANTHONY FRASCONE WAS ABLE TO

SECURE A SPOT ON THE BALLOT THROUGH AN UNCONVENTIONAL SET OF

CIRCUMSTANCES. WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE, ENGAGING WITH POTENTIAL

VOTERS AND PERFORMING OUTREACH TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES IS ESSENTIAL FOR

ANY CANDIDATE WHO SEEKS TO REPRESENT THE WORLD OF PEOPLE. HOWEVER,

FRAN -- FRANSCONE [SIC] DID NOT RUN A CAMPAIGN FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL

SEAT. THERE WAS NO FUNDRAISING OR SIGNIFICANT OUTREACH TO GAIN

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, AND FRANCONE [SIC] DID NOT HAVE ANY PREVIOUS

AFFILIATION WITH THE PARTY. IT APPEARS --- BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

BUT THIS IS -- THIS MEMO SAYS WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT. IT WAS NEW YORK

17 IN 2024.

I VOTE NO.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. PALMESANO IN

307

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE NEGATIVE.

MS. LUNSFORD TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. LUNSFORD: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I

GUESS I'M JUST CONFUSED WHY EVERYONE IS ACTING LIKE THIS IS SOME

DRAMATIC CHANGE IN OUR LAW. RIGHT NOW, ANY PARTY IN NEW YORK STATE

THAT HAS A COUNTY COMMITTEE CAN CURRENTLY SAY, I DON'T THINK THIS PERSON

SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF OUR PARTY. WHETHER THEY ARE DEMOCRATS OR

REPUBLICANS OR CONSERVATIVES. IF THEY'RE A MEMBER OF THE WORKING

FAMILIES PARTY IN MONROE COUNTY OR SUFFOLK COUNTY, WHERE THEY HAVE

COUNTY COMMITTEES, THEY CAN CURRENTLY DO WHAT THIS BILL IS SAYING. BUT

THEY CAN'T DO THAT IN, SAY, RENSSELAER COUNTY OR ALLEGHENY COUNTY

WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE COUNTY COMMITTEES. FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT

THIS BILL IS ENTIRELY REQUIRED BECAUSE I THINK THEY CAN JUST CHANGE THEIR

BYLAWS AND DO THIS. IF ANOTHER PARTY -- WE HAD A SAM PARTY AND A

WOMEN'S EQUALITY PARTY. THIS JUST CREATES A MECHANISM SO THAT THEY

CAN UTILIZE THEIR STATE COMMITTEE IN SMALLER COUNTIES TO DO WHAT IS

ALREADY LEGALLY ALLOWED. THIS DOESN'T GIVE ANY NEW POWER. IT DOESN'T

CHANGE ANYTHING DRAMATIC. IT JUST PROVIDES A MECHANISM SO THAT SMALL

PARTIES CAN DO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE CAN DO. THE HAND WRINGING IS

REALLY UNNECESSARY.

I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE BECAUSE THIS BILL IS NOT A BIG

DEAL. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. LUNSFORD IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

308

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, IF YOU

COULD PLEASE CALL ON OUR COLLEAGUES THAT ARE ON ZOOM TO GET THEIR

RESPONSES TO THIS VOTE.

THE CLERK: MS. BARRETT, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE

STATE YOUR NAME AND HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

(PAUSE/NO RESPONSE)

MR. DIPIETRO, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME

AND HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

(PAUSE/NO RESPONSE)

MR. EPSTEIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME -- FOR THE RECORD,

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

MR. EPSTEIN: HARVEY EPSTEIN, YES.

THE CLERK: MR. EPSTEIN IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. GIBBS, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

(PAUSE/NO RESPONSE)

MR. MCDONOUGH, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR

NAME AND HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

(PAUSE/NO RESPONSE)

MR. RAMOS, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME

AND HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

MR. RAMOS: I VOTE YES.

THE CLERK: MR. RAMOS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

(PAUSE)

MR. GIBBS, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

309

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

MR. GIBBS: EDWARD GIBBS, I VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

THE CLERK: MR. GIBBS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. SEPTIMO, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME

AND HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

MS. SEPTIMO: AMANDA SEPTIMO, VOTING YES.

THE CLERK: MS. SEPTIMO IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. SLATER, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

MR. SLATER: MATT SLATER, I VOTE NO.

THE CLERK: MR. SLATER IN THE NEGATIVE.

MS. WILLIAMS, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME

AND HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

MS. WILLIAMS: JAIME WILLIAMS, I VOTE NO.

THE CLERK: MS. WILLIAMS IN THE NEGATIVE.

MR. RAMOS, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME

AND HOW YOU WISH TO VOTE.

MR. RAMOS: I VOTE YES.

THE CLERK: MR. RAMOS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 3, RULES REPORT NO. 856, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A03351, RULES REPORT

310

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NO. 856 -- EXCUSE ME, SENATE NO. S05170, SENATOR SKOUFIS (A03351,

DINOWITZ). AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, IN

RELATION TO PERMITTING A PLAINTIFF TO RECOVER AGAINST A THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT IN CERTAIN CASES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MR. DINOWITZ.

MR. DINOWITZ: THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW A PLAINTIFF

WHOSE JUDGMENT AGAINST A DEFENDANT REMAINS UNPAID AFTER 30 DAYS TO

RECOVER THE UNPAID AMOUNT DIRECTLY FROM A CO-DEFENDANT OR THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT WHO WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO CONTRIBUTE OR INDEMNIFY THE

ORIGINAL DEFENDANT. AND IF THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT YET OBTAINED A

JUDGMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION, THE PLAINTIFF MAY TAKE

OVER AND PURSUE THE CLAIM.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: MADAM SPEAKER, WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD FOR QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MS. WALSH: I DETECTED A LITTLE HESITATION IN YOUR

VOICE THERE, MR. DINOWITZ.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. AND -- AND THIS IS SUCH AN

311

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INTERESTING TOPIC THAT I'M SURE IT'S GONNA LIVEN EVERYBODY RIGHT UP.

OKAY.

SO FIRST OF ALL, WHY -- I WANTED TO -- ACTUALLY, FIRST OF

ALL, I WANTED TO CONGRATULATE THIS BILL ON ACHIEVING ITS SILVER

ANNIVERSARY. IT'S 25 YEARS OLD, SO THAT'S FANTASTIC.

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I'VE HAD OLDER.

MS. WALSH: MAZEL. THAT'S AWESOME.

SO -- SO ANYWAY, WHY ARE -- WHY IS THIS BILL COMING

BACK? WHY ARE WE DOING THIS BILL TONIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T SUCCEED AT

FIRST, TRY, TRY AGAIN.

(LAUGHTER)

MS. WALSH: YOU TRY AND YOU TRY. OKAY. SO BACK

IN, LET'S SEE, 2019, THAT'S THE ONE AND ONLY VOTE THAT WE EVER HAD ON THIS

BILL, AND IT PASSED, SPOILER ALERT, RIGHT, 96 TO 41. IT WAS VETOED BY THE

GOVERNOR. HAS THE BILL CHANGED AT ALL SINCE THAT VOTE IN 2019?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK THE GOVERNOR HAS CHANGED.

(LAUGHTER)

MS. WALSH: THE GOVERNOR DEFINITELY HAS CHANGED.

THIS IS TRUE. BUT I WOULD -- I WOULD -- I WOULD SAY THAT HE HAD AN

EXCELLENT VETO MESSAGE, WHICH I'D LOVE TO SHARE AT SOME POINT LATER

MAYBE. BUT HAS THE BILL CHANGED AT ALL? I KNOW THAT THIS USED TO BE -- I

THINK MEMBER WEINSTEIN USED TO CARRY THIS BILL, AND THEN SOMEHOW

YOU -- YOU INHERITED IT. SO DO YOU KNOW IF IT'S CHANGED?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S CHANGED.

312

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH: YEAH. I -- I DIDN'T REALLY CHECK IT OVER

THOSE 25 YEARS TO SEE.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, I -- WHAT I HAVE SHOULD HAVE

DONE IS I SHOULD HAVE GONE BACK TO EACH VERSION OF THE BILL GOING BACK

TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS MILLENNIUM, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE EACH VERSION

WAS THE SAME AS THIS ONE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. WELL, I THINK THAT THAT'S A YES,

THEN. IT HAS NOT CHANGED. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO BY ITS TERMS,

THOUGH, WOULDN'T THIS BILL CONTRADICT LONGSTANDING PRINCIPLES OF NEW

YORK LAW REGARDING FAULT AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SYSTEM AND WILL ACCORDINGLY INCREASE COSTS FOR NEW YORK BUSINESSES

AND CONSUMERS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MS. WALSH: NO? HOW -- WHY DO YOU SAY THAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHY DO YOU SAY OTHERWISE? I

MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT CONTRADICTS THOSE PRINCIPLES AT ALL.

MS. WALSH: OH, YOU DON'T? SO THEN WHY ARE WE

BRINGING IT, THEN? I MEAN, IF IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY CHANGE IN THE LAW,

THEN WHY -- WHY DO WE HAVE A BILL ON THIS?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DIDN'T MAKE IT DOESN'T MAKE

CHANGES TO THE LAW. WHAT I SAID IS IT DOESN'T CONTRADICT LONGSTANDING

PRINCIPLES AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU READ FROM THAT MEMO THAT SOMEBODY

WROTE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. WELL, I'LL BREAK IT DOWN FOR YOU

THEN. LET'S BREAK IT DOWN, OKAY? SO --

313

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DINOWITZ: I'LL -- I'LL GIVE YOU A MORE DETAILED

ANSWER, JUST TO --

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: IT REPRESENTS EXISTING LEGAL

RELATIONSHIPS. THE BILL ONLY ALLOWS RECOVERY WITH THE THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT OR CODEFENDANT HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUND LIABLE TO THE ORIGINAL

DEFENDANT THROUGH CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION. AND IT DOESN'T

CREATE NEW LIABILITY, IT SIMPLY EXPEDITES RECOVERY WHEN A JUDGMENT IS

UNPAID.

MS. WALSH: WELL, IT DOES DEFINITELY EXPEDITE IT. IT

ALLOWS -- IT'S CALLED -- IT ALLOWS THE PLAINTIFF TO JUMP OVER AN INSOLVENT

DEFENDANT AND COLLECT FROM AN IMPLEADED THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

RIGHT? ISN'T THAT -- ISN'T THAT KIND OF LIKE THE PROBLEM THAT IT'S TRYING TO

CORRECT, IS THE CASE WHERE A PLAINTIFF BRINGS AN ACTION AGAINST A

DEFENDANT AND THAT DEFENDANT ENDS UP BEING SOMEWHAT INSOLVENT AND

CAN'T -- CAN'T PAY THE JUDGMENT? SO THIS BILL ALLOWS THE PLAINTIFF TO

JUMP OVER TO MAYBE A DEEPER POCKET THAT ANOTHER DEFENDANT THAT HAS A

RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT INSOLVENT DEFENDANT.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I'D USE THE

WORD "JUMP OVER", BUT I CERTAINLY THINK THAT A PLAINTIFF WHO HAS BEEN

SUCCESSFUL AND WHO DESERVES TO BE COMPENSATED SHOULD HAVE THE

ABILITY TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT'S APPROPRIATE. AND IF THIS THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT, THAT PERSON COULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PARTY TO DO THAT.

ESPECIALLY IF THAT THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IS LIABLE TO THE DEFENDANT/

THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF.

314

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH: WELL, BUT WHAT ABOUT -- DOES THIS BILL

REQUIRE THAT THAT SECOND DEFENDANT -- I'M JUST GONNA CALL THAT -- THAT

DEFENDANT THE "DEEP POCKET." LET'S JUST CALL HIM THE DEEP POCKET,

BECAUSE --

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT'S KIND OF A LOADED TERM.

WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY A, B AND C; A BEING THE PLAINTIFF, B BEING THE

DEFENDANT, AND C BEING THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT?

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL DO THAT. I DON'T

WANNA -- I DON'T WANNA BE PEJORATIVE. I MEAN, IT -- IT'S REALLY, THOUGH,

TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE BROKE DEFENDANT AND THEN THE DEFENDANT

THAT'S GONNA POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME MONEY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE -- AND

WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THE PLAINTIFF BECOME WHOLE, WHICH I THINK, YOU

KNOW, I GENERALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE IDEA OF A PLAINTIFF

BEING MADE WHOLE. THAT'S -- THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, I GUESS. BUT --

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA.

MS. WALSH: WHAT'S THE -- WHAT'S THE -- YEAH, AND

THE TRIAL LAWYERS THINK SO, TOO. BUT WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP --

MR. DINOWITZ: NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

MS. WALSH: -- BETWEEN THE -- THE PLAINTIFF, A, AND

C, THAT SECOND DEFENDANT? WHAT'S -- WHAT'S THEIR RELATIONSHIP?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THE RELATIONSHIP IS PROBABLY

MORE BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE -- BETWEEN B AND C.

MS. WALSH: YEAH. I -- I KNOW THIS IS TAKING US

BOTH BACK TO LAW SCHOOL, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION. DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT FOR

315

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THOSE OF US HERE WHO ARE NON-LAWYERS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MS. WALSH: NOT REALLY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL

DO IT FOR YOU. CONTRIBUTION DIFFERS FROM INDEMNITY IN THAT IT IS NOT

FOUNDED UPON NOR DOES IT RISE FROM A CONTRACT, AND ONLY A PROPORTIONAL

REIMBURSEMENT IS SOUGHT, WHILE INDEMNITY SPRINGS FROM A CONTRACT,

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AND FULL, NOT PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT IS SOUGHT.

SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION. DOES THIS

BILL CHANGE THAT AT ALL? THE WAY THAT A PLAINTIFF IS ABLE TO SEEK PAYMENT

FROM DEFENDANT C?

MR. DINOWITZ: I THINK THE KEY TO THIS BILL IS THAT IT

LETS THE PLAINTIFF TAKE OVER AND PROSECUTE THE DEFENDANT'S CONTRIBUTION/

INDEMNITY CLAIM IF NO JUDGMENT YET EXISTS. IN OTHER WORDS, IT -- IT

GIVES THE PLAINTIFF THE ABILITY IF THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT ALSO HAS A

LIABILITY, TO BE ABLE TO RECOVER FROM THAT INDIVIDUAL. AND THAT WOULD BE

DONE IF THEY CAN'T RECOVER FROM THE DEFENDANT, B, FOR ONE REASON OR

ANOTHER.

MS. WALSH: NOW, IN -- UNDER THIS BILL, DOES -- DOES

THE PLAINTIFF, A, HAVE HAD TO HAVE SUED DEFENDANT C DIRECTLY?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE THAT B

COULD BRING C INTO THE CASE.

MS. WALSH: B COULD BRING C INTO THE CASE OKAY.

SO NORMALLY, UNDER EXISTING LAW, IS IT TRUE THAT UNDER CURRENT LAW B

WOULD BE ABLE TO GET CONTRIBUTION FROM C, BUT NOT -- BUT THE PLAINTIFF

WOULD JUST GET NO MORE THAN WHAT THE PLAINTIFF IS SUPPOSED TO GET?

316

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

LIKE, WHAT THE JUDGMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO GET SO THAT PLAINTIFF DOESN'T

GET A WINDFALL.

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I DON'T BELIEVE THE PLAINTIFF

WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A WINDFALL. BUT I -- I -- I SHOULD SAY THAT TO ME,

ONE OF THE KEY PIECES OF THIS BILL IS IT DEALS WITH THE -- THE ISSUE OF A

TIME FRAME. LIKE RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, IF -- IF THE PLAINTIFF CAN'T RECOVER

FROM DEFENDANT B WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEN THIS IS -- THIS KICKS, IN I GUESS.

MS. WALSH: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE END. THIS

IS WHAT?

MR. DINOWITZ: IF THE PLAINTIFF CAN'T RECOVER FROM

THE DEFENDANT WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, 30 DAYS, THAT IS WHEN THE

PLAINTIFF CAN THEN TRY TO RECOVER FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, C.

MS. WALSH: RIGHT. OKAY. OY VEY. ALL RIGHT. SO,

WHAT -- WHAT -- THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS CASE IS THAT SAY THAT THERE'S A

LAWSUIT BROUGHT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND A DEFENDANT AND THEN THERE'S AN

ACTION BY THAT DEFENDANT FOR CONTRIBUTION BY A THIRD-PARTY. SO WHAT THIS

BILL WOULD ALLOW THE PLAINTIFF TO DO IS TO BYPASS ANY JUDGMENT THAT THEY

RECEIVE FROM THE DEFENDANT AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE THIRD-PARTY; IS THAT

CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO. THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. TELL ME WHERE I'M WRONG.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, FOR ONE THING I DON'T THINK

THE PLAINTIFF COULD GO TO TRY TO DEAL WITH -- WITH THE THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT, C, WITH -- IN TOO SHORT A PERIOD OF TIME, NUMBER ONE. AND

NUMBER TWO, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THE PLAINTIFF WOULD NEED TO TRY TO

317

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

RECOVER FROM THE DEFENDANT, B.

MS. WALSH: RIGHT. YEAH. AND THEN WHEN THEY

FIND OUT THAT DEFENDANT B IS BROKE, IT ALLOWS THEM TO THEN GO AFTER

DEFENDANT C. THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES.

MR. DINOWITZ: THEN IT WOULD BE DEFENDANT C IF

-- I ASSUME THAT DEFENDANT C WAS BROUGHT IN BY DEFENDANT B.

MS. WALSH: B, YEAH. THAT'S -- AND THAT'S DIFFERENT

THAN THE WAY THAT WE DO THINGS RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? THIS REPRESENTS A

CHANGE.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I THINK THE -- WELL, LET ME

REFER TO HERE. SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT ALLOWS THE PLAINTIFF TO COLLECT

AN UNPAID JUDGMENT FROM A CODEFENDANT OR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT WHO

OWES CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION TO THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT. SO C

OWES B. AND IT PERMITS THE COLLECTION IF THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT HAS A

JUDGMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNITY THAT REMAINS UNPAID AFTER 30

DAYS, LIKE I ALREADY MENTIONED.

MS. WALSH: YES.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: IT LETS

THE PLAINTIFF TAKE OVER AND PROSECUTE THE DEFENDANT'S CONTRIBUTION/

INDEMNITY CLAIM IF NO JUDGMENT YET EXISTS. AND ALSO, AND JUST IN CASE

YOU WERE GOING TO BRING THIS UP, IT BARS RECOVERY AGAINST THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANTS PROTECTED BY WORKERS' COMP, SUCH AS THE PLAINTIFF'S

EMPLOYER.

MS. WALSH: I -- I DO WANNA TALK ABOUT COMP IN A

MINUTE, BUT I WANNA JUST BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR HERE. SO UNDER THIS BILL,

318

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

REGARDLESS OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT, COULD THE PLAINTIFF RECOVER

MORE DAMAGES THAN THE DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR? LIKE, YOU HAD

TALK EARLIER ABOUT WINDFALL AND THAT YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY

WINDFALL POSSIBLE HERE. BUT COULD THE PLAINTIFF RECOVER 90 PERCENT OF

DAMAGES EVEN IF THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IS ONLY TEN OR 40 PERCENT AT

FAULT?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO. THE -- THE PLAINTIFF CAN ONLY

RECOVER FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IF THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN

IMPLEADED INTO THE CASE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT PERSON IS

RESPONSIBLE PERCENTAGE-WISE IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO, NO MORE. THEY

CAN'T GET MORE THAN -- THAN THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.

MS. WALSH: WHAT DOES THIS BILL DO IN TERMS OF THE

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TORT ACTIONS?

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T THINK IT DOES ANYTHING.

MS. WALSH: YOU DON'T THINK IT DOES ANYTHING?

OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MS. WALSH: NO? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

SO LET'S GO TO THE VETO MESSAGE BACK FROM 2019 FROM

THE -- FROM THE PREVIOUS GOVERNOR. GOVERNOR CUOMO SAID, I SUPPORT --

THIS IS IN PART, I'M NOT GONNA READ THE WHOLE THING -- I SUPPORT THE

PUBLIC POLICY OF THIS BILL WHICH ALLOWS FOR INJURED PLAINTIFFS TO BE MADE

WHOLE -- YOU KNOW, AS I DO. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS NOT

AN EFFECTIVE NOR PRACTICAL MEANS TO THAT END. NUMEROUS STAKEHOLDERS,

INCLUDING THE STATE INSURANCE FUND AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION

319

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BOARD RAISED CONCERNS WITH THIS APPROACH, WITH MANY STATING THAT THIS

CHANGE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE INSURANCE PREMIUMS. BASED ON THE

FOREGOING REASONS I AM CONSTRAINED TO VETO THIS BILL. SO -- AND THE BILL

HASN'T CHANGED. SO ISN'T THERE A CONCERN THAT THIS IS GOING TO

SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE INSURANCE PREMIUMS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, THEY'RE WRONG.

MS. WALSH: OH. OKAY. YOU -- DO YOU HAVE

ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY ABOUT THAT OTHER THAN THEY'RE JUST WRONG?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHY, ARE YOU CONFUSED? NO -- I --

I -- WHY WOULD YOU TAKE EVERYTHING THEY SAY AT FACE VALUE?

MS. WALSH: OH, OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: AND BY THE WAY, IT WAS SIX YEARS

AGO, SO EVE -- THEY'RE WRONG AND IT'S SIX YEARS OLD THAT THEY'RE WRONG.

MS. WALSH: AND THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING MORE

PREMIUMS SO WHY SHOULD WE CARE IF IT GOES EVEN HIGHER, RIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE WRONG.

MS. WALSH: YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WELL, MLMIC, THE

INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THEIR OPPOSITION MEMO THEY SAY THAT, THIS BILL

WOULD ESTABLISH A NEW CPLR SECTION 1405. IN RELEVANT PART, THE

PROPOSED NEW CPLR SECTION 1405 WOULD PERMIT A PLAINTIFF TO BYPASS

THE DEFENDANT THAT HE OR SHE INITIALLY SUED TO COLLECT THE MONEY

JUDGMENT DIRECTLY FROM A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT THAT IN TURN HAD BEEN

SUED BY THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION.

THE BILL WOULD PERMIT THIS TO OCCUR EVEN THOUGH THE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT

SUED OR PERHAPS COULD NOT HAVE SUED THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IN THE

320

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FIRST INSTANCE.

CAN YOU THINK OF AN EXAMPLE WHERE A PLAINTIFF WOULD

PERHAPS NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUE THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IN THE FIRST

INSTANCE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHO -- WHO WROTE THAT?

MS. WALSH: MLMIC, M-L-M-I-C INSURANCE

COMPANY.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, BUT I MEAN, WHO IS IT FROM?

LIKE, WHAT ENTITY?

MS. WALSH: MLMIC INSURANCE COMPANY.

MR. DINOWITZ: OH, AN INSURANCE COMPANY.

MS. WALSH: YEAH. A BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY --

MR. DINOWITZ: AN INSURANCE COMPANY?

MR. WALSH: -- COMPANY. YEAH.

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'RE GONNA BASE ANYTHING ON

WHAT AN INSURANCE COMPANY SAYS? THE INSURANCE COMPANY NEVER

WANTS TO ALLOW ANYTHING TO HAPPEN THAT THEY THINK MIGHT POSSIBLY

INTERFERE WITH THEIR EXORBITANT PROFITS. SO I WOULDN'T TAKE EVERYTHING

THEY SAY ON FACE VALUE AT ALL.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT THE

GOVERNOR SAID WHEN HE -- IN HIS VETO MESSAGE --

MR. DINOWITZ: I DIDN'T SAY YOU CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT

THE GOVERNOR SAID.

MS. WALSH: -- AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THE INSURANCE

COMPANY. SO IT'S JUST WHAT -- ANY OPPOSITION TO YOUR BILL IS JUST FALSE;

321

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YEAH.

(LAUGHTER)

MS. WALSH: YEAH, PRETTY MUCH. PRETTY MUCH. I

SEE. I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING. OKAY.

BUT THE -- THE REAL QUESTION I WAS ASKING YOU -- AND I

-- I SEE THAT I'M ABOUT TO EXPIRE MY TIME, AND DUE TO THE LIVELY

CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING I WILL EXTEND. SO WOULDN'T IT BE A SITUATION,

IN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, WHERE A PLAINTIFF COULD MAYBE NOT HAVE SUED

THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. THAT MADE ME THINK

THAT IN -- IN SOME SITUATIONS A PLAINTIFF WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE COULD NOT

DIRECTLY SUE THEIR EMPLOYER BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM THAT

AND BE REQUIRED FOR THEIR TORT TO GO THROUGH COMP INSTEAD? ISN'T THAT,

LIKE, AN EXAMPLE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHY WOULD THEY BE PRECLUDED?

MS. WALSH: BECAUSE UNLESS -- YOU CAN'T -- YOU

CAN'T SUE YOUR EMPLOYER DIRECTLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH

COMP, IF IT'S A COMP MATTER.

MR. DINOWITZ: OH. BUT AS -- AS I SAID EARLIER, THIS

IS NOT REALLY DEALING WITH WORKERS' COMP ISSUES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

MS. WALSH: ISN'T IT A BACK-DOOR WAY, THOUGH, TO GET

AT THE -- AT THE EMPLOYER WHO MIGHT HAVE MORE MONEY?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO. THIS BARS RECOVERY AGAINST

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS PROTECTED BY WORKERS' COMP. I MENTIONED THAT

EARLIER.

322

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH: OKAY. OKIE DOKE. ALL RIGHT. SO --

MR. DINOWITZ: AND -- AND LET ME READ FROM THE

BILL JUST ONE LINE, JUST TO EMPHASIZE THAT. IT SAYS, THIS SECTION SHALL NOT

AUTHORIZE DIRECT RECOVERY AGAINST A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IN THOSE

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE THIRD-PARTY CLAIM AGAINST THAT THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED BY PROVISIONS BY SECTION 11 OF THE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, AND DOES NOT OTHERWISE PERMIT A DEFEND

-- A PLAINTIFF TO BRING A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A THIRD-PARTY IF SUCH

THIRD-PARTY WAS THE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT OR

INJURY. SO THAT ANSWERS THAT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO THAT -- SO MAYBE THAT WAS A

BAD EXAMPLE, THEN, TO THINK ABOUT THAT, THE PLAINTIFF. I UNDERSTAND WHAT

YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THAT SECTION. SO, OKAY. BUT THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER

SITUATION I'M JUST NOT THINKING OF WHERE THE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT SUE

DIRECTLY DEFENDANT C, BUT COULD, UNDER THIS BILL, GO AFTER DEFENDANT C

ONCE THERE'S THIS CHANGE IN THE LAW, NO?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THAT -- THAT'S ONLY IF

DEFENDANT B BROUGHT DEFENDANT C INTO THE CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO

DEFENDANT C.

MS. WALSH: WELL, WHAT -- I MEAN, WHAT WRONG OR

WHAT PROBLEM IS THE BILL TRYING TO CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THE PROBLEM THE BILL IS TRYING TO

ADDRESS IS THE FACT THAT IN CERTAIN CASES THE PLAINTIFF'S BASICALLY OUT OF

323

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

LUCK AFTER HAVING WON, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK ANY OF US

WOULD LIKE. THAT'S MY ANSWER.

MS. WALSH: COULD YOU -- I'M SORRY, COULD YOU JUST

REPEAT THAT? I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT.

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. THE -- THE PROBLEM IS THAT IN

SOME CASES, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF HAS WON, THERE'S NOT -- THERE'S NO

RECOVERY TO BE HAD BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAS NO MONEY, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO IN CERTAIN CASES IT'S NOT INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO BE ABLE TO

RECOVER FROM A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. I MEAN, ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM

COULD BE A PLAINTIFF, AND WE CERTAINLY WANT PLAINTIFFS TO BE ABLE TO

RECOVER WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY SHOULD RECOVER, AND IN SOME CASES

THERE'S -- THERE'S JUST NO RESOURCES FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. WELL, I APPRECIATE THE

CONVERSATION VERY MUCH, AND I WILL JUST GO ON THE BILL AT THIS POINT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. DINOWITZ: OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. AND I'M

GONNA MISS YOU SO MUCH FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.

(LAUGHTER)

MS. WALSH: AWE, THANK YOU. THAT'S SO NICE. ALL

RIGHT.

WELL, ANYWAY, MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL. WE'RE ALL

GETTING A LITTLE BIT PUNCHY, I GUESS, AT THIS POINT. AND THIS IS -- THIS IS, I

DON'T KNOW, FOR LAWYERS OR EVEN FOR NON-LAWYERS IT'S -- IT IS KIND OF A

LITTLE BIT OF A TRIP. IF YOU DON'T DO A LOT OF -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T A

LOT OF THIS KIND OF WORK, AND IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I DID, IT -- IT IS KIND

324

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OF HARD TO EXPLAIN. BUT, I MEAN, BASICALLY, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS

THAT THERE'S A LAWSUIT BROUGHT BETWEEN A PLAINTIFF AND A DEFENDANT AND

THERE'S AN ACTION BY THE DEFENDANT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO A THIRD-PARTY, AND

WHAT THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW IS FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO BYPASS ANY JUDGMENT

THAT THEY RECEIVE FROM THE DEFENDANT AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE THIRD-PARTY.

THERE MIGHT BE TIME LIMITS AND THEY MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT OR

TRY TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO COLLECT. I CAN'T REMEMBER. BUT THE PROBLEM

WITH THIS IS THAT WE CAN TAKE ALL THE COLLECTION EFFORTS THAT THE PLAINTIFF

NORMALLY WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO PURSUE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, AND

ALLOWS THE PLAINTIFF TO BRING A COLLECTION ACTION; A COLLECTION ACTION

DIRECTLY AGAINST A THIRD-PARTY WHO MAY HAVE DEEP POCKETS. AND

SOMETIMES THAT THIRD-PARTY IS A MUNICIPALITY, THOSE THAT ARE EASIEST TO

COLLECT FROM. AND SO WHAT IT DOES IS IT MAKES IT MUCH EASIER FOR A

PLAINTIFF TO COLLECT NOT AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR THAT THEY ACTUALLY SUED, BUT

AGAINST A THIRD-PARTY.

AND SO FOR THAT REASON THERE ARE MANY OF US THAT WILL

NOT THINK THAT THAT IS A GREAT IDEA, THAT IT REALLY DOES CHANGE TRADITIONAL

NOTIONS OF CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION. AND SO THIS ESSENTIALLY

LINES UP SUPPORT BEING FROM THE TRIAL LAWYERS WHO WELCOME SUCH A

CHANGE, AND OPPOSITION FROM THE INSURERS; THE INSURERS WHO SAY THAT

THIS BILL CHANGES THE THEORIES OF CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY INTO AN

APPORTIONMENT PARADIGM EVEN AGAINST PARTIES THE PLAINTIFF NEVER SUED

IN THE FIRST PLACE.

FROM THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION:

ALLOWS COLLUSION BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT

325

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FROM THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS WHICH IN TURN WOULD HARM NEW YORK STATE

BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS.

AND AMERICAN PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE

ASSOCIATION: THIS BILL MATERIALLY COLLAPSES DISTINCT THEORIES OF LIABILITY

AND WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED TO ESTABLISH A LEGAL DUTY. THIS BILL

ALLOWS PLAINTIFFS TO UNTIMELY PURSUE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS, AND IT

LEAVES DEFENDANTS UNNECESSARILY AND UNFAIRLY SUBJECT TO RESPONSIBILITY.

AND AS I MENTIONED, THIS BILL WAS VETOED BACK IN 2019

WITH A CONCERN BEING RAISED THAT, IN A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE -- THIS IS

QUOTING FROM THE VETO MESSAGE -- THE NEW YORK COMPENSATION AND

INSURANCE RATING BOARD DETERMINED THAT THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THIS

LEGISLATION WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF 150 MILLION IN ANNUAL LOSSES,

WHICH TRANSLATES TO APPROXIMATELY AN 11.2 PERCENT INCREASE IN

INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

AND FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS I'LL BE VOTING IN THE

NEGATIVE AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK

YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER -- MADAM

SPEAKER. I'M SORRY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THAT'S OKAY.

MR. RA: WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

326

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DINOWITZ: I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO -- SO I KNOW YOU DIDN'T WANNA

USE THE TERM "DEEP POCKETS", BUT LET'S SAY WE HAVE A, B AND C, AND A

IS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT GETS INJURED IN A PARK, MAYBE A NEW YORK CITY

PARK, AND IT'S THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF SOMEBODY ELSE IN -- IN THAT

PARK. BUT THERE'S A FINDING THAT, SAY -- LET'S SAY THE CITY OF NEW YORK IS

-- IS C AND THERE'S A FINDING THAT MAYBE THEY'RE 45 PERCENT AT FAULT AND

B IS 55 PERCENT AT FAULT. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN CURRENTLY WHEN A GETS

THAT JUDGMENT AND HOW DOES IT CHANGE UNDER THIS?

MR. DINOWITZ: WHO -- WHO EXACTLY IS B?

MR. RA: A, WHO GOT INJURED IN THE PARK.

MR. DINOWITZ: NO -- NO, BUT WHO IS B?

MR. RA: B IS SOMEBODY WHO, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE

THEY -- MAYBE THEY ATTACKED THEM, BUT ALSO THERE WAS SOME DANGEROUS

CONDITION AND THEY -- AND THEY FELL IN A HOLE OR SOMETHING.

MR. DINOWITZ: OH, USUALLY THE CITY IS B BECAUSE

MOST PEOPLE SUE THE CITY. BUT OKAY, LET'S GO WITH WHAT YOU HAVE THERE.

MR. RA: WELL, I THINK THAT -- BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT

WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT HERE, THAT IF -- THAT THE LIKELY SCENARIO HERE IS OF

COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO GO AFTER THE CITY OF NEW YORK BECAUSE -- I

KNOW YOU DIDN'T WANT TO USE THE TERM "DEEP POCKETS", BUT THEY'RE THE

DEEP POCKET HERE. SO ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE --

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I MEAN, THERE ARE -- THERE ARE

THREE PARTIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. ONE OF THE THREE HAS THE DEEPEST

327

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

POCKETS.

MR. RA: RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: MAYBE THAT'S THE CITY, MAYBE IT'S

NOT. THE CITY'S NOT SO DEEP WITH THEIR POCKETS LATELY.

MR. RA: WELL, THEY'RE STILL GONNA HAVE A DEEPER

POCKET THAN MOST UNLESS -- UNLESS --

MR. DINOWITZ: LET'S HOPE THAT CONTINUES NEXT

YEAR.

MR. RA: WE COULD ALL HOPE ON THAT. SO -- SO HOW

DOES THAT SITUATION -- AGAIN, B MAY -- LET'S SAY B PUSHED THE PERSON BUT

THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONDITION WITHIN THE PARK THAT -- THAT -- AND HAS

NOW BEEN FOUND WAS 45 PERCENT THE CAUSE OF THE INJURIES WHILE THE B

WHO PUSHED THE PERSON IS 55 PERCENT.

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK IF -- IF AFTER 30 DAYS IF

THEY -- IF THE PLAINTIFF CAN'T -- CAN'T GET ANYTHING FROM B, THE MAIN

DEFENDANT, THEY CAN TRY TO GO AFTER C, THE IMPLEADED DEFENDANT. BUT IT'S

STILL CAPPED WHAT THEY CAN GET FROM THEM TO THE EXTENT OF THE PERCENT

YOU MENTIONED, WHICH I THINK WAS 45 PERCENT?

MR. RA: YES.

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. SO IT'S CAPPED AT 45 PERCENT.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO THAT'S UNDER THIS -- THIS BILL. AS

OPPOSED -- AS OPPOSED TO NOW, WOULD IT BE -- WHAT WOULD THE SCENARIO

BE UNDER EXISTING LAW?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK THE REAL THING ABOUT THIS

BILL, TO ME, IS THAT YOU CAN GO AFTER C AFTER 30 DAYS WHEREAS NOW THAT'S

328

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE OR EASILY DONE.

MR. RA: WELL, THAT -- THAT'S -- THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

HOW WOULD YOU -- HOW WOULD YOU GET TO C UNDER CURRENT LAW?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'D -- YOU'D HAVE TO SUE OR -- OR

-- OR YOU'D HAVE TO -- YOU'D HAVE TO SUE C -- I MEAN -- I SHOULDN'T -- LET

ME TAKE THAT BACK. B HAS BROUGHT IN C, AND YOU'D HAVE TO -- YOU HAVE

TO GO AFTER C AS WELL. BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT EASILY RIGHT NOW.

MR. RA: OKAY. NOW, UNDER EXISTING LAW I -- I

BELIEVE ONE OF THE PIECES OF THAT IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BRING THAT

THIRD-PARTY IN WITHIN THE -- THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE OTHER

UNDERLYING CLAIM, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'D HAVE TO BRING IT WITHIN THE

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. AND THE -- THE MAIN DEFENDANT IS THE ONE WHO

WOULD REALLY BE SUING -- IN ESSENCE, SUING C TO GET -- YOU KNOW, TO GET

MONEY THROUGH THEM.

MR. RA: OKAY. NOW, HOW DOES THIS TREAT THAT

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? SAY -- SAY C WAS NOT BROUGHT IN IN A TIMELY

MANNER UNDER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. DOES THAT CHANGE UNDER THIS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WHAT -- WHAT THIS

DOES, THEN, IS ALLOWS YOU GO DIRECTLY AFTER C, BUT ON THOSE PRINCIPLES OF

-- OF JOINT AND SEVERABLE LIABILITY IN TERMS OF APPORTIONMENT REMAIN IN

EFFECT WITH REGARD TO THAT THIRD-PARTY?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. RA: THANK YOU. NOW, AS WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED,

329

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THAT PRIOR VETO TALKED ABOUT SOME CONCERNS JUST IN TERMS OF -- OF COSTS.

WE DO CERTAINLY HAVE AN ISSUE IN NEW YORK STATE WITH -- WITH

INSURANCE COSTS. I KNOW YOU DISPUTE THAT IT COULD LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN

COSTS. BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE AS TO -- I MEAN, ARE THERE -- IS THERE

-- IS THERE DATA OUT THERE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT

PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOVER UNDER THIS THAT IS GOING, I GUESS,

UNCLAIMED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE -- BECAUSE B IN THIS SCENARIO ISN'T ABLE TO

PAY THE JUDGMENT?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I THINK ANYTHING REGARDING

INCREASED COSTS ARE -- ARE SPECULATIVE. THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW THAT. I

DON'T HAVE ANY DATA ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON THAT, BUT IT'S SPECULATION.

AND ANY TIME ANYBODY MIGHT POTENTIALLY HAVE TO PAY MORE, YOU KNOW,

THEY'RE -- THEY'RE GONNA MAKE CLAIMS TO TRY TO BLOCK THAT FROM

HAPPENING. I MEAN, THAT'S ONLY NATURAL. SO DO WE KNOW THAT -- THAT THE

-- THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE VETO MESSAGE ARE CORRECT? NO. I MEAN, I

GUESS AT THE TIME THE THEN-GOVERNOR RELIED ON WHAT HE WAS TOLD, BUT

WHAT HE WAS TOLD WAS SPECULATION. IT WASN'T FACT. AND I'D LIKE TO STICK

TO FACTS LIKE THE FORMER GOVERNOR DID.

MR. RA: ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE FORMER GOVERNOR

SOMETIMES DIDN'T FOLLOW FACTS?

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT AT ALL. THE -- THE FORMER

GOVERNOR, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN -- I WATCHED ALL THOSE SHOWS EVERY DAY

-- DID FOLLOW FACTS. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN -- I THINK -- BUT THAT DOESN'T

MEAN THAT THE AGENCIES THAT HE HAD MENTIONED FOLLOWED THE FACTS.

MR. RA: I'M NOT SURE I EVER SAW HIM FOLLOW

330

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SOMEBODY ELSE'S ADVICE IF HE DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE HIS OWN. SO I GUESS

WHEN -- WHEN THAT VETO WAS -- WAS DONE -- SO YOU -- I -- I GET THAT YOU

DISPUTE WHAT HE WAS RAISING AS A CONCERN. BUT IF WE NOW ENACT THIS

YOU HAVE, WHAT, 30 DAYS -- OR IF THE JUDGMENT ISN'T PAID IN 30 DAYS BY

B, YOU CAN GO AFTER C. NOW, WHERE -- WHERE DOES THAT TIME FRAME

COME FROM? WHY -- WHY 30 DAYS? IS THAT ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE SURE

WE'VE IDENTIFIED ANY ASSETS THAT -- THAT B MAY HAVE TO PAY THE -- THE

JUDGMENT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF

TIME WE PUT IN THE BILL.

MR. RA: BUT -- BUT WHY -- WHY 30 DAYS OR -- AS

OPPOSED TO 60 DAYS?

MR. DINOWITZ: BECAUSE 30 DAYS IS LESS.

MR. RA: I UNDERSTAND 30 DAYS IS LESS, BUT --

MR. DINOWITZ: WE -- WE WANT -- WE WANT THERE TO

BE, I'LL USE THE WORD "JUSTICE." THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A CERTAIN

AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND IF IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PLAINTIFF WILL NOT BE

SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THAT MONEY WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEY CAN THEN TRY TO

RECOVER IN OTHER WAYS. THIRTY DAYS, 60 DAYS, 90 DAYS. THIRTY DAYS.

MR. RA: OKAY. SO -- BUT WHAT IF THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT

TIME TO IDENTIFY ANY RESOURCES THAT MIGHT BE THERE TO PAY THE JUDGMENT?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE BY

30 DAYS -- IT -- IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE BY 30 DAYS, IT CAN ONLY BE --

MR. RA: BUT -- BUT AFTER 30 DAYS --

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU CAN ONLY BRING IN THE -- THE --

331

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AFTER 30 DAYS. BUT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A JUDGMENT.

MR. RA: YES.

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED.

MR. RA: OKAY. NOW, THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS.

ONCE IT'S SIGNED INTO LAW IT APPLIES TO ALL JUDGMENTS ENTERED ON OR AFTER

THAT DATE, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. RA: SO IT'S -- IT'S POSSIBLE, IF NOT LIKELY, THAT

THERE ARE CASES THAT ARE WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE COURTS THAT MAY,

LET'S SAY -- OPTIMISTICALLY FOR YOURSELF, LET'S SAY THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THIS

IN A WEEK, AND CASES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION THAT THEN -- YOU

KNOW, AND HAVE NEVER CONTEMPLATED THIS CHANGE IN THE CPLR THEN WILL

BE SUBJECT TO THIS, CORRECT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY'LL BE SUBJECT TO IT AFTER THERE

IS A JUDGMENT. ANY TIME AFTER THIS -- THIS -- AFTER IT'S SIGNED, THEN IT

TAKES EFFECT. ANY JUDGMENTS AFTER THAT TIME WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE

PROVISIONS OF -- OF THIS BILL.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. RA: JUST QUICKLY. I -- I DO SEE THE CONCERNS HERE

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THESE DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND IT

COULD BE IN THE MEDICAL LIABILITY SPACE, IT COULD BE IN PROPERTY. IT

COULD BE -- YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A HOSPITAL, IT COULD BE -- IT COULD BE

IN ANY DIFFERENT PLACE WE CAN BE LOOKING THAT OFTENTIMES THERE IS GOING

332

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TO BE THAT -- WHETHER WE WANT TO USE THE TERM OR NOT -- THE DEEP POCKET.

YOU KNOW, THE -- THE HUGE HOSPITAL SYSTEM, THE -- THE MUNICIPALITY.

WHOEVER IT IS. AND THIS REALLY IS GOING TO CREATE A SCENARIO WHERE IT'S

-- IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT GETTING TO THAT DEEPER POCKET TO -- TO BE ABLE TO

GET -- GET A GREATER RECOVERY. A LOT OF THESE AREAS HAVE BEEN SCREAMING

FOR REFORMS FOR YEARS THAT WOULD HELP MAKE DOING BUSINESS -- WHETHER

YOU'RE A DOCTOR, WHETHER YOU'RE A, YOU KNOW, AN INSURANCE

PROFESSIONAL, WHETHER YOU'RE JUST A BUSINESS THAT NEEDS TO HAVE LIABILITY

INSURANCE FOR ANY REASON -- TO MAKE IT EASIER TO OPERATE IN NEW YORK

STATE, AND I FEAR THIS COULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THAT.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. FITZPATRICK.

MR. FITZPATRICK: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. DINOWITZ: CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEFINITELY REAL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. FITZPATRICK: YES. THANK YOU, MR.

DINOWITZ. I -- I -- THE -- THE DEBATE HAS BEEN VERY INTERESTING AND I'M

TRYING TO -- HELP ME UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THIS

LEGISLATION WOULD ALLOW A DEFENDANT TO -- IF DEFENDANT 1 -- YOU HAVE

THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT 1, SAY DEFENDANT 2. DEFENDANT 1 CANNOT FULFILL

THAT OBLIGATION, YOU KNOW, THAT THE JURY GIVES TO THE DEFENDANT -- TO THE

333

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PLAINTIFF, RATHER. SO YOU -- YOU SAID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THIS

LEGISLATION WOULD ALLOW THAT -- THAT PLAINTIFF TO GO AFTER A THIRD-PARTY.

BUT IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, YOU SAID THIS BILL WOULD NOT -- THE -- THE

THIRD-PARTY, OR THE DEEP POCKET -- AND I PREFER TO USE THE TERM "DEEP

POCKET" BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE TERM THE LAWYERS USE BEHIND CLOSED

DOORS AT THEIR LAW FIRMS. THEY DON'T USE, YOU KNOW, SOFTER LANGUAGE.

THEY GO RIGHT FOR THE -- YOU KNOW, WE KNOW WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY. SO -- SO YOU -- I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE --

DEFENDANT NUMBER 2 WOULD NOT BE ON THE HOOK FOR MORE THAN WHAT

THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND LIABLE FOR. YOU KNOW, SAY, BASED ON A

PERCENTAGE?

MR. DINOWITZ: YES.

MR. FITZPATRICK: SO IF -- BUT YOU SAID EXCEPT IN

CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SO WHAT WOULD THOSE CIRCUM -- CERTAIN

CIRCUMSTANCES BE? WOULD THAT BE WHEN THERE'S AN INSURANCE COMPANY

OR A MUNICIPALITY INVOLVED THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A DEEP POCKET?

MR. DINOWITZ: I'M NOT SURE I SAID IT THAT WAY, AND

IF I DID --

MR. FITZPATRICK: THAT'S HOW I HEARD IT.

MR. DINOWITZ: OH.

MR. FITZPATRICK: VERBATIM.

MR. DINOWITZ: SO YOU MIGHT HAVE (INDISCERNIBLE)

THAT WHICH I DIDN'T IMPLY. BUT LET ME JUST --

MR. FITZPATRICK: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- SAY IT AGAIN. SO THE PLAINTIFF

334

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SUES THE DEFENDANT. A SUES B, AND THE DEFENDANT B SUES C, BRINGS C

INTO THE CASE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT B BELIEVES THAT C IS PARTIALLY OR --

OR ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHATEVER HAPPENED.

MR. FITZPATRICK: RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: BUT A HASN'T BEEN SUING C. A

DIDN'T HAVE THAT -- A DIDN'T HAVE THAT CONNECTION IN THE CASE NECESSARILY

TO C, B DID. SO A, UNDER THIS, ESPECIALLY IF -- IF B DOESN'T HAVE ANY

MONEY, A CAN STILL TRY TO RECOVER FROM C, THAT WHICH -- WHICH B WOULD

HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO FROM C. SO IF IT WAS DETERMINED THAT B, THE MAIN

DEFENDANT, WAS 60 PERCENT LIABLE AND C, THE IMPLEADED DEFENDANT, WAS

RESPONSIBLE FOR 40 PERCENT, THE PLAINTIFF COULD THEN GO AFTER C FOR THE

40 PERCENT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: OKAY. SO THAT -- OKAY. SO THE

-- THEY CAN GO AFTER WHAT -- BUT WOULDN'T C BE ON THE HOOK FOR THAT 40

PERCENT ANYWAY, IF -- LET ME JUST --

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT TO THE PLAINTIFF.

MR. FITZPATRICK: LET ME USE AN EXAMPLE. I --

LET'S SAY THERE ARE TWO DEFENDANTS, AND DEFENDANT 1 SETTLES FOR $60,000

AND DEFENDANT 2 CHOOSES THE EQUITABLE SHARE OPTION AND THE JURY

DETERMINES THAT THE EQUITABLE SHARE OF LIABILITY FOR EACH IS 50 PERCENT

AND RETURNS A VERDICT OF 100,000. SO UNDER THIS SCENARIO THE PLAINTIFF

WOULD RECEIVE 60,000 FROM DEFENDANT 1 AND THEN DEFENDANT 2,

50,000. SO THE PLAINTIFF GETS A TOTAL OF 110,000, WHICH WOULD BE MORE

THAN THE $100,000 VERDICT. UNDER CURRENT LAW THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT

RECEIVE MORE THAN WHAT THE JURY AWARDS. SO WOULD THIS LEGISLATION

335

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

YOU'RE PROPOSING CHANGE THIS?

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S --

MR. FITZPATRICK: (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSSTALK) YOU

WOULD HAVE A POTENTIAL WINDFALL BY THE PLAINTIFF?

MR. DINOWITZ: NUMBER ONE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S

THE CASE. BUT NUMBER TWO, NO WINDFALL. IT'S SIMPLY -- WE'RE SIMPLY

TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THE PLAINTIFF WILL BE ABLE TO RECOVER

FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, AND THAT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY

IMPORTANT IF THE MAIN -- IF THE B DEFENDANT CAN'T PAY. BUT BECAUSE THE

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT SUE THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, IT WAS THE DEFENDANT

THAT SUED THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, THIS WOULD -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

HERE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF WILL BE ABLE TO RECOVER THE MONEY THAT THEY

WOULD BE ENTITLED TO FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF -- IF

DEFENDANT 1 -- THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT 1 AND DEFENDANT 2 -- SO LET'S

SAY DEFENDANT 1 IS INSOLVENT OR CAN'T FULFILL THAT OBLIGATION, AND LET'S

SAY THAT DEFENDANT 2 CAN'T DO THAT EITHER. NOW, WHAT'S THE ANSWER

THERE?

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, THEN THE PLAINTIFF --

MR. FITZPATRICK: THE ATTORNEY DOESN'T TAKE THE

CASE.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- MAY BE OUT OF LUCK.

MR. FITZPATRICK: YEAH, EXACTLY. AND THE

ATTORNEY WOULD SAY, SORRY, I CAN'T HELP YOU. SO --

MR. DINOWITZ: I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY HAS MONEY,

336

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THEN --

(INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK)

MR. FITZPATRICK: THE ATTORNEY WANTS TO TAKE THE

CASE BECAUSE THERE'S A POTENTIAL THIRD-PARTY THAT -- THAT HAS A DEEP

POCKET IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT HERE.

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I MEAN, I CAN'T PUT MYSELF INTO

THE MIND OF AN ATTORNEY WHO'S TAKING THE CASE. BUT I WOULD SAY IN A

SITUATION LIKE THIS THAT MOST ATTORNEYS WHO WOULD TAKE SUCH A CASE

WOULD BELIEVE THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER SOMETHING,

MEANING THAT SOMEBODY HAS MONEY.

MR. FITZPATRICK: SEE, WHEN I -- WHEN I SERVED

ON THE TOWN COUNCIL IN MY TOWN, IN SMITHTOWN, WE -- WE HAD MANY

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WHERE WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ATTORNEYS OVER

THESE TYPES OF CASES WHERE THE TOWN IS BROUGHT IN AS A DEEP-POCKETED

PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT, ALL RIGHT? A TREE FALLS ON -- FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY

ONTO A STREET, CAUSES AN ACCIDENT. WE END UP PAYING A PERCENTAGE OF

THAT. AND WE WERE ALWAYS ADVISED BY THE ATTORNEY THAT, WELL, THE COST

OF LITIGATION, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, JUST PAY IT. SO IT'S -- YOU KNOW, EVEN

THOUGH WE FELT WE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE NO

LIABILITY, WE DIDN'T CAUSE ANYTHING; THE STREET MET SPECIFICATIONS, THE

STREET WAS CLEAN. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO THE STREET, THERE WAS NO

REASON FOR -- YOU KNOW, NO -- THE STREET DID NOT IN ANY WAY CAUSE --

MR. DINOWITZ: RIGHT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: -- THE CAR TO SWERVE OFF THE

ROAD. IT WAS A TREE THAT FELL EITHER ON THE CAR, IN FRONT OF THE CAR. THE

337

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CAR CRASHES INTO THE TREE, THE TOWN'S GOT TO PAY. WE PAID A $1 MILLION

JUDGMENT IN ONE PARTICULAR CASE. AND WE USED TO CALL IT "LOTTO." YOU

KNOW, THEY WIN LOTTO. AND OF COURSE THE ATTORNEYS COLLECT, WHAT, ABOUT

A THIRD OF THAT FEE. SO THERE'S A REAL INCENTIVE HERE. THEY WANT MORE

MONEY, AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS ALL ABOUT.

MR. DINOWITZ: WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT YOUR TOWN

MADE POOR DECISIONS IN PAYING MONEY THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY

SHOULD HAVE TO PAY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED

(INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) --

MR. FITZPATRICK: WELL, I WOULD SAY THE

DEMOCRAT MAJORITY IN OUR TOWN MADE THE POOR DECISION --

MR. DINOWITZ: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DEMOCRAT OR

REPUBLICAN --

(INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK)

MR. FITZPATRICK: THE REPUBLICANS WANTED TO

FIGHT, I WANT TO FIGHT BUT --

MR. DINOWITZ: (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK)

WHATEVER. THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT THEY MADE A DECISION TO

PAY EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE THOUGHT THEY WEREN'T RESPONSIBLE.

MAYBE THEY WERE AFRAID THAT IF THEY -- IF THEY WENT TO LITIGATION THAT

THAT WOULD COST MORE MONEY THAN IF THEY JUST, YOU KNOW --

MR. FITZPATRICK: EXACTLY.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- PAID THE (INDISCERNIBLE). BUT

THE POINT IS, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS REALLY MUCH TO DO WITH THIS

ANYWAY.

338

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. FITZPATRICK: WELL, IT -- I THINK IT HAS A LOT TO

DO WITH IT. BUT THIS IS -- SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S A NEED FOR

THIS, WHY WE WANT TO UPSET THE CURRENT SYSTEM IN A -- IN A SENSE. IF

DEFENDANT 2 IS ONLY LIABLE FOR A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, YOU CAN'T GET MORE

FROM THEM. YOU'RE SAYING -- YOU -- IF THEY'RE ON THE HOOK FOR, SAY, 40

PERCENT, YOU CANNOT GET MORE THAN THAT. BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THIS

LEGISLATION WOULD ALLOW DEFENDANT -- THE PLAINTIFF TO GO AFTER DEFENDANT

2 IF DEFENDANT 1 IS INSOLVENT IF THERE'S A DEEP POCKET.

MR. DINOWITZ: THE -- DEFENDANT 2 -- IT'S NOT

DEFENDANT 2 BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EQUAL DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF,

DEFENDANT, IMPLEADED DEFENDANT THAT THE DEFENDANT BROUGHT IN, WHICH

IS WHY I SAID A, B AND C. BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU SAY DEFENDANT 1

I'M THINKING OF W-O-N. SO THE -- THE MAIN DEFENDANT -- THE -- THE

PLAINTIFF HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: IT WOULD BE THE DEFENDANT THAT

WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECOVER FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. AND

WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THIS WOULD CHANGE THAT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: BUT WHY ARE -- BUT WHY ARE WE

CHANGING IT? IF -- IF I'M -- IF I'M DEFENDANT 2 AND I'M -- YOU KNOW, THAT

$100,000 JUDGMENT, I'M ON THE HOOK FOR 40 PERCENT OF THAT. WHY

WOULD I -- WHY AM I GOING TO PAY MORE THAN THAT 40 PERCENT OR $40,000

OF THAT JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE -- THE PRIMARY DEFENDANT, YOU KNOW, IS

INSOLVENT OR CAN'T AFFORD IT? WHY AM I PICKING UP THE REST OF THAT TAB?

THERE'S A -- THERE'S FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS ABOUT THAT.

339

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DINOWITZ: NO, YOU -- YOU -- YOU, THE

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, HAVE BEEN FOUND LIABLE. THAT'S NOT UNFAIR.

MR. FITZPATRICK: NO, I -- I ACCEPT THE LIABILITY.

I'M -- $100,000 JUDGMENT, I'M 40 PERCENT LIABLE AS DEFENDANT 2.

DEFENDANT 1 IS 60 PERCENT LIABLE. DEFENDANT 1 CAN'T PAY THAT, BUT I'M

GONNA BE ASKED TO PAY MORE THAN WHAT I'M DETERMINED --

MR. DINOWITZ: I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: -- DETERMINED TO BE MY

LIABILITY --

MR. DINOWITZ: NOT AT ALL.

MR. FITZPATRICK: -- BY THE JURY?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. DINOWITZ: IT DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T INCREASE -- I

-- I'VE SAID IT IN A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS --

MR. FITZPATRICK: RIGHT.

MR. DINOWITZ: -- AND I'M GONNA SAY IT THIS WAY.

NO, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS NOT CORRECT. THE PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT BE

ORDINARILY RECOVERING FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. THE THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT HAS BEEN JUDGED TO BE 60 PERCENT LIABLE. THAT -- THAT WOULD

GO TO THE -- TO THE DEFENDANT. BUT HERE, WE'RE ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF TO

BE ABLE TO RECOVER THE PERCENTAGE FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT THAT --

THAT TO WHICH THEY'RE LIABLE.

MR. FITZPATRICK: (INDISCERNIBLE)

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY'RE NOT PAYING MORE THAN THEY

WOULD -- THEY WOULD PAY THE SAME AMOUNT TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT THEY

340

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OTHERWISE WOULD PAY TO THE DEFENDANT. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT WHATSOEVER. NONE. ZERO.

MR. FITZPATRICK: OKAY. AGAIN, USING -- USING --

IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THE

DEFENDANT 2 WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY MORE THAN WHAT THEY HAVE

BEEN JUDGED LIABLE FOR BY A JURY. SO -- BUT WHAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR,

IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, IS THAT IF I'M DEFENDANT 2 AND I'M

FOUND -- A $100,000 JUDGMENT -- I'M DEFENDANT 2. DEFENDANT 1 IS ON

THE HOOK FOR 60 PERCENT, $60,000. I'M ON THE HOOK FOR 40 PERCENT,

$40,000. DEFENDANT 1 CAN'T SATISFY THAT JUDGMENT, IS INSOLVENT FOR

WHATEVER REASON. NOW I AM -- I AM NOW SUBJECT TO PAY MORE THAN THAT

40 PERCENT?

MR. DINOWITZ: NO.

MR. FITZPATRICK: I'M NOT?

MR. DINOWITZ: THEY WOULD STILL PAY THE SAME 40

PERCENT, BUT THEY WOULD PAY IT TO THE PLAINTIFF, NOT TO THE DEFENDANT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: SO WHERE DOES THE THIRD-PARTY

THAT -- WHERE DOES THAT DEEP POCKET COME IN? WHERE -- WHERE --

EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. WHERE -- PLEASE GO THERE. WHAT DO

YOU MEAN BY THAT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

MR. DINOWITZ: YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S USING THE

TERM DEEP POCKET. SOME -- NOT EVERYBODY HAS A DEEP POCKET. AND IF

YOUR TOWN DECIDES -- I MEAN, IF THEY'RE SUCKERS AND THEY DECIDE TO PAY

SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY, THAT THEIR CHOICE.

MR. FITZPATRICK: RIGHT.

341

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DINOWITZ: BUT IF THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IS

40 PERCENT RESPONSIBLE AND THEY HAVE TO PAY THE DEFENDANT OR THE

PLAINTIFF, IT -- IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. THE

ONLY QUESTION IS TO WHOM ARE THEY PAYING THAT AMOUNT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: OKAY. SO -- SO I'M PAYING --

I'M PAYING -- EXCUSE ME -- I'M PAYING DEFENDANT 1 MY 40,000? IS THAT

WHAT YOU'RE -- WHAT I'M ON THE HOOK FOR? INSTEAD OF PAYING THE

PLAINTIFF, I AM PAYING DEFENDANT 1? HELP -- HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS.

MR. DINOWITZ: I -- I -- LET ME REPEAT MYSELF, EVEN

THOUGH I HATE WHEN PEOPLE REPEAT THEMSELVES HERE, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO

IT CONSTANTLY. IT ALLOWS THE PLAINTIFF TO COLLECT THE -- THE AMOUNT THAT

THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

THAT'S ALL. THAT'S IT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: OKAY. SO IF IT'S THAT SIMPLE --

WHY IS THIS BILL HERE 25 YEARS IF IT'S THAT SIMPLE?

MR. DINOWITZ: A LOT OF THINGS ARE SIMPLE, PEOPLE

MAKE IT COMPLICATED. THIS -- IT'S PART OF THE SAME ACTION. IT MAKES IT --

IT DOES MAKE IT SIMPLER. IT MAKES IT MORE QUICKER [SIC]. YOU DON'T

HAVE TO INSTITUTE A SEPARATE -- IT'S ONE THING. PLAINTIFF, JUDGMENT 40 --

WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, 60 PERCENT FROM THE DEFENDANT, 40 PERCENT

FROM THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO THE ACTION BY THE

DEFENDANT.

MR. FITZPATRICK: RIGHT. BY THE DEFENDANT OR THE

PLAINTIFF?

(CROSS-TALK)

342

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DINOWITZ: WHAT?

MR. FITZPATRICK: THE -- THE DEFENDANT BRINGS THE

THIRD-PARTY IN OR THE PLAINTIFF --

MR. DINOWITZ: YES. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE -- YES.

MR. FITZPATRICK: OKAY.

MR. DINOWITZ: IF THE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT IN THAT

DEFENDANT THEN THEY WOULD BE BASICALLY LIKE A CODEFENDANT, EQUAL

DEFENDANT. BUT WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PLAINTIFF SUES

DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT SUES -- BRINGS IN THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT INTO

THE CASE IN THE HOPES THAT THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT GETS STUCK WITH THE

BILL.

MR. FITZPATRICK: SO IT'S A SEPARATE ACTION IS WHAT

YOU'RE SAYING.

MR. DINOWITZ: IT'S ONE ACTION. IT'S THE SAME

ACTION. IT'S PART OF THE SAME ACTION.

MR. FITZPATRICK: OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. I

THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND THIS. IT'S -- IT'S STILL A BIT

CONFUSING TO A NON-LAWYER, BUT I -- I -- I DO HAVE AN UNCOMFORTABLE

FEELING -- ON THE BILL, MADAM SPEAKER. THANK YOU, MR. DINOWITZ.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS MONEY. AND WHEN THE TRIAL BAR IS

IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING IT MEANS IT'S A POSSIBILITY OR IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO

DERIVE MORE MONEY FROM A PROCEEDING. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE HERE.

THERE IS A CONCERN IF THIS BILL HAS BEEN VETOED ONCE AND HAS NOT MADE

IT TO THE FINISH LINE 24 OTHER TIMES, IT MEANS THERE'S A PROBLEM. AND IT'S

GOING TO INCREASE WORKERS' COMP COSTS, IT'S GONNA BE MORE EXPENSIVE

343

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. WHEN SOMETHING IS AROUND

FOR 25 YEARS AND IT CAN'T IT MAKE TO THE FINISH LINE, THAT TELLS YOU THERE'S

SOMETHING NOT QUITE RIGHT WITH WHAT THIS LEGISLATION IS ATTEMPTING TO

ACCOMPLISH. SO I JUST THINK IT OUGHT TO GO DIE AGAIN, QUITE FRANKLY.

AND IF, YOU KNOW, THE AVERAGE PERSON HAS DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING

WHAT'S TRYING TO HAPPEN -- WELL, NO, A VERY SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING OF IT.

IT'S ABOUT THE TRIAL BAR TRYING TO GET MORE MONEY OUT OF -- OUT OF A DEEP

POCKET, BOTTOM LINE.

SO I THINK THIS IS NOT A GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION. IF IT

WERE IT WOULD HAVE PASSED 20 -- 25 YEARS AGO, AND FOR THAT REASON IT

OUGHT TO DIE AGAIN THIS YEAR. THANK YOU, MRS. -- 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: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS PIECE OF

LEGISLATION, BUT IF ANYBODY WISHES TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THEY MAY

DO SO NOW AT THEIR SEATS. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MADAM SPEAKER, THE

MAJORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

344

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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.

PAGE 16, RULES REPORT NO. 744, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE S01099, RULES REPORT NO.

744, SENATOR MAY (A07777, SIMONE, OTIS, LEVENBERG, LAVINE,

MCMAHON, CLARK, SLATER, MORINELLO, SHRESTHA, STIRPE, BURDICK, MEEKS,

SHIMSKY, KELLES, HEVESI, EPSTEIN, GLICK, GRIFFIN, KAY, REYES, BORES,

LUNSFORD, SCHIAVONI, WOERNER, DE LOS SANTOS, LASHER, SIMON, SMITH,

CONRAD, SOLAGES, PAULIN, FORREST, MAGNARELLI, ROSENTHAL, KASSAY,

RAGA). AN ACT TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO ENACTING THE

"FREEDOM TO READ ACT".

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MR. SIMONE.

MR. SIMONE: THE BILL WOULD DIRECT THE

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO ESTABLISH POLICIES ENSURING THAT SCHOOL

LIBRARIES AND LIBRARY STAFF ARE EMPOWERED TO DEVELOP COLLECTIONS THAT

PROVIDE STUDENTS ACCESS TO THE WIDEST ARRAY OF DEVELOPMENTALLY

APPROPRIATE MATERIALS AVAILABLE TO A DISTRICT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. GANDOLFO.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

345

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WOULD THE SPONSOR PLEASE YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. SIMONE: OF COURSE I WOULD.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU. SO, THANK YOU FOR

THE EXPLANATION WHICH LEADS ME RIGHT INTO MY FIRST QUESTION: IN THIS

LEGISLATION, IS THERE A DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE AS IT

PERTAINS TO MATERIALS?

MR. SIMONE: THERE IS.

MR. GANDOLFO: THERE IS? OKAY, CAN YOU POINT

ME TO THAT?

MR. SIMONE: WELL, THERE'S NOT IN THIS CURRENT

LEGISLATION.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. SO THE LEGISLATION IS SILENT

ON WHAT IS DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE. DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT?

MR. SIMONE: THE COMMISSIONER WOULD -- DEVELOP

THAT POLICY.

MR. GANDOLFO: SO THE COMMISSIONER, OKAY. SO

IT'S NOT OUTLINED IN THE BILL. WE'RE EMPOWERING -- OR WE'RE DIRECTING THE

NYSED COMMISSIONER TO DETERMINE WHAT IS DEVELOPMENTALLY

APPROPRIATE. OKAY.

NOW, THAT WOULD APPLY TO EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE

STATE? WHATEVER THE NYSED COMMISSIONER DETERMINES IS

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE?

346

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: IT WOULD APPLY STATEWIDE, BUT SHE

WOULD STILL REFER TO THE SCHOOL BOARDS AND LOCAL DISTRICTS.

MR. GANDOLFO: COULD THE SCHOOL BOARDS -- WHAT

HAPPENS IF THE SCHOOL BOARDS DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS

DEEMED DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE?

MR. SIMONE: THERE -- THERE IS AN APPEAL PROCESS.

LOCAL CHALLENGE IN WHICH MATERIAL IS CHALLENGED AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL.

THIS DOESN'T INTERFERE IF A PARENT SAYS, I DON'T WANT MY KID READING A

CERTAIN BOOK. IT COULD ALSO BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE DISTRICT FOR

REVIEW BY A SCHOOL BOARD, CAN RESULT IN RETENTION, RESTRICTION, REMOVAL

OF MATERIAL AND IF THE PARENT FEELS AGGRIEVED BY THE DISTRICT'S DECISION,

THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO FILE A SECTION 310 APPEAL FOR REVIEW BY THE

COMMISSIONER.

MR. GANDOLFO: THAT WAS A SECTION 3010 APPEAL?

MR. SIMONE: YEP.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. IS -- SO THAT IS NOT

OUTLINED IN THIS BILL THAT A -- A -- AN APPEAL PROCESS IS -- REMAINS

BECAUSE THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION HAS -- HAD

SENT OUT A MEMO, NOT OF OPPOSITION, JUST OF CONCERN THAT THERE'S NO

LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT DIRECTLY SPEAKS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD'S

INVOLVEMENT. SO I'M JUST WONDERING, THERE WOULD BE NO UNIFORM -- IS

THERE A UNIFORM PROCESS ACROSS ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS IF A -- IF A PARENT

DECIDES THAT SOME CONTENT IN THE LIBRARY IS OBJECTIONABLE OR

INAPPROPRIATE? WHAT -- HOW DOES THAT PROCESS PLAY OUT?

347

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: I MEAN, IT CAN VARY DISTRICT TO DISTRICT,

BUT IT COULD BE CHALLENGED AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL, EMBARKED TO THE SCHOOL

BOARDS AND THEN STATEWIDE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND AN APPEAL

PROCESS.

MR. GANDOLFO: I MEAN, MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S

NOT SPECIFICALLY IN BLACK AND WHITE IN THE BILL. THE ONLY LANGUAGE IN

THE BILL IS -- REFERENCES EMPOWERING THE SCHOOL LIBRARY STAFF, THE -- AS

CONTENT CURATORS. SO IS THERE A REASON WHY ONLY THE LIBRARY STAFF IS

REFERENCED IN THE BILL AND NOT SCHOOL BOARDS JUST TO REASSURE THAT LOCAL

CONTROL ISN'T BEING STRIPPED AWAY? THAT PARENTS WILL STILL HAVE A VOICE

IN THIS PROCESS THROUGH THEIR DULY-ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS?

MR. SIMONE: I MEAN, THIS BILL SIMPLY EMPOWERS

LIBRARIANS WHO STUDY LIBRARY SCIENCE. THIS DOESN'T OVERRIDE PARENTS

SAYING -- LOOK, IF A PARENT DOESN'T WANNA LEARN ABOUT MY FAMILY, ABOUT

BEING GAY, OR -- OR CIVIL RIGHTS, THEY CAN TELL -- TELL -- TELL THEM, I DON'T

WANT MY KID READING THE BOOK. IT DOESN'T CHANGE OF ANY THAT. IT JUST

EMPOWERS LIBRARIANS TO CURATE DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE AT AGE WITH

DIFFERENT GUIDELINES WHICH MOST LIBRARIANS HAVE USED TO WHAT AGE COULD

THEY READ AND WHAT THEY COULD BE EXPOSED TO.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. SO IF -- IF THERE'S STILL, I

GUESS, A POTENTIAL BATTLE OVER WHAT CONTENT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, IS THIS

-- I KNOW THIS BILL IS KIND OF STEMMING FROM SOME OF THE CONTROVERSIES

ACROSS DIFFERENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH WHAT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE AND

NOT APPROPRIATE. DOES THIS SOLVE THAT PROBLEM IF THERE'S STILL PARENTS

348

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ABLE TO CHALLENGE THAT AND IF IT'S -- IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD STILL BE THE

SAME PROCESS THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS. SO HOW ARE THE LIBRARY STAFF

EMPOWERED IN THAT MATTER?

MR. SIMONE: WELL, THE COMMISSIONER WOULD

ESTABLISH THE -- THE POLICY. BUT WHAT IT DOES IS OPENS A WIDE ARRAY OF

MATERIAL. RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOTTEN COMPLAINTS ACROSS THE STATE. THERE

HAVE BEEN LIBRARIANS WHO FEEL THAT THEY'RE SELF-CENSORING BECAUSE

THERE'S BEEN AGENDA ON BOTH SIDES OF WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE LIBRARY OR

NOT. THIS BILL SIMPLY EMPHASIZES A LIBRARIAN WHO'S EDUCATED IN LIBRARY

SCIENCE, CAN PICK WHAT BOOKS CLEARLY WITHOUT EXCLUDING PARENTS OR

SCHOOL BOARDS. THEY'RE STILL INCLUDED. THIS JUST EMPOWERS THEM TO

MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A DIVERSE AMOUNT OF BOOKS AND MATERIALS THAT

STUDENTS CAN BE EXPOSED TO.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. DO THEY NOT CURRENTLY

HAVE -- I GUESS MY CONFUSION IS, ARE THEY NOT -- HOW ARE THE BOOKS AND

THE CONTENT CURRENTLY CURATED IN A SCHOOL LIBRARY IF THE LIBRARY STAFF ISN'T

CURRENTLY EMPOWERED TO DO SO?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: WELL -- THEY'RE -- THEY'RE ALREADY

EMPOWERED TO DO SO, THIS JUST EMPHASIZES THEIR ROLE. FOR INSTANCE,

EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT IS REQUIRED TO EMPLOY A CERTIFIED SCHOOL LIBRARIAN

AND MEDIA SPECIALIST IN ACCORDANCE WITH 8 NRCRR. THE BILL ALSO

ASSOCIATES CHANGES TO SECTION 283 OF THE EDUCATION LAW TO ALLOW

SIMILAR PROVISIONS TO THE FUNCTIONS OF SCHOOL LIBRARY SYSTEMS.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. SO, IT SOUNDS -- SO A LOT OF

349

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THIS IS GOING TO BE LEFT UP TO NYSED TO PROMULGATE THE REGULATIONS.

DOES NYSED HAVE THE ABILITY TO REMOVE ANY OVERSIGHT OF THE SCHOOL

BOARDS OR REMOVE PARENTS FROM THE PROCESS AS THEY'RE PROMULGATING

THESE NEW REGULATIONS?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: THE BILL DOESN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

MR. GANDOLFO: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL, PLEASE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. GANDOLFO: MADAM SPEAKER, LIKE MOST

PEOPLE, I BELIEVE THAT SCHOOLS SHOULD BE FREE OF DISTRACTIONS AND HIGH

PROFILE ARGUMENTS OVER WHAT SHOULD BE AND SHOULD NOT BE IN THE SCHOOL

LIBRARY. HOWEVER, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH THE OPEN-ENDEDNESS OF

THE BILL AND THE VAGUENESS OF THIS BILL AND JUST THE SHEER POWER IT'S

PUTTING IN THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHICH

QUIETLY FRANKLY, A LOT OF NEW YORKERS HAVE LOST TRUST IN THE

COMMISSIONER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OVER THE PAST FEW

YEARS. THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOTHING CLEARLY OUTLINING THAT PARENTS AND

THEIR DULY-ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS STILL HAVE A ROLE IN THIS

PROCESS IS A LITTLE CONCERNING TO ME AND I DON'T THINK IT HELPS PUT

PARENTS AT EASE. IT -- IT -- I KNOW WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE STRESS AND

HOW HEATED THESE ARGUMENTS GET WITH SOME LIBRARY STAFF BEING

THREATENED AND IF PARENTS HAVE A FEELING THAT THEY ARE BEING REMOVED

FROM THE PROCESS, WHICH IT SEEMS, ACCORDING TO THIS BILL, THAT IT'S

POSSIBLE THAT THE COMMISSIONER WOULD REMOVE THEM FROM THE PROCESS.

350

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

I THINK THAT'S ONLY GOING TO INFLAME TENSIONS EVEN WORSE TO A PLACE THAT

THEY DON'T REALLY NEED TO BE BY REMOVING THAT VOICE FROM THE PARENTS

AND BY NO LONGER HAVING THAT OUTLET TO CHALLENGE SOME OF THESE THINGS

THAT MIGHT BE OBJECTIONABLE.

I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS BILL

SIMILAR TO WHAT THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION HAS

SUGGESTED, JUST CLEARLY OUTLINING THAT SCHOOL BOARDS ACROSS NEW YORK

STATE STILL HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN THIS PROCESS. THEY ARE ELECTED BY

MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND FOR MEMBERS OF

THE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY SEE SOMETHING THEY DON'T LIKE GOING ON IN

THEIR SCHOOLS, THEY CAN GO TO THEIR LOCAL COUNCIL MEMBER WHO CAN

PROVIDE THAT OVERSIGHT AND MAKE SURE THEIR VOICES ARE BEING HEARD.

WILL THEY ALWAYS GET THEIR WAY? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. BUT STILL, YOU

NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A PROCESS FOR PARENTS TO PLAY A ROLE IN

THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION.

SO, I THANK THE SPONSOR FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS

AND THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. BOLOGNA.

MR. BOLOGNA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. SIMONE: YES, I WOULD.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

351

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. BOLOGNA: THANK YOU, MR. SIMONE. OKAY, SO

DOES THIS JUST APPLY TO NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

MR. SIMONE: YES.

MR. BOLOGNA: OKAY. SO ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS

INCLUDED IN THAT?

MR. SIMONE: IT'S THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

MR. BOLOGNA: OKAY. BUT PRIVATE SCHOOLS, PRIVATE

INSTITUTIONS, THEY'RE NOT COVERED UNDER THIS?

MR. SIMONE: THEY'RE NOT COVERED BY THIS

LEGISLATION.

MR. BOLOGNA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHY -- WHY IS THAT?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER ONLY

EXERCISES POWER OVER THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

MR. BOLOGNA: OKAY. SO THE -- AND JUST TO KIND OF

PIGGY-BACK OFF WHAT MY COLLEAGUE SAID, SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS JUST IN

READING THROUGH THIS IS THAT, AGAIN, NOTICING THAT THERE NOT NECESSARILY

WAS A DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE. SO I JUST WANT TO

UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY. WE'RE LEAVING IT UP TO STATE ED TO MAKE A

DETERMINATION OF WHAT THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE

IS, CORRECT? AT LEAST IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS.

MR. SIMONE: THAT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THIS

LEGISLATION.

MR. BOLOGNA: OKAY. SO -- SO HOW -- WAIT, HOW

352

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ARE WE ULTIMATELY GOING TO ARRIVE AT WHAT --

MR. SIMONE: WELL, MOST -- MOST PEOPLE -- ALL

LIBRARIANS WHO'VE STUDIED LIBRARY SCIENCE FOLLOW A SET GUIDELINE ON

WHAT DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE IS. I CAN READ IT TO YOU IF YOU'D LIKE.

MR. BOLOGNA: YEAH, YEAH. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

ACTUALLY, THAT WOULD BE PERFECT. THANK YOU.

MR. SIMONE: SO IN THE CONTEXT OF LIBRARIES LIBRARY

COLLECTION, DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE REFERS TO SELECTING ORGANIZING

MATERIALS THAT ALIGN WITH COGNITIVE, EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL

DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF THE INTENDED AUDIENCE, MOSTLY CHILDREN AND

YOUNG ADULTS. AND THEY HAVE A SET OF GUIDELINES ON PICTURE BOOKS OR

MORE SPECIFIC HISTORY.

MR. BOLOGNA: OKAY. SO SPECIFICALLY AS THIS

RELATES TO -- THANK -- ACTUALLY, THANK YOU BECAUSE THAT ACTUALLY REALLY

HELPS ME HERE. SO SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO SCHOOL LIBRARIES.

MANHATTAN AREA YOU REPRESENT?

MR. SIMONE: WEST SIDE OF MANHATTAN.

MR. BOLOGNA: OKAY. SO AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU

GUYS HAVE THIS IN MANHATTAN; IN MY NECK OF THE WOODS -- I'LL GIVE YOU

AN EXAMPLE. THE BARKER SCHOOL DISTRICT. VERY, VERY SMALL. K-12 IS

ALL IN THE SAME BUILDING. SO EVERYONE'S USING THE SAME LIBRARY. WHILE

SOMETHING MIGHT BE AGE AND DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR MAYBE A

SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL, SOMETHING MIGHT NOT BE -- THE VERY SAME BOOK

VERY WELL MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR A 6TH, 7TH OR 8TH GRADER. SO HOW

DOES THIS BILL HELP THAT? DOES -- DOES THIS DO ANYTHING TO ALLEVIATE ANY

353

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OF THAT OR ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: I MEAN, IT WOULD STILL COMPLY WITH

AGE APPROPRIATE MATERIAL. I MEAN, FROM ALL PRACTICALITY, I WORKED IN THE

SCHOOL LIBRARIES. THERE WOULD BE A SECTION FOR YOUNG ADULTS, YOU

KNOW, YOUNGER AND IT'S UP TO THE LIBRARIANS TO CURATE AND ENSURE THAT

THE MATERIAL BEING DISTRIBUTED IS AGE APPROPRIATE.

MR. BOLOGNA: GOT IT. AND AGAIN, I -- I CAN

REMEMBER MS. STANSEL (PHONETIC) MY HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARIAN, I LOVED HER

FROM -- SHE WAS NOT ONLY A LIBRARY SPECIALIST, SHE WAS A LIBRARY RESOURCE

SPECIALIST. SO OUR LIBRARY SPECIALISTS DO AMAZING THINGS FOR STUDENTS IN

TERMS OF NOT ONLY GIVING US BOOKS, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, TEACHING US

HOW TO LEARN AND HOW TO RESEARCH.

BUT ACTUALLY, I HAD A VERY INTERESTING CONVERSATION

WITH A TEACHER FROM THE STARPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT IN MY DISTRICT OFFICE

ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC BILL. AND A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT

CONTEXT, BUT BASICALLY HER POINT WAS THAT PEOPLE ARE HUMAN, HUMANS

MAKE MISTAKES. WHILE THERE MAY BE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT

EVERY LIBRARY SPECIALIST CAN READ EVERY PAGE OF EVERY BOOK TO KNOW.

SHE IS AN ENGLISH TEACHER; SHE ASSIGNED A BOOK TO HER CLASS TO READ.

THE NEXT DAY ANOTHER TEACHER SAID, OH, HEY. DID YOU READ CHAPTER SIX

HERE? WE NEED -- IT WAS VERY EXPLICIT. SO THEY ACTUALLY PULLED THE

BOOK. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY SAFEGUARDS THAT THIS

WOULD CREATE THAT WOULD KIND OF HELP OVERSIGHT THAT? OR, IS THERE A LIST

OF CURRICULUM THAT -- THAT WE'RE NOW GIVING SCHOOLS? LIKE, WHAT

354

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

EXACTLY DOES THIS LEGISLATION DO?

MR. SIMONE: IT SIMPLY EMPOWERS LIBRARIANS TO PICK

THE MOST DIVERSE SET OF BOOKS FOR STUDENTS THAT'S DEVELOPMENTALLY

APPROPRIATE.

MR. BOLOGNA: THAT'S -- OKAY. THAT'S FAIR. AND

AGAIN, I JUST -- WHAT IS STATE ED AND THE COMMISSIONER OF ED'S ROLE IN

THIS -- IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS? ANYTHING?

MR. SIMONE: SHE WOULD SET THE GUIDELINES AND THE

POLICY, OR HE.

MR. BOLOGNA: OKAY. AND HOW IS THE

COMMISSIONER OF STATE ED PUT THERE? HOW IS SHE APPOINTED?

MR. SIMONE: BY THE GOVERNMENT. NO, THE BOARD

OF REGENTS. I MEANT TO SAY BOARD OF REGENTS.

MR. BOLOGNA: GOT IT. AND HOW IS THE BOARD OF

REGENTS APPOINTED?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: THEY'RE ELECTED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

MR. BOLOGNA: GOT IT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I

THOUGHT. SORRY, JUST HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE I

HAVE ALL MY NOTES HERE. AND -- OH, DOES THE -- ARE WE EXPECTING THE

DEFINITION OF -- AND I KNOW WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ONE, BUT -- WELL,

YOU JUST WROTE, OR WHAT YOU JUST READ TO ME THE, DEFINITION OF

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE. DOES THAT -- IS THAT MEANT TO CHANGE AND

EVOLVE OVER TIME? AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. WHEN I WAS IN 6TH

GRADE, THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS WERE VERY CONTROVERSIAL. NOT SO MUCH

355

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ANYMORE. IS -- IS THIS LANGUAGE -- DO YOU INTERPRET IT AS SOMETHING THAT

IS MEANT TO CHANGE AND EVOLVE AS SOCIETY EVOLVES?

MR. SIMONE: I DIDN'T STUDY LIBRARY SCIENCE, BUT I

TRUST OUR LIBRARIANS.

MR. BOLOGNA: FAIR ENOUGH. THANK -- MR.

SIMONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. BOLOGNA: I THINK THAT WE WOULD -- CAN ALL

AGREE AND I WANT TO BE EXTREMELY APPROPRIATE WHEN I'M SAYING THIS, I

THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT HAVING A WIDE ARRAY OF OPINIONS,

BACKGROUNDS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S ETHNIC, SEXUAL ORIENTATION,

RELIGIOUS, INFORMATION MAKES US BETTER AS PEOPLE, BETTER AS A SOCIETY. I

-- I THINK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, ONE OF THE DRIVING THINGS THAT MAKE --

MOVE OUR SOCIETY FORWARD. AND, I MEAN, BEING IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY,

IT ALSO, YOU KNOW, HELPS EDUCATE OUR ELECTORATE AS WELL. I DO HAVE

CONCERNS WITH THE PARENTAL PORTION OF THIS AS MY COLLEAGUE POINTED OUT.

AS A PARENT OF SMALL CHILDREN, I KNOW THAT I WILL BE VERY ACTIVE IN

TERMS OF WHAT -- WHAT MY KIDS ARE BRINGING HOME. BUT I -- I -- I'M NOT

SURE IF EVERYONE -- EVERYONE'S PARENTS WILL BE THAT WAY. SO I -- I DO

WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A -- A -- A LEVEL OF -- OF PARENTAL

OVERSIGHT IN TERMS OF ALL THIS.

SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER AND THANK

YOU, MR. SIMONE FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DURSO.

356

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. SIMONE: YES, I WILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MR. SIMONE. SO, I'M

GONNA ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND THEY'VE PROBABLY BEEN ASKED

ALREADY, BUT I JUST KIND OF WANT TO TIE IT TOGETHER. SO, WHEN YOU SAID

THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION IS GOING TO BE EMPOWERED TO DEVELOP

POLICY, CORRECT? ARE THEY EMPOWERED TO DEVELOP POLICY NOW?

MR. SIMONE: YES.

MR. DURSO: SO WHY DO WE NEED THIS?

MR. SIMONE: THIS IS JUST TO --

(CONFERENCING)

-- THIS IS JUST TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO ENSURE THAT WE

HAVE A DIVERSE SET OF -- OF BOOKS AND ACCESS AND THE COMMISSIONER

WILL SET A POLICY. BUT IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE SCHOOL BOARDS, IT DOESN'T

ELIMINATE PARENT CONSENT.

MR. DURSO: AND I -- I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT WHAT I'M

-- AND AGAIN, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BILL LANGUAGE. THE

BILL IS LITERALLY EMPOWERING THE COMMISSIONER TO DEVELOP THAT POLICY,

BUT THE COMMISSIONER COULD DO IT CURRENTLY NOW. WHAT IS THE POLICY

NOW WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT BOOKS CAN OR CANNOT BE PUT IN A SCHOOL

LIBRARY THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN A BILL TO SAY EMPOWER THE COMMISSIONER

357

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TO DEVELOP A POLICY? WHAT IS THE CURRENT POLICY?

MR. SIMONE: RIGHT NOW, IT'S ON THE DISTRICT LEVEL.

THIS -- THIS EMPOWERS HER AND DIRECTS HER TO GIVE GUIDANCE. FOR

INSTANCE, IF A DISTRICT THEY FELT DID NOT HAVE DEVELOPMENTALLY

APPROPRIATE AND DIVERSE MATERIAL, SHE -- SHE OR HE COULD GIVE GUIDANCE

THAT THE LIBRARY SHOULD.

MR. DURSO: GOT IT. SO AS OF -- THE WAY IT PRESENTLY

CONSUETUDE BEFORE THIS BILL, IT'S REALLY UP TO THE DISTRICT, CORRECT?

MR. SIMONE: THEY HAVE A SAY. THEY STILL HAVE --

THEY STILL HAVE A VETO.

MR. DURSO: NO, NO, NO. I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN

BEFORE YOUR BILL. I MEANT CURRENTLY NOW, TODAY, OR YESTERDAY. YOU'RE

SAYING IT'S THE -- THE -- THE POWER LOSS WITH THE DISTRICT ON WHAT THE

SCHOOL LIBRARIAN AND SUPERINTENDENT AND THE SCHOOL BOARD ALL COME UP

WITH WHAT THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE, RIGHT?

MR. SIMONE: YES.

MR. DURSO: NOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, WE'RE

LEAVING IT UP TO THE COMMISSIONER BECAUSE YOU FEEL THAT -- OR -- OR

MAYBE THEY FEEL THAT SOME SCHOOLS ARE ESSENTIALLY NOT DOING THE RIGHT

THING, SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING THE POWER AWAY FROM THE DISTRICTS,

BRINGING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER AND THE DISTRICTS CAN ADVISE

ESSENTIALLY, OR -- OR MAKE AN APPEAL ONCE THE COMMISSIONER COMES

DOWN WITH THEIR RULING, CORRECT?

MR. SIMONE: IT SIMPLY EMPOWERS OUR LIBRARIANS.

MR. DURSO: NO, UNDERSTOOD, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW --

358

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT -- THE -- THE BILL DOESN'T TAKE AWAY THAT

ESSENTIALLY LOCAL CONTROL, RIGHT?

MR. SIMONE: IT DOES NOT.

MR. DURSO: BUT, THE CONTROL RIGHT NOW IS WITH THE

LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. WE'RE GIVING IT TO THE COMMISSIONER. SO ISN'T

THAT LITERALLY TAKING AWAY THE CONTROL LOCALLY?

MR. SIMONE: IT'S JUST FOR THEM TO COLLABORATE TO

ENSURE THAT THERE MAY BE A BOOK THAT'S MISSING FROM THEIR CURRICULUM

THAT STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO.

MR. DURSO: RIGHT. SO AGAIN, IT'S -- IT'S THE CURRENT

WAY THE LAW IS CONSTITUTED IS UP TO THE DISTRICT. WE'RE NOW GIVING THE

COMMISSIONER THE POWER TO CREATE THE POLICY THAT THEN THE SCHOOL

DISTRICT HAS TO FOLLOW.

MR. SIMONE: YEAH. SO THE BILL DOES A LOT.

MR. DURSO: SO WE'RE TAKING THE POWER AWAY FROM

THE DISTRICT?

MR. SIMONE: NO. THEY STILL HAVE THE POWER. IF --

MR. DURSO: WHAT POWER DO THEY HAVE?

MR. SIMONE: SAY -- SAY YOU'RE A PARENT --

MR. DURSO: YES, SIR.

MR. SIMONE: -- AND YOU WANT TO LEARN ABOUT RACISM

MR. DURSO: SURE.

MR. SIMONE: -- OR -- OR THE FACT THAT I FOUGHT FOR

MY CIVIL RIGHTS TO GET MARRIED --

359

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: SURE.

MR. SIMONE: -- YOU CAN TELL THE -- AS A PARENT, YOU

CAN SAY, I DON'T WANT THAT BOOK BEING SHOWN TO MY CHILD.

MR. DURSO: RIGHT.

MR. SIMONE: A SCHOOL BOARD CAN WEIGH IN. WE

FEEL THIS BILL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS SOME

LIBRARY (INDISCERNIBLE) UNDER ASSAULT AND ATTACK AND SOME ARE BEING

TOLD THAT THESE BOOKS SHOULD NOT BE THERE EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR A TEENAGER. FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS A

CASE I BELIEVE IN SYRACUSE WHERE SEAHORSES, IT'S A SCIENCE BOOK --

MR. DURSO: YEP.

MR. SIMONE: -- A MALE CARRIES THE BABY FROM THE

FEMALE, EVEN THOUGH THE FEMALE GIVES BIRTH AND THEY FELT THAT WAS

INAPPROPRIATE AT A HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL. SO THE COMMISSIONER CAN GIVE

GUIDANCE AND SAY, NO, THAT BOOK SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT LIBRARY.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. UNDERSTOOD, AND I AGREE

BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S SILLY. BUT MY POINT OF THIS AND -- AND I

UNDERSTAND THE OVERARCHING POINT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE, BUT MY --

MY POINT COMES DOWN TO THIS; YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE SCHOOL -- OKAY SO,

LET ME BACK UP. WHAT IS THE MECHANISM ONCE THIS BILL GOES INTO PLACE

IF A PARENT AND/OR SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOL BOARD HAS AN ISSUE WITH

CONTENT THAT'S IN THE LIBRARY?

MR. SIMONE: AS I SAID BEFORE, THEY COULD GIVE A

LOCAL -- THEY COULD DO -- THERE'S A PROCESS. THEY CAN HAVE A LOCAL

CHALLENGE WITH MATERIALS CHALLENGED AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL --

360

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: RIGHT.

MR. SIMONE: -- THEY CAN BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE

DISTRICT FOR REVIEW BY THE SCHOOL BOARD, WHICH CAN RESULT IN RETENTION,

RESTRICTION, OR REMOVAL OF THAT MATERIAL IF THEY DEEM IT DEVELOPMENTALLY

INAPPROPRIATE.

MR. DURSO: OKAY.

MR. SIMONE: FOR INSTANCE, (CROSS-TALK) VIOLENT

BOOKS --

MR. DURSO: SURE. I DONT -- I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU

OFF --

MR. SIMONE: (CROSS-TALK) HOW THEY CAN SAY THAT'S

NOT APPROPRIATE.

MR. DURSO: I APOLOGIZE, SIR. I DON'T WANT TO CUT -- I

JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH YOU, JUST SO I'M UNDERSTANDING

IT. SO, I'M A PARENT IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MY CHILD COMES HOME TO

ME AND SAYS, SUCH AND SUCH BOOKS IN THERE. I AS THE PARENT GO, I DON'T

FEEL THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I THEN AS THE PARENT, THIS IS WITH YOUR BILL GOING

IN PLACE, I AS A PARENT THEN GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, MAKE A COMPLAINT.

THE SCHOOL BOARD THEN TAKES A VOTE, RIGHT AND SAYS, WE -- WE AGREE THIS

BOOK SHOULD NOT BE IN THE SCHOOL. THE SCHOOL BOARD THEN HAS THE

POWER TO TELL THE LIBRARIAN TO TAKE THAT BOOK OUT? OR DOES IT THEN HAVE

TO GO TO COURT?

MR. SIMONE: THEY DO.

MR. DURSO: SO THE -- THE SCHOOL BOARD, AGAIN JUST

SO I HAVE THIS ON THE RECORD: I'M A PARENT, I COMPLAIN ABOUT A BOOK

361

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ABOUT SEAHORSES. AGAIN, I AGREE WITH YOU, SIR, SILLY EXAMPLE. I WOULD

NEVER COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT. BUT I GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AS THE PARENT,

THE SCHOOL BOARD VOTES TO SAY, WE AGREE, WE WANT TO TAKE THAT BOOK OUT.

THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE PROCESS, THEY THEN CAN TELL THE LIBRARIAN, YOU'RE

GOING TO NOW REMOVE THAT BOOK FROM THE SCHOOL AND THAT'S IT? OR, CAN

THE LIBRARIAN THEN MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSIONER AND HAVE

THAT BOOK REINSTATED?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY SPEAK TO THAT, BUT

THE SCHOOL BOARD CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION IF THEY FEEL THE BOOK IS

INAPPROPRIATE.

MR. DURSO: WELL, YOU SAID THEY CAN MAKE A

DETERMINATION. DOES THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY GET REMOVED FROM THE

SCHOOL, OR IS THERE A MECHANISM IN PLACE FOR THAT LIBRARIAN, OR THE

COMMISSIONER, TO SAY, NO, THAT'S GOING TO GO BACK IN THE SCHOOL?

MR. SIMONE: WELL, IT'S AN APPEAL PROCESS. IT WOULD

BE CASE BY CASE.

MR. DURSO: SO, DOES EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE

AUTOMATICALLY GO TO AN APPEAL PROCESS WITH THE COMMISSIONER?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: NO.

MR. DURSO: NO.

MR. SIMONE: IT WOULD BE DEPENDING ON THE APPEAL

OR -- OR HOW THE SCHOOL BOARD RULED, OR -- I MEAN, EVERY -- EVERY DISTRICT

WOULD BE DIFFERENT LIKE I SAID.

362

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. DURSO: WELL, OF COURSE, BUT I'M SAYING LET'S

SAY THE SCHOOL BOARD RULED THAT IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE AGE, RIGHT, OR

WHATEVER -- WHATEVER THE COMPLAINT IS. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT AT THAT

MOMENT, ONCE THE SCHOOL BOARD MAKES THAT RULING, THE LIBRARIAN AND THE

SCHOOL GETS THAT BOOK REMOVED. THE APPEAL PROCESS, YOU'RE TALKING

ABOUT THIS -- WHO'S MAKING THAT APPEAL? WHO'S ASKING FOR THE APPEAL?

IS IT THE LIBRARIAN? AND WHO DO THEY MAKE IT TO?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: IT -- IT -- IT MOST LIKELY WOULD BE THE

PARENT, AND SHE -- AND THEY CAN FILE, AS I SAID EARLIER --

MR. DURSO: RIGHT. THEY -- IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH

THE SCHOOL BOARD'S RULING TO TAKE THE BOOK OUT.

MR. SIMONE: RIGHT.

MR. DURSO: I'M SAYING IF THE SCHOOL BOARD SAYS,

YES, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE BOOK OUT. AND THE LIBRARIAN DISAGREES

WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, WHAT IS THE APPEAL PROCESS THEN? DOES THE

LIBRARIAN GET TO APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER?

MR. SIMONE: WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF

THE APPEAL PROCESS.

MR. DURSO: WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS?

MR. SIMONE: NO.

MR. DURSO: ISN'T THAT PART OF THE BILL?

MR. SIMONE: I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT LANGUAGE TO THE

APPEAL PROCESS.

MR. DURSO: BUT I'M SAYING THAT'S KIND OF AN

363

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IMPORTANT PART OF THE BILL BECAUSE MY CONCERN, OR ANYBODY'S CONCERN

WOULD BE AND -- AND NOT IN -- JUST IN REGARDS TO THIS BILL BUT IN ANY BILL,

IF WE'RE EMPOWERING THE SCHOOL BOARD TO MAKE THAT DECISION THROUGH A

VOTE AND THEN THE LIBRARIAN CAN APPEAL IT, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT

HAPPENS NEXT. MY QUESTION IS, CAN THE COMMISSIONER JUST SAY, NO,

YOU'RE WRONG. DOES IT HAVE TO GO TO A COURT? LIKE, THERE'S GOT TO BE A

NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS.

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: NORMALLY IF THERE IS AN APPEAL, THE --

THE COMMISSIONER CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION. YEAH.

MR. DURSO: SO THE COMMISSIONER HAS ALL THE

POWER?

MR. SIMONE: YES. IN THAT REGARD, YES.

MR. DURSO: RIGHT. SO THE SCHOOL BOARD REALLY

DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER BECAUSE AGAIN, IF A SCHOOL BOARD DECIDES

WHETHER THIS BOOK'S INAPPROPRIATE, RIGHT, THE LIBRARIAN CAN APPEAL TO THE

COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER CAN SAY, PUT THE SCHOOL -- THE --

THE BOOK BACK IN THE SCHOOL. WHATEVER THE BOOK IS. AND AGAIN, I'M

NOT AGREEING, DISAGREEING, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A -- AN UNDERSTANDING

OF HOW THE BILL'S SET. THIS ESSENTIALLY TAKES ALL THE POWER AWAY FROM

THE SCHOOL BOARD EXCEPT FOR ONE PROCESS WHERE THEY CAN RULE, BUT THEN

THE COMMISSIONER CAN OVERRULE THEM AT ANY TIME.

MR. SIMONE: I MEAN, IT'S A CASE BY CASE SCENARIO,

BUT YES.

MR. DURSO: SO WE'RE GIVING THE POWER TO THE

364

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

COMMISSIONER?

MR. SIMONE: SOME OF THE POWER.

MR. DURSO: WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF IT.

MR. SIMONE: WELL, I THINK IF A SCHOOL BOARD

ANNOUNCED THEY WANTED TO REMOVE SOMETHING AND THE PARENTS DIDN'T

WANT IT THERE --

MR. DURSO: NO. I'M SAYING IF THE PARENTS WANTED

IT REMOVED AND THE SCHOOL BOARD SAID, OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE IT.

AND THE LIBRARIAN SAYS, NO. I'M THE LIBRARIAN, I FEEL IT'S AGE

APPROPRIATE. AND THEY APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER, THE

COMMISSIONER COULD THEN OVERRULE THE SCHOOL BOARD AT ANY TIME.

MR. SIMONE: THEY COULD.

MR. DURSO: YES. SO, WE TOOK THE -- SO JUST ONE

FINAL QUESTION --

MR. SIMONE: BECAUSE THE BILL DOES DO SOMETHING

VERY IMPORTANT.

MR. DURSO: YES -- YES. IT TAKES POWER AWAY FROM

THE SCHOOL BOARD.

MR. SIMONE: IF THE SCHOOL BOARD IS WRONG.

MR. DURSO: WHAT IF THEY'RE RIGHT?

MR. SIMONE: WELL, IT DEPENDS.

MR. DURSO: WELL, I MEAN IT DOESN'T JUST HAVE TO BE

A BOOK, SIR. AND I AGREE WITH YOU; WHETHER IT'S ABOUT LEARNING ABOUT

YOUR FAMILY, AS YOU SAID, WHICH I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH. THERE'S

LEARNING ABOUT THE SEAHORSES, WHICH I HONESTLY THINK IS -- IS RIDICULOUS.

365

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BUT WHAT IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S VIOLENT? WHAT IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT

IS -- IT'S -- IT'S ANTI-TRANSGENDER? WHAT IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS

PRO-NAZI AND THEY WANT IT REMOVED FROM THE SCHOOL? IT'S -- IT WORKS

BOTH WAYS AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. WE'RE TAKING AS WE SAID IN THE

BEGINNING AND NOW WE KIND OF FLUSHED IT OUT, THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS

POWER, BUT NOT REALLY BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, THE -- THE COMMISSIONER

MAKES THE FINAL DECISION EVEN IN AN APPEAL.

MR. SIMONE: RIGHT. WE WOULD HOPE IF THERE'S A

PRO-NAZI BOOK THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD BE AGAINST IT --

MR. DURSO: I AGREE. I AGREE WITH YOU, SIR.

MR. SIMONE: -- AND THE PARENTS WOULD AGREE AND

THE COMMISSIONER WOULD AGREE.

MR. DURSO: ABSOLUTELY. I AGREE WITH YOU.

MR. SIMONE: BECAUSE MOST OF US KNOW THAT WE'RE

ANTI-NAZI.

MR. DURSO: OF COURSE. I'M JUST USING THE

COMPLETE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE COIN EXAMPLE OF HOW IT COULD BACKFIRE

ON ANYBODY. SO AGAIN, COMMISSIONER HAS ALL THE POWER.

MY FINAL QUESTION WAS, CAN A LIBRARIAN WHO REFUSES TO

REMOVE A BOOK FILE A WRONGFUL TERMINATION LAWSUIT AND GET -- WHEN

THEY GET FIRED FOR NOT COMPLYING?

(CONFERENCING)

MR. SIMONE: THIS LEGISLATION DOESN'T SPEAK TO THAT

SPECIFIC.

MR. DURSO: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. SIMONE. I

366

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

MR. SIMONE: THANK YOU.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

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.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WITH GENERALLY BE OPPOSED TO THIS PIECE OF

LEGISLATION; HOWEVER, ANY MEMBERS WHO WISH TO VOTE YES MAY DO SO AT

THEIR DESKS RIGHT NOW.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. THE MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS PIECE

OF LEGISLATION. PERIOD. PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO BOOKS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. SIMONE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. SIMONE: TO EXPLAIN TO MY VOTE. I WISH

LEGISLATION LIKE THIS WASN'T NECESSARY IN THIS DAY AND AGE. BUT AS WE'VE

SEEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY THERE'S BEEN THOUSANDS OF ATTEMPTS TO BAN

367

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BOOKS THROUGHOUT OUR NATION. I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE PERSONAL STORY.

SO I GREW UP A CLOSESTED GAY MAN IN A VERY CATHOLIC, MIDDLE-CLASS,

BLUE-COLLAR FAMILY. MY FATHER WHO DIDN'T MEAN TO AND MY

GRANDMOTHER OFTEN SAID HOMOPHOBIC THINGS IN FRONT OF ME, NOT

REALIZING WHO I WAS. I WORKED IN A LIBRARY. I SAW SOUGHT REFUGE BEFORE

-- BETWEEN THE SHELVES. I READ ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE LIKE ME, I READ ABOUT

LGBT HISTORY. IT MADE ME LESS SCARED, LESS NERVOUS, IT EMPOWERED

ME.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL, FREEDOM TO READ, IS THE

FREEDOM OF IDEAS, IT'S THE FREEDOM TO ACKNOWLEDGE OTHER CULTURES.

RIGHT NOW WITH AN ASSAULT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND WASHINGTON

DOWN ON WHAT WE SHOULD THINK, WHAT WE SHOULD READ. LOOK, I WANT TO

PUSH THIS BILL BECAUSE THERE SHOULD BE NO POLITICAL AGENDA IN OUR

LIBRARY SYSTEM. I TRUST LIBRARIANS, I TRUST OUR TEACHERS, I TRUST OUR

PARENTS. IF YOUR PARENTS DON'T WANT -- SOMEONE'S PARENTS DON'T WANT TO

READ ABOUT BEING GAY, OR THE FACT THAT HIV AIDS EXISTS, OR THE FACT THAT

THIS COUNTRY HAS A HISTORY OF RACISM, OR THE FACT THAT THERE WAS FASCISM

BEFORE AND MAY EVEN BE HAPPENING -- ACTUALLY, IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT

NOW IN THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU COULD TELL THE LIBRARIAN THAT I DON'T WANT

MY KID TO READ THAT BOOK. BUT WHAT WE'VE FOUND OUT THROUGH HISTORY,

WHENEVER WE'VE TRIED TO BAN BOOKS, MORE KIDS WANTED TO READ IT. IN

THE SOVIET UNION WHEN THEY TRIED TO BAN BOOKS ABOUT FREE-LOVING

COUNTRIES AND DEMOCRACY, MORE SOVIETS TRIED SO HARD TO IMPORT THOSE

BOOKS. AND RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE SEEING ACROSS THIS NATION, EVEN IN

NEW YORK, OVER 46 ATTEMPTS --

368

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU, MR.

SIMONE. HOW DO YOU VOTE?

MR. SIMONE: -- 12 SUCCESSFUL. SO, I VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE AND PROUD TO HAVE -- MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE FREEDOM

TO READ.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. SIMONE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

MR. BOLOGNA TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. BOLOGNA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

AGAIN, WITH -- WITH AS MUCH SENSITIVITY AND APPROPRIATENESS AND

RESPECTFULNESS AS POSSIBLE, MY -- MY COLLEAGUE HERE WAS ABLE TO KIND

OF GET TO THE CRUX OF -- OF WHY I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. AND MY

BIGGEST CONCERN ULTIMATELY IS THAT WE'RE -- I FEEL WE'RE GIVING TOO MUCH

POWER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF

EDUCATION. I REMEMBER YEARS AGO, EVERYONE LOST THEIR MINDS OVER THE

WHOLE COMMON CORE THING. I REMEMBER SHOWING TO A NUMBER OF

THINGS WHERE THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION WAS -- WAS BEING -- WAS

FORCING A LOT OF STUFF ON OUR SCHOOLS THAT PARENTS AND EDUCATORS WERE

NOT SUPPORTING AND I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF A LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD NOT

HAVING THE ABILITY TO ULTIMATELY MAKE THE DECISION FOR WHAT'S

HAPPENING IN -- IN THEIR SCHOOL. IT'S AN ELECTED BODY BY A LOCAL

COMMUNITY AND AS A PARENT OF A STUDENT THAT IS GOING TO BE IN A PUBLIC

SCHOOL, I TRUST MY SCHOOL BOARD.

SO, FOR THAT REASON, THAT I BELIEVE IN LOCAL CONTROL, NOT

STATE CONTROL, I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.

369

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. BOLOGNA IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MR. DURSO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. DURSO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I THANK THE SPONSOR FOR TAKING THE QUESTIONS AND --

AND HEARING HIS STORY, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. AND LISTEN, I HAVE -- I

HAVE TWO YOUNG GIRLS, BOTH SCHOOL-AGED, 13 AND NINE AND I WANT THEM

TO READ BOOKS AND I DON'T BELIEVE BOOKS SHOULD BE BANNED. AND I THINK

THAT KIDS -- AND I KNOW WHAT ME AND MY WIFE DO WITH OUR CHILDREN, WE

MAKE SURE OUR KIDS LEARN HISTORY AND THE REAL HISTORY AND EVERYBODY'S

HISTORY AND LEARN ABOUT ALL PEOPLE AND RESPECT ALL PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT I

DO AS A PARENT TO MAKE SURE THAT MY CHILDREN GROW UP THE WAY I FEEL

THAT THEY SHOULD, WHICH IS ACCEPTING OF EVERYONE. BUT THAT WASN'T MY

PROBLEM WITH THE BILL AT ALL, ACTUALLY. I WANTED TO VOTE YES. I -- I -- I

WISH MR. SIMONE GAVE ME A DIFFERENT ANSWER WHEN I SAID TO HIM, DOES

ALL THE POWER GO BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER? AND HE RELUCTANTLY SAID

YES, BUT HE DID SAY YES, SO I APPRECIATE IT.

AGAIN, OUR LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS ARE ELECTED FOR A

REASON. THEY'RE ELECTED BY THE PARENTS IN OUR DISTRICTS TO PROTECT OUR

CHILDREN AND THEY'RE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEY ARE THE CLOSEST

ELECTED OFFICIALS TO OUR CHILDREN AND TO OUR SCHOOLS AND CIRCUMVENTING

THEM WITH THE COMMISSIONER, I THINK IS A PROBLEM AND NOT -- AND THEM

NOT HAVING A SAY. SO AGAIN, IT'S -- IT'S -- IT'S REALLY ONLY ABOUT LOCAL

CONTROL AND GIVING ALL THE POWER TO ONE PERSON TO DECIDE THINGS FOR

MANY.

370

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SO UNFORTUNATELY AND I WISH MR. SIMONE GAVE ME A

DIFFERENT ANSWER, BUT I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. DURSO IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MR. FITZPATRICK TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. FITZPATRICK: YEAH, THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER, TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THE -- MY LOCAL LIBRARY HAS BEEN IN THE --

IN THE -- THE HOT SEAT WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE. AND IT IS NOT ABOUT

BANNING BOOKS. IT IS NOT. PEOPLE, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PERSUASION,

THEY'RE ALL TAXPAYERS. THEY PAY TAXES, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO READ WHAT

THEY WANT TO READ IN A LOCAL LIBRARY AND BY EXTENSION YOU HAVE THE

SCHOOL LIBRARY FOR THE CHILDREN. BUT WHAT THE ISSUE IS REALLY ALL ABOUT

AND IT WAS -- THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN MY LOCAL LIBRARY, IS THAT THE

CONTROVERSY AROSE ABOUT EXPOSURE TO THE CHILDREN IN THE CHILDREN'S

SECTION OF THE LIBRARY, THE YOUNGEST CHILDREN, THE CONTENT OF SOME OF

THOSE BOOKS WAS DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE BY A MAJORITY OF THE PARENTS

AND THAT'S WHAT STARTED THIS CONTROVERSY. AND THEREFORE -- SO THE

OPPONENTS SAY, OH, YOU'RE TRYING TO BAN A BOOK. NO, PUT THOSE BOOKS IN

THE ADULT SECTION AND LET THE ADULT TAKE THAT BOOK OUT TO SHOW THE CHILD

IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT. NO ONE IS SAYING THEY CAN'T.

SO THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT BANNING BOOKS, IT'S ABOUT

LIMITING OR NOT EXPOSING VERY YOUNG CHILDREN TO VERY EXPLICIT SEXUAL

MATERIAL IN MANY OF THESE BOOKS. AND WE ALL -- WE'VE ALL HEARD THE

TITLES AND WE ALL -- WE'VE ALL SEEN THESE PAGES, SO YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY

WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. IT'S NOT ABOUT

371

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BANNING BOOKS, IT'S -- IT'S THE FREEDOM TO READ HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE

AND ALWAYS WILL BE THERE. I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THE ATTACKS ON THE

PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE'S TRYING TO TELL US WHAT TO THINK, THAT'S NONSENSE.

KIDS WILL LEARN -- I HAVE NO PROBLEM TEACHING THEM ABOUT YOUR CIVIL

RIGHTS, NO MATTER WHO OR WHAT YOU ARE. BUT IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT

PEOPLE OF A CERTAIN -- WHATEVER THEY ARE, FEEL IT'S OKAY TO EXPOSE VERY

YOUNG CHILDREN TO VERY SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL AND IF YOU BELIEVE

THAT'S OKAY, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A CULTURE WAR OVER THIS ISSUE. IT'S

INAPPROPRIATE NO MATTER WHO OR WHAT YOU ARE TO EXPOSE VERY YOUNG

CHILDREN TO VERY SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL IN A PUBLIC LIBRARY OR IN A

SCHOOL LIBRARY. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT AND THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING NO.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. FITZPATRICK IN

THE NEGATIVE.

MR. GANDOLFO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

AND I DO APPRECIATE THE SPONSOR'S TIME IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION [SIC]

AND SHARING HIS STORY. LIKE MY COLLEAGUE BEHIND ME, I WAS REALLY

LOOKING FOR A WAY TO GET TO A YES VOTE HERE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I DO FEEL

THAT TOO MUCH POWER RESIDES WITH THE COMMISSIONER AND NOT WITH THE

LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS.

BUT I -- WE JUST HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE TERM BANNING

BOOKS. DETERMINING THAT A BOOK IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN OF A

CERTAIN AGE DUE TO A SEXUALLY EXPLICIT NATURE IS NOT BANNING A BOOK.

YOU CAN STILL WALK DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL BOOKSTORE AND BUY THE BOOK, IT'S

NOT BANNED. IF A PARENT DECIDES THEY DO WANT TO SHOW THAT TO THEIR

372

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CHILD, THEY COULD ORDER IT ON AMAZON, THEY COULD GO TO THEIR LOCAL

BOOKSTORE. WE HAD AN ISSUE IN ONE OF MY SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHERE ONE OF

THE BOOKS THAT WAS FOUND, EVEN THOUGH A LOT OF KIDS DIDN'T CHECK IT OUT,

BUT ONE OF THE BOOKS THAT WAS FOUND HAD VERY EXPLICIT DEPICTIONS IN IT

AND QUITE FRANKLY, IF I LEFT A COPY OF THOSE PAGES ON YOUR DESKS, I WOULD

BE APPEARING BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. SO IT'S NOT ABOUT BANNING

BOOKS AND TRYING TO NOT TEACH HISTORY, I THINK THE WHOLE -- EVERYONE'S

HISTORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT. WHETHER IT'S A RACIAL MINORITY, WHETHER IT'S

THE STRUGGLE FOR GAY RIGHTS, BUT IT -- WHEN YOU GET INTO THE ARGUMENT OF

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE, YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE PARENTS AND SCHOOL

BOARDS.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. GANDOLFO IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MS. SHIMSKY TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. SHIMSKY: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE MY GRATITUDE TO THE SPEAKER AND TO THE BILL

SPONSOR FOR BRINGING THIS LEGISLATION FORWARD. DEMOCRACY WILL NOT

LONG SURVIVE WITHOUT THE INTELLECTUAL DISCIPLINE THAT IS PROVIDED BY

READING BOOKS. AND THE BOOKS WILL NOT BE READ UNLESS THEY ENGAGE THE

-- EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL STUDENT, WHETHER THEY CHALLENGE THEM,

WHETHER SPEAK TO THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCE OR NOT. IN MY STUDIES OF HISTORY

THROUGHOUT MY LIFE IN GRADUATE SCHOOL AND OUT, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE

MORE YOU RESTRICT WHAT IS READ IN ANY CONTEXT, THE CLOSER YOU GET TO

373

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CORRODING NOT ONLY THE MINDS WHO ARE RELYING ON THOSE BOOKS BUT

CORRODING THE VERY BASIS OF DEMOCRACY.

ELECTED BODIES DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT WHAT

SHOULD BE READ BY ADULTS. CERTAINLY, THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THAT'S

THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE WAY THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS BEEN

INTERPRETED, IT'S UP TO LEGISLATURES TO PROVIDE SOME PARAMETERS. BUT IT'S

NOT UP TO A LEGISLATIVE BODY WHETHER IT'S A SCHOOL BOARD OR A STATE

LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE WHETHER A BOOK ABOUT FARTING, WHETHER A BOOK

ABOUT SEXUAL ABUSE OF A TEENAGER IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT AND IT'S ACTUALLY

HELPFUL TO DEVELOP A YOUNG MIND.

MADAM SPEAKER, I AM AS PROUD OF THIS VOTE AS I'VE

BEEN FOR ANY IN MY TIME HERE. I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. SHIMSKY IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. GLICK TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. GLICK: WELL, THANK YOU, MS. SPEAKER. I RISE TO

THANK THE SPONSOR FOR THE BILL AND TO GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT. YOU KNOW,

I'M -- I'M AMAZED WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT KIDS CAN SEE ON TIKTOK,

WHAT KIDS CAN SEE ON TV. MY FATHER WOULD'VE HAD A HEART ATTACK IF

HE'D SEE SOME OF THE ADS THAT ARE ON TV TODAY. AND WHETHER IT'S THE

FULL BODY DEODORANT, WHICH I THINK IS A SCAM, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. MY --

MY FATHER WOULD HAVE BEEN SO EMBARRASSED, THE TV WOULD HAVE BEEN

LIKE, SHUT OFF AND MOVED INTO ANOTHER ROOM. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, I

GREW UP AT A TIME WHEN I KNEW WHO I WAS, BUT THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER

PEOPLE LIKE ME. AND THE ONLY REFUGE WOULD HAVE BEEN BOOKS, BUT

374

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THERE WEREN'T ANY BOOKS FOR THAT, SO YOU HAD TO LOOK IN THE DICTIONARY.

LIKE WHO AM I? WHAT AM I? AND THERE ARE KIDS ALL OVER THIS STATE, IN

SMALL TOWNS AND BIG CITIES WHO ARE STILL GOING THROUGH THE SAME THING.

AND JUST BECAUSE PARENTS HAVE THEIR KNICKERS IN A TWIST ABOUT IT AND ARE

UPSET AND CONCERNED IS NO REASON TO CONDEMN THAT CHILD TO THE NEGATIVE

SELF-IMAGE THAT RESULTS FROM NOT BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHO YOU ARE AND

WHAT YOU FEEL IS ACTUALLY OKAY.

I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. GLICK IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. LUNSFORD TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. LUNSFORD: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

THIS BILL IS ABOUT COLLECTIONS IN A LIBRARY, NOT WHAT CAN BE CHECKED OUT

BY INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN. THIS BILL ISN'T ABOUT WHETHER SOMEBODY CAN

SAY, I DON'T WANT MY CHILD TO READ THIS BOOK. IT'S ABOUT WHETHER

SOMEONE CAN SAY, I DON'T WANT YOUR CHILD TO READ THIS BOOK.

AND THAT'S WHY I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. LUNSFORD IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. WIEDER TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. WIEDER: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I WANT

TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SPEAK ABOUT BILL A777 AND EXPLAIN WHY I WILL BE

VOTING NO, EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD BILL ON ITS MERIT. FIRST, I

WANT TO SINCERELY THANK THE SPONSOR AND THE COSPONSORS OF THIS BILL FOR

THEIR WORK. IT'S CLEAR THAT THOUGHTFUL EFFORT WENT INTO CRAFTING

375

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

LEGISLATION THAT AIMS TO ADDRESS IMPORTANT ISSUES. THE INTENT BEHIND

THIS BILL IS SOUND AND THE PROPOSAL WITH IT COULD GENUINELY BENEFIT NEW

YORK STUDENTS AND FAMILIES. I RESPECT AND APPRECIATE THAT. THAT SAID,

MY OPPOSITION IS NOT ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BILL, IT'S ABOUT THE -- IT'S

ABOUT THE TRUST I LACK IN THE PERSON WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

IMPLEMENTING IT; THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER. I

WANT TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT PERSONAL, BUT I SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE

CONFIDENCE IN HER LEADERSHIP. I'VE OBSERVED ENOUGH OVER TIME TO

CONCLUDE THAT I CANNOT RELY ON HER TO CARRY OUT THIS BILL WITH THE

TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH THAT SUCH A

MEANINGFUL PIECE OF LEGISLATION DESERVES. NO MATTER HOW STRONG A BILL

MAY BE ON PAPER, ITS SUCCESS ULTIMATELY DEPENDS ON WHO IS ENTRUSTED TO

LEAD ITS EXECUTION. AND IN THIS CASE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT TRUST IS

WARRANTED.

SO WHILE I ACKNOWLEDGE THE VALUE OF THIS BILL AND I

APPLAUD THOSE WHO BROUGHT IT FORWARD, I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE

SUPPORT IT UNDER THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP AT THE STATE EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT. FOR THAT REASON AND THAT REASON ALONE, I WILL BE VOTING NO

ON A777.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. WIEDER IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I HAVE TO HONESTLY

SAY THAT I'M -- I'M A TAD BIT DISAPPOINTED. I HAVE HEARD JUST FROM

376

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WATCHING THE NEWS AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT NOT JUST IN LIBRARIES, BUT IN

SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND MEDICAL SCHOOLS,

PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO TAKE BOOKS OUT OF THE LIBRARY. I -- IT JUST SHATTERS

MY WHOLE HEART TO THINK THAT WE WILL BE HERE IN THIS CHAMBER FINDING

REASONS TO TAKE BOOKS OUT OF LIBRARIES. I LITERALLY JUST -- LAST YEAR, I HAD

THIS -- I GOT FOR CHRISTMAS A $50 GIFT CERTIFICATE FROM BORDER BOOKS OR

BARNS AND NOBLES [SIC], AND I TOOK MY TWO-YEAR-OLD

GREAT-GRANDDAUGHTER. SHE WAS NEVER SO HAPPY. SHE RAN RIGHT TO THE

SECTION WHERE GABBY [SIC] DOLLHOUSE WAS, SHE SAID, NANA, IT'S MY

FAVORITE. NOW, GABBY [SIC] DOLLHOUSE DISCUSSES ALL KIND OF TOPICS. I'M

NOT GOING TO SAY, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS GABBY [SIC] DOLLHOUSE BECAUSE

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, OR YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS GABBY [SIC]

DOLLHOUSE BECAUSE THEY LOOK LIKE THOSE PEOPLE ARE A DIFFERENT COLOR.

NO. SHE LIKES GABBY [SIC] DOLLHOUSE. GABBY [SIC] DOLLHOUSE TEACHES

HER THINGS. IT TEACHES HER PRINCIPLES AND VALUES AND CHARACTER. SO I AM

DISAPPOINTED THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION HERE IN 2025 WHEN

WE SHOULD BE ON OUR WAY HOME, BY THE WAY.

BUT I'M GOING TO BE VOTING FOR THIS BILL AND I HOPE THAT

WE WILL GET TO THE PLACE IN THIS SOCIETY WHERE SOMEBODY'S LITTLE, SMALL

IDEA OF SOMETHING BEING WRONG, DOESN'T GROW UP INTO A BIG IDEA WHERE

OTHER PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY BELIEVING IT AS WELL. THANK YOU TO THE

SPONSOR FOR PUTTING THIS OUT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MRS.

PEOPLES-STOKES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. CHANG TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

377

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. CHANG: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I

BELIEVE IN PARENTAL RIGHTS. AS A PARENT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE

MATERIAL IS APPROPRIATE FOR MY CHILD BECAUSE THE PARENT IS THE ULTIMATE

DECISIONMAKER TO PROTECT THEIR CHILD'S INTEREST. NOT ANYBODY ELSE.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD NO MATTER WHAT.

WHATEVER WE DO, THE CHILD DOES. WE ARE, AS PARENTS, ULTIMATELY

RESPONSIBLE. I WANT TO PRESERVE THAT PARENTAL RIGHT. I WANT TO PRESERVE

THAT RIGHT FOR THE PARENT TO SAY, THIS IS NOT RIGHT. THIS IS NOT

APPROPRIATE. UNTIL THAT CHILD TURNS 18, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

BUT BEFORE THAT, IT'S THE PARENT'S RIGHT. MUST REGULATE, MUST CENSOR IT

FOR THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST BECAUSE THE FAMILY'S INTEREST, THE CORE

VALUE. SO I BELIEVE IN THAT AND I VOTE NO. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. YEGER IN THE --

EXCUSE ME. MR. CHANG IN THE NEGATIVE.

MR. YEGER TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. YEGER: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THIS --

THIS DESCRIPTION AS I'M ABOUT TO GIVE, IT MAY NOT APPLY IN NEW YORK

CITY, BUT IT APPLIES EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE. AS A GOVERNMENT, WE

GIVE THE PARENTS ALL ACROSS THE STATE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE A SCHOOL BOARD.

THAT SCHOOL BOARD THEN HAS THE RIGHT TO HIRE EMPLOYEES. THE

EMPLOYEES EXTENSIVELY AT LEAST ON PAPER, ANSWER TO THE SCHOOL BOARD

AND IN EVERY INSTANCE, THE LIBRARIAN, ONE OF THOSE EMPLOYEES, WOULD BE

ANSWERING TO THE LIBRARIANS' BOSS, THE SCHOOL BOARD. EXCEPT IN THIS ONE

INSTANCE WHEN IT COMES TO FORMULATING WHAT MATERIAL WOULD OR WOULD

NOT BE IN THE LIBRARY. ANOTHER SPEAKER SPOKE EARLIER, SOME OTHERS DID

378

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ALLUDING TO THE SPECIFIC PERSON WHO HOLDS THE CURRENT OFFICE OF

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION AND I AGREE WITH THOSE MEMBERS. I'M NOT

SURE I WANT TO TRUST THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO USURP THE

AUTHORITY OF LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS THAT ARE ELECTED BY THE TAXPAYING

PARENTS WHO PAY FOR THE SCHOOLS THAT THE LIBRARIES ARE IN, THE LIBRARIANS

WHO THEMSELVES ARE ALSO GETTING PAYCHECKS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BANNING

BOOKS. SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT BANNING BOOKS. IT SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT

BANNING ANYTHING. IT SHOULD BE ABOUT WHO'S RUNNING THE SCHOOLS IN THE

STATE. AND I WISH MY CITY HAD LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS RUNNING THE SCHOOLS

IN THIS AND I THINK IT WOULD DO A LOT BETTER IN NEW YORK CITY IF WE HAD

THAT. WE DON'T, WE USED TO. MY FATHER WAS ELECTED TO THREE TERMS ON

THE SCHOOL BOARD. THEY WERE BETTER THEN AND TODAY THEY'RE NOT. THOSE

PLACES IN NEW YORK THAT STILL HAVE SCHOOL BOARDS RUNNING YOUR LOCAL

SCHOOLS, I'M INCREDIBLY JEALOUS OF THE SUCCESSES THAT YOU HAVE THAT

YOU'RE ABLE TO DO NOTWITHSTANDING A COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION WHO'S

AN ABYSMAL FAILURE. I VOTE NO ON THIS BILL

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. YEGER IN THE

NEGATIVE.

MR. NOVAKHOV TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. NOVAKHOV: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

YOU KNOW, THE SPONSOR MENTIONED SOVIET UNION WHERE BOOKS WERE

BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO LIMIT THE INFLUENCE FROM THE WEST BUT

PEOPLE FOUND A WAY TO READ THEM AND THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED.

TRUST ME, MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUE, ALEC BROOK-KRASNY, WE KNOW

BETTER ABOUT THIS THAN ANYONE ELSE HERE. BUT WE HAVE A COMPLETELY

379

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

OPPOSITE SITUATION TODAY IN OUR COUNTRY. OUR CHILDREN ARE BEING

SHOWED [SIC] A WORLD MAP WITHOUT ISRAEL BEING ON IT. OUR CHILDREN ARE

BEING TAUGHT TO SUPPORT TERRORISTS, SUCH AS HAMAS, TO CHANGE THEIR SEX

WITHOUT A REASON AND TO HATE OUR COUNTRY. AND WE SEE ALL THE

CONSEQUENCES ON THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES. WE HAVE TO THINK AND WE

HAVE TO CHOOSE VERY CAREFULLY WHAT OUR CHILDREN READ AND WHO THIS

BOOKS ARE SPONSORED BY.

UNFORTUNATELY, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. NOVAKHOV IN

THE NEGATIVE.

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, I

MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE DAY THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE SOME

ADDITIONAL FLOOR WORK. I'M SORRY TO INFORM YOU THAT WE DO HAVE SOME

ADDITIONAL FLOOR WORK. SO WE'RE GONNA GO NOW TO RULES REPORT NO.

882 BY MS. ROMERO, RULES REPORT NO. 456 BY MR. LAVINE, RULES

REPORT NO. 698 BY MR. PRETLOW, RULES REPORT NO. 690 BY MS. WALKER,

AND RULES REPORT NO. 791 BY MS. LUPARDO, AS WELL AS RULES REPORT

NO. 850 BY MS. GIGLIO.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE A-CALENDAR,

380

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PAGE 9, RULES REPORT NO. 882, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08411, SENATOR SKOUFIS

-- RULES REPORT NO. 882, SENATOR SKOUFIS (A08869, ROMERO). AN ACT

TO AMEND THE PUBLIC -- PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, IN RELATION TO THE DENIAL OF

ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS THAT RELATE TO CIVIL INVESTIGATIONS; TO AMEND

THE EXECUTIVE LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE

POLICE TO PROVIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW WITH DIRECT, REAL-TIME ACCESS

TO THE CRIMINAL GUN CLEARINGHOUSE; TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE LAW AND

THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL; TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO

AUTHORIZING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE

EDUCATION LAW AGAINST COVERED ENTITIES WHO ENGAGE IN DISCRIMINATION

AND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF STATE UNIVERSITY TRUSTEES; AND TO AMEND

THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, IN RELATION TO THE COMPROMISE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

THE STATE MAY HAVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. ROMERO.

MS. ROMERO: THANK YOU. THIS BILL MODERNIZES

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ENFORCEMENT TOOLS ACROSS SEVERAL CRITICAL AREAS.

IT AUTHORIZES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BRING CIVIL ACTIONS WHEN

UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IS REPEATED OR PERSISTENT, MIRRORING

LONGSTANDING FEDERAL POWERS. IT PROTECTS CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

FROM SYSTEMIC ABUSE OR EXCLUSION, SUPPORTS GUN VIOLENCE

INVESTIGATIONS AND STREAMLINES OUTDATED BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURES

381

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

RELATED TO MEDICAL BILL SETTLEMENTS.

THESE CHANGES STRENGTHEN NEW YORK'S CIVIL RIGHTS

ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE, ENSURING THAT THE STATE

CAN EFFECTIVELY RESPOND TO SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY,

THIS LEGISLATION WILL ENSURE THE EFFICIENT USE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

RESOURCES BY CODIFYING THE OFFICE'S EXISTING AUTHORITY IN CASE LAW AND

SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY STREAMLINING RESOURCES AND PREVENTING,

FRANKLY, FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM

SPEAKER. WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MS. ROMERO: CERTAINLY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MS. WALSH: AND I -- AND I HAVE A FEW. SO --

BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE BILL, ISN'T IT? IT COVERS -- IT MAKES

CHANGES TO A NUMBER OF OUR LAWS, INCLUDING, LET'S SEE, THE PUBLIC

OFFICERS LAW, THE EXECUTIVE LAW, THE EDUCATION LAW, THE CIVIL RIGHTS

LAW AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW; IS THAT CORRECT? DID I MISS ANY?

MS. ROMERO: IT IS COMPREHENSIVE, YES.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. AND IT -- IT DOES MAKE -- THIS

BILL WILL GOVERN VARIOUS ASPECTS OF ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT LAWS. I HAD IT

MARKED INTO SIX DIFFERENT SECTIONS, SO LET'S JUST TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

MS. ROMERO: SURE.

382

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO THE FIRST PART HAS TO DO WITH

FOIL. THE GROUNDS FOR DENYING A FOIL REQUEST ARE EXPANDED FOR THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL IF THEY COULD DISCLOSE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

RELATING TO A CIVIL CASE OR REVEAL SENSITIVE CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE

TECHNIQUES. CURRENTLY, THESE REQUESTS CAN ONLY BE DENIED FOR CRIMINAL

CASES RELATING TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES.

BUT THIS BILL EXPANDS IT TO INCLUDE WHAT ADDITIONAL RECORDS?

MS. ROMERO: SO THERE ARE TWO VERY NARROW

CATEGORIES THAT ARE COVERED UNDER THIS. IT WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY

WHISTLEBLOWING WITNESSES AND UNIQUE INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES.

MS. WALSH: AND WHY -- WHY ARE THOSE ADDITIONAL

THINGS BEING ADDED TO -- THROUGH THIS BILL? WHY -- WHY DO WE NEED TO

GIVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO REFUSE TO DISCLOSE

PURSUANT TO A -- OR DENY PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST?

MS. ROMERO: WELL, THEY'RE FORCED ALREADY RIGHT

NOW TO GO THROUGH GREAT LENGTHS TO PROTECT THESE VERY SERIOUS

WHISTLEBLOWING WITNESSES OR UNIQUE TECHNIQUES. SO THIS WOULD, LIKE I

SAID, STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO HAVE A QUICKER AND

MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, PREVENT THE

WEAPONIZATION OF FOIL IN THAT WAY.

MS. WALSH: WELL, THE -- THE EFFICIENCY IS THAT THE

AG'S OFFICE CAN JUST DENY IT, RIGHT?

MS. ROMERO: WELL --

MS. WALSH: I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S EFFICIENT -- IT'S

STREAMLINED BECAUSE SHE JUST CAN SAY, NO, I'M NOT TURNING IT OVER,

383

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

RIGHT?

MS. ROMERO: BUT WE -- WOULDN'T WE WANT TO

PROTECT WITNESSES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD WITH VERY IMPORTANT

INFORMATION THAT HELP ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF NEW YORK STATE

CIVILIANS AND ALSO UNIQUE INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES THAT ARE ALSO

ASSISTING US WITH OUR ENFORCEMENT POWERS?

MS. WALSH: I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THAT WE -- WE

HAVE FOIL FOR A REASON AND WE HAVE A PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVE TO

ENSURE THAT THERE IS TRANSPARENCY OF ACTION UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT

THIS STUFF SHOULDN'T BE DISCLOSED. SO, I MEAN, WHAT -- WHAT TREMENDOUS

BURDEN IS THE AG CURRENTLY UNDER TO TRY TO PRESERVE THOSE RECORDS?

MS. ROMERO: WELL, I'LL ADD THAT THIS -- THIS SPECIFIC

CODIFICATION IS IN LINE WITH EXISTING CRIMINAL PRACTICES, BUT IT ALSO IS IN

LINE WITH THE FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES. AND I HAVE THE CITATION IF

YOU'RE INTERESTED. AND IT REALLY ALLOWS THE IG -- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

TO RESPOND TO THE IMPORTANCE OF -- OF PROTECTING THE IMPORTANT

INFORMATION THAT I JUST MENTIONED.

MS. WALSH: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I MEAN, LET'S MOVE ON.

I -- I JUST -- OKAY.

LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE NEXT THING. CRIMINAL GUN

CLEARINGHOUSE. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE POLICE WILL BE

REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW WITH DIRECT REAL-TIME

ACCESS TO THE CRIMINAL GUN CLEARINGHOUSE. WHY IS THAT PROVISION

BEING ADDED THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION?

MS. ROMERO: SO, IT IMPROVES THE ATTORNEY

384

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

GENERAL'S ABILITY TO GET ACCESS TO THIS VERY SPECIFIC DATABASE. AND THE

CENTRAL STATE DATABASE IS A DATABASE THAT TRACKS THE FIREARMS THAT ARE

SEIZED BY THE STATE POLICE. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

OFFICE TO GET REAL-TIME DIRECT ACCESS TO THAT DATABASE ITSELF.

MS. WALSH: AND WHY DOES SHE NEED THAT?

MS. ROMERO: LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THE TRUE UMBRELLA

OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO INCREASE GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, CUT RED TAPE,

AND PREVENT, YOU KNOW, WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS WITH WHETHER IT'S

FORMS, PAPERWORK OR TIME FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAT THEY SPEND

LITIGATING THESE ISSUES. THEY SHOULD HAVE ACCESS. THIS LAW CLARIFIES

THAT THEY HAVE THE EXPLICIT STANDING TO GET ACCESS TO THIS DATABASE.

MS. WALSH: WELL, WHAT --

MS. ROMERO: IF I COULD, JUST REALLY QUICK.

MS. WALSH: OH, PLEASE. GO AHEAD.

MS. ROMERO: THIS DATABASE ASSISTS WITH THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL ADDRESSING THE IRON -- YOU KNOW, THE IRON PIPELINE OF

FIREARMS THAT ARE COMING FROM ACROSS DIFFERENT STATES IN THE UNITED

STATES. THIS DATABASE IS ABLE TO ASSIST IN PINPOINTING WHERE FIREARMS

ARE COMING. AND IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ABLE TO GET BETTER ACCESS TO

THIS DATABASE WE CAN ASSIST IN THE ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF GUNS.

MS. WALSH: WHAT IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CURRENT

ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION? HOW QUICKLY -- I MEAN, IS THIS IN RESPONSE

TO A PARTICULAR PROBLEM THAT THE AG'S OFFICE HAS HAD IN OBTAINING THIS

DATA THROUGH REGULAR EXISTING MEANS?

(CONFERENCING)

385

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. ROMERO: THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW IS THAT THEY

HAVE TO WORK WITH ATF, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH EXPLICIT REQUESTS WITH

MANY DIFFERENT AGENCIES. AND RIGHT -- IF -- IF -- WHEN -- IF IN -- IF THIS

LEGISLATION WAS TO BE PASSED THEY WOULD -- THEY, THEMSELVES, THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, WOULD HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THIS MATERIAL

THEMSELVES. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT IN REQUESTS OR PAPERWORK.

THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO --THEY, THEMSELVES, HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THIS

MATERIAL.

MS. WALSH: BUT -- OKAY. SO BUT -- I DON'T

UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MANY DIFFERENT AGENCIES ARE THAT THE AG IS

CURRENTLY HAVING TO MAKE REQUESTS TO. IF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE

STATE POLICE ALREADY HAS THIS DATA, WOULDN'T THE AG JUST BE ASKING THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE FOR IT? AND IS THIS PROVISION BEING PUT

IN BECAUSE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE IS INORDINATELY DELAYING

IN -- IN PRODUCING THIS INFORMATION AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE INCLUDING THIS?

MS. ROMERO: WHAT I CAN SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT IS

THAT A REQUEST AND RESPONSE IS TIMELY, IT TAKES TIME. IT WASTES, LIKE I

SAID, TAXPAYER DOLLARS. AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

OFFICE IN RECEIVING DIRECT ACCESS TO THIS DATABASE IS SO THAT WE CAN

ADDRESS THE IRON PIPELINE OF ILLEGAL GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES. SO BY

NEW YORK STATE GETTING DIRECT ACCESS TO THIS DATABASE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO

DIRECTLY ASSIST IN OUR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ILLEGAL GUN TRADE. SO I'M --

I'M NOT SURE IF I'M ABLE TO -- IF I'M DIRECTLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.

THIS SPECIFIC SECTION OF THE BILL ASSISTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN

CUTTING DOWN DAYS, WEEKS, YOU KNOW, FRIVOLOUS TIME WHERE THEY HAVE

386

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TO REQUEST INFORMATION AND THEN RECEIVE IT WHEN THEY COULD OTHERWISE

JUST RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION THEMSELVES.

MS. WALSH: I GUESS FOR -- SO -- AND WE HAVE FOUR

MORE SECTIONS TO GET THROUGH, SO I DON'T -- I DON'T WISH TO BELABOR THIS, I

REALLY DON'T. I JUST THINK THAT -- I MEAN, THIS IS -- THIS IS A PROGRAM BILL.

THIS IS A BILL THAT YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO CARRY --

MS. ROMERO: CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: -- AND TO PUSH FORWARD ON BEHALF OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS MAKING THIS

REQUEST. AND I THINK IT'S FAIR FOR US AS THE LEGISLATURE TO INQUIRE AS TO

WHY WE'RE MAKING ALL OF THESE CHANGES TO ALL OF THESE SECTIONS OF LAW

AND STREAMLINING, TO USE YOUR TERM, BUT MAKING CHANGES. WHAT -- I

THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK WHAT THE RATIONALE IS OR IF THERE'S ANY DATA OR

INFORMATION OR BACKGROUND OR PROOF THAT ANY OF THIS IS NECESSARY.

BECAUSE THIS IS A -- THESE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN

GOTTEN TO THE BIGGER ONES.

MS. ROMERO: I MEAN, THIS WILL GIVE THEM ACCESS IN

REAL-TIME TO THE ACTUAL DATABASE. I CAN'T SPEAK ON THE STATE POLICE.

MS. WALSH: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S -- LET'S -- LIKE I

SAID, WE -- I'VE ONLY GOT SO MUCH TIME HERE AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT

THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL BILL THAT WE'RE TAKING UP TONIGHT SO I DON'T WANT TO

DRAG THINGS ON. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THESE THINGS HAVE TO BE

DISCUSSED AS WELL.

THE THIRD THING IS AN AUTHORITY TO PURSUE REPEATED

UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES. THE AG WILL BE ALLOWED TO BRING

387

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST REPEATED OR PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES BY

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITIES. WHEN THE AG DETERMINES THAT AN UNLAWFUL

DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IS REPEATED OR OTHERWISE PERSISTENT, THE AG IS

AUTHORIZED TO TAKE PROOF, ISSUE SUBPOENAS AND ADMINISTER OATHS WHEN

INVESTIGATING WHETHER AN ACTION SHOULD BE FILED. HOW DOES THIS SECTION

DIFFER FROM WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CURRENT SCOPE OF AUTHORITY IS

UNDER THE CURRENT LAW?

MS. ROMERO: SO, SECTION 3 EXPLICITLY GIVES THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL PROACTIVE AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS THE AFOREMENTIONED

PARTS THAT YOU MENTIONED. IT WILL BRING THEIR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY IN

LINE WITH THE OTHER ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES IN THE WAY THAT THEY

ENFORCE THEIR LAWS, AS MENTIONED. BUT SECTION 3 IS VERY SIMILAR TO

SECTION 4, AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF HELPFUL TO -- TO KIND OF MENTION THOSE

TWO IN LINE WITH EACH OTHER, IF YOU DON'T MIND. AND SECTION 4 IS ALSO

AN ADDITIONAL CODIFICATION THAT ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POWERS, PUTTING THE -- ADDING CIVIL ENFORCEMENT

POWER TO THE AG IN LINE WITH OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

POWERS IN OTHER SECTIONS OF LAW.

MS. WALSH: YES, THAT SECTION --

MS. ROMERO: IT'S OKAY TO SKIP FORWARD AS WELL.

MS. WALSH: THAT SECTION HAS TO DO WITH ACTIONS

AGAINST DEPRIVING CIVIL LIBERTIES.

MS. ROMERO: CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: THIS IS SECTION 4 THAT WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT. SO THIS BILL WILL ESTABLISH THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY POLITICAL

388

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE STATE MAINTAINING A POLICE FORCE TO ENGAGE IN A

PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF CONDUCT THAT DEPRIVES PERSONS OF RIGHTS,

PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR

LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF NEW YORK. IF THE AG HAS

REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION HAS

OCCURRED, THE AG MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION AND OBTAIN ALL APPROPRIATE

RELIEF TO ELIMINATE THE PATTERN OR PRACTICE. THESE CIVIL ACTIONS CAN ONLY

BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE AG IN NEW YORK COUNTY OR ALBANY COUNTY.

SO IS THERE ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS -- I'M GONNA CALL IT AN OMNIBUS

BILL, RIGHT -- THAT -- THAT DETERMINES THE FORUM WHERE THESE CIVIL --

WHERE THESE LAWSUITS CAN BE BROUGHT? THIS PICKS ONLY TWO COUNTIES

WHERE THESE CAN BE BROUGHT.

MS. ROMERO: WELL, I THINK TO DIRECTLY GET TO YOUR

POINT, EXECUTIVE LAW 296 PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION, BUT ENFORCEMENT

TYPICALLY COMES FROM THE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OR INDIVIDUALS.

LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS SECTION GIVES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

PROACTIVE AUTHORITY IN SYSTEMIC CASES. SO WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

IS ABLE TO SEE REPEATED OR PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION, THEY'RE ABLE TO TAKE

ON SYSTEMIC REPEATED OR PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION.

MS. WALSH: ALMOST LIKE A CLASS ACTION SUIT --

MS. ROMERO: CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: -- THAT SHE CAN BRING PROACTIVELY.

MS. ROMERO: AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY, IT ALLOWS FOR

THEM TO HAVE SUBPOENAS -- IT OUTLINES, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE DIFFERENT

WAYS FOR THEM TO HAVE THAT INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY THAT YOU MENTIONED.

389

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK)

MS. WALSH: IN THESE TWO COUNTIES IN NEW YORK,

WHY -- WHY IS SHE -- WHY CAN THESE CIVIL ACTIONS ONLY BE BROUGHT IN

NEW YORK COUNTY OR ALBANY COUNTY? IS IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE HER

OFFICES ARE MAINTAINED OR FOR SOME OTHER REASON?

(CONFERENCING)

MS. ROMERO: THEY WANT TO SPECIFICALLY CREATE THE

JURISDICTION TO HANDLE THE CASES WHERE THEY HAVE THEIR OFFICES, WHICH

ARE ALBANY COUNTY AND NEW YORK COUNTY.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. VERY GOOD.

THE NEXT SECTION HAS TO DO WITH ADDRESSING REPEATED

OR PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION. AND I WILL SAY, HAVING TAKEN

A LOOK AT THE OPPOSITION THAT HAS MOUNTED AGAINST THIS BILL, THAT THIS IS

THE SECTION THAT I THINK HAS MOST UPSET CERTAIN GROUPS; THE ASSOCIATION

OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS, THE COUNCIL -- I CAN'T EVEN READ THIS

BECAUSE MY EYES ARE KILLING ME HERE -- NEW YORK STATE PTA, NEW

YORK STATE SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, SANYS AND THE CONFERENCE OF

BIG 5 SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THEY STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY,

BUT REALLY IT'S -- IT'S THIS SECTION, AND I'LL -- I'LL -- FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE

GROUP HERE I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT'S ABOUT. ADDRESSING REPEATED OR

PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION. THIS BILL GRANTS THE AG WITH

THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE ANTIDISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS AGAINST PUBLIC,

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS

ENGAGING IN REPEATED OR PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT. THIS

AUTHORITY IS NOT EXTENDED TO PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATIONAL

390

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INSTITUTIONS. THE AG CAN ACCEPT ASSURANCES OF DISCONTINUANCE OR

AGREEMENTS TO STOP THE PRACTICE FROM A COVERED SCHOOL THAT THIS -- AND

I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH MY NEXT 15, THANK YOU -- THAT THIS UNLAWFUL

BEHAVIOR HAS STOPPED AND VIOLATIONS OF SUCH ASSURANCES WILL BECOME

EVIDENCE IN FUTURE PROCEEDINGS. AND THEN IN THE CASE THAT A SCHOOL HAS

BROKEN THIS AGREEMENT, THE AG MUST FILE ANY CIVIL LAWSUIT WITHIN SIX

YEARS OF THE VIOLATION.

SO I GUESS BEFORE I GET INTO WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS

TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS SECTION OF THE BILL, I WANT TO -- I WANT TO ASK YOU

THIS: JUST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS BILL, HOW -- HOW MUCH DID YOU,

YOURSELF, PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS BILL?

MS. ROMERO: I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BILL, BUT I WAS HEAVILY BRIEFED ON -- ON THE

DEVELOPMENT AND -- AND HEARD ABOUT THE IMPETUS AND VERY EXCITED TO

TELL YOU ABOUT THE MEMO THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED.

MS. WALSH: WELL, THE REASON I -- I ASK THAT IS

BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS IT SAYS IN THE MEMO FROM ALL THE GROUPS I JUST

READ, IT'S -- IT'S LIKE A JOINT MEMO THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED, A

MEMORANDUM OF OPPOSITION, IN WHICH THEY SAY THAT THEY STRONGLY

OPPOSE THE ABOVE-REFERENCED LEGISLATION. THEY'RE SAYING THAT IN

PREVIOUS -- THIS IS A QUOTE -- IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S OFFICE, MANY OF THEIR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS WERE RAISED BY

THEIR GROUPS, BUT THEY REMAIN UNADDRESSED AND UNANSWERED, AND THAT

IN RESPONSE TO THEIR CONCERNS NO LANGUAGE HAS BEEN AMENDED TO

ADDRESS THIS AND OTHER COMPLICATIONS. SO -- BUT YOU DIDN'T PARTICIPATE

391

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BILL. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BILL WAS PERHAPS

NEGOTIATED OR DISCUSSED WITH THEM, THE STAKEHOLDERS. BUT IN RESPONSE

TO CONCERNS THAT THEY RAISED, THERE WERE NO -- ACCORDING TO THEM,

ANYWAY -- THERE WERE NO CHANGES THAT WERE MADE OR AMENDMENTS

MADE TO THE BILL.

MS. ROMERO: CORRECT. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S

UNFORTUNATE THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR THE SCHOOL BOARDS ARE -- ARE

STATING THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE INVESTIGATED OR, YOU KNOW, OR

HAVING THIS -- THIS OBJECTION TO THIS BILL IN THIS WAY. AND, YOU KNOW, IF

YOU DON'T MIND I'M HAPPY TO GO POINT-BY-POINT ON THAT MEMO REALLY

QUICKLY.

MS. WALSH: YOU KNOW, I -- WHY DON'T I -- WHY

DON'T I (INDISCERNIBLE) IF THAT'S OKAY.

MS. ROMERO: YES.

MS. WALSH: SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY TALK

ABOUT IS THAT THROUGHOUT THE BILL THE PHRASE, QUOTE, "REPEATED OR

PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION", CLOSED QUOTE, IS USED. HOWEVER, IN ALL OF

THE NON-SCHOOL DISTRICT SECTIONS CONTAINING SUCH LANGUAGE, BOTH

"REPEATED" AND "PERSISTENT" ARE DEFINED. FOR THE SECTION PERTAINING TO

EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL BE PROVIDED WITH NEAR

UNRESTRICTED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT QUALIFIES AS REPEATED OR

PERSISTENT. SO THEY'RE ARGUING AS FAR AS THE BREADTH OF THE LANGUAGE IN

THE SECTIONS SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING TO THEM. THEY'RE -- THAT THEY'RE

OVERBROAD AND THAT THEY'RE CONFERRING TOO MUCH DISCRETION AND

AUTHORITY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS AS

392

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FAR AS WHAT IS REPEATED OR PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION. SO YOUR -- YOUR

RESPONSE TO THAT, PLEASE.

MS. ROMERO: YEAH. I COULD SEE WHY THEY WOULD

THINK THAT AT FIRST GLANCE. BUT ANY SEASONED ATTORNEY, ESPECIALLY ONE

THAT UNDERSTANDS CIVIL -- CIVIL RIGHTS AND ESPECIALLY FEDERAL

ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES, WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THIS BILL IS SIMPLY JUST

ALIGNING AND CODIFYING WHAT IS ALREADY (INDISCERNIBLE) IN LONGSTANDING

FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES. AND FRANKLY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT STATUTE, WHICH IS NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW

63(12) ALREADY ALLOWS REPEATED AND PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.

THINK ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS A CONCEPT. THEY'RE NOT REALLY,

LIKE, LOOKING AT THINGS DOOT, DOOT, DOOT. THEY'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT

REPEATED AND PERSISTENT CONCEPTS. AND SO TO THINK THAT THEY ARE

LOOKING AT A EXTENSIVELY LARGE, LIKE, OPENING UP THE KEY IS -- IS JUST NOT

REAL. THEY'RE LOOKING AT PATTERNS. THEY'RE LOOKING AT REPEATED AND

PERSISTENT PATTERNS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE PERFECT EXAMPLES OF A

REPEATED AND PERSISTENT PATTERN AND KIND OF LOCKS INTO THE NEXT -- ONE

OF THE NEXT SECTIONS IS THE NIAGARA WHEATFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

CASE -- WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT, I'M SURE, IN -- IN THE NEXT SECTION. BUT THESE

-- THESE SCHOOLS HAVE REPEATED AND PERSISTENT PATTERNS OF -- OF SEXUAL

ABUSE OR NEGLECT THAT THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

IS -- IS WELL-SUITED TO TAKE ON THESE CASES, IDENTIFY REPEATED AND

PERSISTENT PATTERNS, AND THEN INVESTIGATE AND PURSUE IT. THIS BILL WILL

CODIFY THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE ON REPEATED AND PERSISTENT

PATTERNS AND THEN ENFORCE THEM.

393

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH: SO --

MS. ROMERO: SO WHEN -- WHEN YOU -- JUST TO

REALLY QUICKLY ADDRESS -- WHEN SOMEONE SAYS, OH, THIS IS TOO MUCH,

REPEATED OR PERSISTENT, YOU JUST LOOK AT EXISTING CASE LAW AND YOU LOOK

AT THE NEW YORK EXECUTIVE LAW 63-12, WHICH IS THE LITERAL ALL OTHER

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. AND SO

THIS IS LITERALLY JUST PUTTING IT IN LINE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER ENFORCEMENT

ACTIONS THAT THEY DO UNDER 63-12, SO IT'S REALLY NOT THAT WILD.

MS. WALSH: I THINK -- AND -- AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT

WORDS IN THE MOUTHS OF THE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR -- THE SIX GROUPS THAT

ARE COLLECTIVELY COMING TOGETHER TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION.

HOWEVER -- IF YOU COULD JUST HOLD ON -- HOWEVER, I THINK THAT IF I -- IF I

HAD TO SUMMARIZE IT, I WOULD SAY THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT THE

LANGUAGE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE HELD TO IS NOT WELL ENOUGH DEFINED TO

FULLY APPRISE THEM OF WHAT THEIR EXPOSURE IS AS FAR AS WHAT THEIR

CONDUCT IS. AND THAT -- THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THEY ARE

GOOD ATTORNEYS OR BAD ATTORNEYS OR ATTORNEYS THAT UNDERSTAND THINGS AS

WELL AS MAYBE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE DOES. I THINK IT HAS

EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT GOOD DRAFTING -- AND THIS WAS

MENTIONED IN AN EARLIER DEBATE THIS EVENING. I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY ON

THE OTHER BILL THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WAS PUTTING FORTH

TONIGHT THAT WE'VE TAKEN UP FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE -- THAT IT'S

IMPORTANT THAT WE USE PRECISE LANGUAGE BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY FAIR

WAY TO DO IT. IF WE'RE NOT PRECISE, IF WE DON'T USE PRECISE DEFINITIONS

AND ARE VERY CLEAR, THEN IT'S JUST NOT FAIR TO THE GROUPS THAT ARE GONNA BE

394

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HELD RESPONSIBLE IF THEY LAPSE OR IF THEY'RE NOT MEETING UP THEIR -- THEIR

END OF WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BE REQUIRED TO DO. SO I -- I WOULD JUST OFFER

THAT UP AS AN EXPLANATION. BUT I SEE THAT MY TIME, AS LOVELY AS IT HAS

BEEN, IS RAPIDLY PASSING SO I'D LIKE TO JUST MOVE --

MS. ROMERO: OKAY.

MS. WALSH: -- A LITTLE BIT QUICKLY THROUGH A LITTLE

BIT MORE, IF WE COULD, AND THEN I -- AND THEN I'LL BE GOING ON THE BILL.

SO THE LAST SECTION, I GUESS, BECAUSE WE DID KIND OF

JUST TALK ABOUT THE EDUCATION SECTION. SO THE LAST SECTION HAS TO DO WITH

STATE HOSPITAL PAYMENTS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S APPROVAL.

THIS BILL CLARIFIES SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE AG'S OFFICE NEEDS TO BE

CONSULTED IN THE WAIVER OR COMPROMISE OF HOSPITAL BILLS FOR

MAINTENANCE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PATIENTS IN CASES WHERE SUBSTANTIAL

JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. DOES THE AG'S OFFICE CURRENTLY -- DO THEY

CURRENTLY NEED TO BE CONSULTED OR IS THAT AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT OR

AUTHORITY THAT'S BEING CONFERRED ON THEM THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION?

MS. ROMERO: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 7 OR 8 OR 9?

JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE (INDISCERNIBLE/CROSS-TALK) --

MS. WALSH: THE PART ABOUT THE STATE HOSPITAL

PAYMENTS BEING SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S APPROVAL. WHATEVER

SECTION THAT MIGHT BE. IT'S RATHER A LONG BILL.

(CONFERENCING)

MS. ROMERO: OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE SECTION 7,

WHICH IS MODIFYING THE -- THE EDUCATION LAW REGARDING THE SUNY

MEDICAL BILL COMPROMISES. IS THAT -- OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 8 OR 9,

395

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

WHICH MODIFIES THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AS IT RELATES TO REMOVING THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO --

MS. WALSH: EIGHT OR 9.

MS. ROMERO: OKAY. GREAT. SO THAT'S THE

MODIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, AND IT REMOVES THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SIGN OFF WHEN THE DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH SEEKS TO WAIVE OR COMPROMISE HOSPITAL BILLS.

MS. WALSH: AND IS THAT -- IS THAT A NEW ABILITY

THAT'S BEING CONFERRED ON THE AG, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE AG

ALWAYS HAD? IS IT JUST CODIFYING EXISTING, IN OTHER WORDS, OR IS IT NEW?

MS. ROMERO: IT'S ALWAYS HAD -- THEY'RE -- OH, SORRY,

TO CLARIFY, SORRY, THEY'RE GIVING UP THEIR APPROVAL AND THEY'RE LETTING THE

COMPTROLLER HANDLE THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. BUT THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL STILL SET THE CRITERIA, IT JUST REMOVES THE

CASE-BY-CASE APPROVALS.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO --

MS. ROMERO: I'M SO GLAD I CLARIFIED THAT FOR YOU.

MS. WALSH: YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY

STREAMLINING THINGS BY NOT INVOLVING THE AG'S OFFICE ANYMORE --

MS. ROMERO: CORRECT.

MS. WALSH: IT'S GONNA INVOLVE THE COMPTROLLER.

MS. ROMERO: CORRECT. THANK YOU.

MS. WALSH: VERY GOOD. I APPRECIATE THAT

CLARIFICATION. OKAY.

WELL, THANK YOU -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

396

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ANSWERING ALL THOSE QUESTIONS, AND I APPRECIATE IT.

AND MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MS. WALSH: SO, BEFORE I GET INTO THE MEAT OF THE

BILL, WHICH I APPRECIATE HAVING GONE THROUGH WITH THE SPONSOR, I JUST

WANT TO GRIPE FOR ONE QUICK SECOND ABOUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH

HAVING DEBATE TIME CUT IN HALF A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THIS BILL HAS GOT

SIX SEPARATE SECTIONS IN IT THAT WE NEEDED TO DISCUSS JUST NOW, AND I --

IF I DID NOT HAVE A SECOND 15 MINUTES I WOULD HAVE HAD 15 MINUTES TO

DISCUSS BASICALLY SIX SEPARATE BILLS THAT HAD JUST BEEN LUMPED TOGETHER,

ALMOST LIKE A BUDGET BILL. AND IT'S RIDICULOUS. ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW,

TO HAVE THIS KIND OF HIT THE DESK WITH NO NOTICE, TO HAVE TO GET UP AND

BASICALLY DEBATE SIX SEPARATE THINGS AND ONLY HAVE A HALF-AN-HOUR TO DO

IT.

SO NOW I HAVE FOUR MINUTES LEFT TO TRY TO EXPLAIN TO

YOU WHY I THINK THAT I AGREE WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF OPPOSITION

FROM ALL OF THE DIFFERENT SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONS WHO DESCRIBE THIS AS AN

OVERREACH -- AS AN OVERREACH BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. IT -- IT

STATES, AS DRAFTED, THIS BILL LACKS IMPORTANT DEFINITION AND

CLARIFICATIONS, IS OVERLY BROAD AND REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION

OF AUTHORITY.

SO THIS IS, AS I SAID EARLIER, THE SECOND BILL, REALLY, THAT

WE'RE TAKING UP TONIGHT THAT EXPANDS THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S OFFICE. SO IF YOU'RE FINE WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

TAKING ON ALL OF THIS ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY, THEN I GUESS THAT'S WHY THE

397

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

BILL IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD AND YOU CAN HAPPILY VOTE FOR IT. I THINK

THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF US ON MY SIDE OF THE AISLE, IF NOT ALL OF US,

WHO WILL SAY NO. THAT THIS -- THAT THE AG'S OFFICE HAS PLENTY OF

AUTHORITY ALREADY, AND HAS SHOWN -- HAS SHOWN QUITE A BIT OF, SOME

WOULD SAY, I WOULD SAY, AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN BRINGING -- BRINGING

PLENTY OF LAWSUITS OUT THERE; SOME GOOD, MAYBE, SOME BAD. SOME

OVERREACHING.

SO I -- I DON'T THINK THAT THIS BILL IS NECESSARY. I THINK

THAT IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING -- CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL WANTS, WHICH IS WHY THEY APPROACHED THE SPONSOR TO HAVE HER

CARRY IT. IT DOESN'T SOUND TO ME FROM READING THE MEMORANDUM OF

OPPOSITION THAT THESE GROUPS, THESE SCHOOL GROUPS WERE EVEN REALLY

LISTENED TO. YOU KNOW, I -- I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE TO HAVE

CHARACTERIZED THEM AS BEING SOMEHOW UNINFORMED OR NAIVE. I THINK

THAT THESE ARE PRETTY BIG ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE GATHERED TOGETHER TO

SHOW OPPOSITION. SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY'RE

CONCERNED ABOUT THE SECTION PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE AG'S NEW

AUTHORITY OR EXPANDED AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE ANTIDISCRIMINATION

PROVISIONS AGAINST PUBLIC, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, SCHOOL

DISTRICTS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS FROM ENGAGING IN REPEATED OR PERSISTENT

DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT. AND WHICH THE -- THE PART ABOUT IT BEING

EITHER REPEATED OR PERSISTENT OR REPEATED OR PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATORY

CONDUCT IS GOING TO BE DECIDED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

SO THIS IS GONNA BE OUR FIRST VOTE ON THIS OMNIBUS BILL,

AND I -- I WOULD ENCOURAGE A NO VOTE ON THIS. I DON'T -- I DON'T SEE THE

398

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NEED. I DON'T SEE THE NECESSITY. AND I DON'T SEE THE RUSH. I THINK THAT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS SHOWN AN ABSOLUTE WILLINGNESS TO VERY

AGGRESSIVELY GO AFTER ALL KINDS OF ENTITIES, AND -- AND I SAY ENOUGH.

SO I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE AND I WOULD

ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: 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: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

MINORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS BILL. IF YOU'D LIKE

TO VOTE YES, PLEASE DO SO NOW AT YOUR SEATS. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. HYNDMAN.

MS. HYNDMAN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

MAJORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS BILL. ANY

MEMBERS WISHING TO VOTE DOWN MAY COME TO THE CHAMBER AND CAST

THEIR VOTE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. STECK TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. STECK: MADAM -- THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

399

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

I'LL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS BILL. I'VE BEEN DOING CIVIL RIGHTS

LITIGATION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR 40 YEARS. I HAVE NEVER SEEN

ARROGANCE AMONG ANY GROUP OF DEFENDANTS SUCH AS THESE. THIS BILL IS

COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED, NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR OPPOSITION.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. STECK IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. ROMERO TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. ROMERO: THANK YOU. I WANT TO START BY

THANKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THEIR TEAM FOR THE INCREDIBLE

SUPPORT IN PREPARING THIS LEGISLATION AND PREPARING FOR THE DEBATE; MY

SENATE SPONSOR, THE SPEAKER AND OTHERS FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE FLOOR.

I JUST REALLY WANNA CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY GIVING

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ANY AUTHORITY THAT ISN'T WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR

EXISTING POWERS. THIS BILL IS ABOUT STREAMLINING AND GETTING RID OF

WASTE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS. THE

REALITY IS THAT IN SOME COUNTIES THEY'RE QUASHING SUBPOENAS, AND THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL IS REQUIRED TO GO TO THEIR APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN ORDER

TO ACTUALLY ENFORCE THEIR TRUE INVESTIGATIVE POWERS. THAT IS A WASTE OF

TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

I'M SO PROUD TO GET THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION THAT WILL

MODERNIZE, STREAMLINE AND CODIFY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ENFORCEMENT

POWERS. I LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING SURE THAT OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS

ALL THE TOOLS THAT THEY NEED TO PROTECT US, PROTECT OUR SCHOOLCHILDREN

AND DEFEND OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

400

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AS AN ATTORNEY, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY AS A LITIGATOR,

I'M VERY PROUD TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION AND I WILL BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. ROMERO IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

ON THE MAIN CALENDAR, PAGE 9, RULES REPORT NO. 456,

THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S07416-A, RULES REPORT

NO. 456, SENATOR HOYLMAN-SIGAL (A07856-A, LAVINE, JACKSON,

SAYEGH, SHIMSKY, MCMAHON). AN ACT TO AMEND THE ESTATES, POWERS

AND TRUSTS LAW AND THE STATE TECHNOLOGY LAW, IN RELATION TO

ELECTRONIC WILLS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: AN EXPLANATION HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MR. LAVINE.

MR. LAVINE: CERTAINLY. THIS BILL AUTHORIZES THE

CREATION, EXECUTION, FILING AND REVOCATION OF ELECTRONIC WILLS.

ELECTRONIC WILLS ARE USED IN MORE THAN A DOZEN STATES AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA, AND WE'LL SEE MORE STATES ADOPTING THIS SYSTEM IN THE

DAYS TO COME. IT DEFINES THE KEY TERMS AND ALLOWS WILLS TO BE SIGNED

AND ATTESTED REMOTELY. NOW, THE REASON WE WANT TO DO THIS IS THAT

TODAY IN NEW YORK, LESS THAN A THIRD OF NEW YORKERS HAVE WILLS TO

BEGIN WITH. ANY -- ANY KIND OF WILL. AND IN THE REMOTE AND RURAL AND

401

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

UNDERSERVED AREAS OF THE STATE, THE STATISTICS ARE MUCH MORE SEVERE.

AND PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THIS IS THE WAY THIS WORKS:

ONCE SOMEONE HAS FINALIZED THEIR WILL, THEY WILL UTILIZE AN ONLINE

NOTARY PLATFORM TO FORMALLY EXECUTE THE WILL. THE NOTARY, ALONG WITH

THE WITNESSES, WILL JOIN IN A SECURE VIDEO CONFERENCE. EVERY ONE OF

THEM WILL BE TOGETHER. THE TRAINED NOTARY WILL REQUIRE MULTIFACTOR

AUTHENTIFICATION -- AUTHENTICATION, EXCUSE ME, AND IDENTIFICATION

CHECKS BEFORE BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS. THE

SIGNING AND NOTARIZATION OF THAT DOCUMENT WILL TAKE PLACE REMOTELY IN

FRONT OF THE NOTARY AND THE WITNESSES, AND A FINALIZED DOCUMENT WILL BE

PRODUCED SIMILAR TO DOCUSIGN THAT IS COMPLETE WITH META DATA

SHOWING THE TIME, DATE, LOCATION OF EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE SIGNING

CEREMONY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. WALSH.

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

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. LAVINE: OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MS. WALSH: AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR

EXPLANATION. I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THIS

WORKS WITH THE PARAMETERS ARE FIRST.

MR. LAVINE: OF COURSE, MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THE -- ALL OF

402

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE LEAD-UP TO THE WILL -- THE WILL BEING DRAFTED, THAT I -- I HAVE NO ISSUE

WITH THAT BEING DONE VIRTUALLY. IF YOU HAVE A -- AN ATTORNEY AND A CLIENT

AND YOU WANT TO BEAT ON ZOOM AND TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT YOUR WILL

TO BE, WHAT YOU WANT THE PROVISIONS TO BE, I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THAT.

MR. LAVINE: OR THAT CAN BE DONE IN PERSON

BETWEEN THE TESTATOR AND THE -- AND THE ATTORNEY.

MS. WALSH: IT COULD. BUT WHAT THIS BILL REALLY GETS

TO IS THE ACTUAL EXECUTION OF THAT WILL ONCE IT'S BEEN PREPARED.

MR. LAVINE: YES.

MS. WALSH: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL

DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE -- THE ACTUAL WILL SIGNING.

YOU HAVE THE TESTATOR -- THE PERSON WHO -- WHO -- WHOSE WILL IT IS --

TWO WITNESSES AND A NOTARY. RIGHT? SO DO THE WITNESSES HAVE TO BE

WITH -- IN THE -- PHYSICALLY WITH THE TESTATOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION?

MR. LAVINE: NO.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO I'M IMAGINING -- AND -- I'M

JUST IMAGINING LIKE A ZOOM, RIGHT, OR --

MR. LAVINE: YES.

MS. WALSH: -- MICROSOFT TEAMS OR SOMETHING LIKE

THAT. SO YOU'VE GOT -- YOU MIGHT HAVE A -- A WITNESS THAT'S -- AND THE

WITNESSES DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE IN-STATE, CORRECT? THEY CAN BE

ANYWHERE.

MR. LAVINE: WELL, YEAH.

MS. WALSH: I MEAN, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT

THEY BE ACTUALLY IN NEW YORK ANYWHERE, RIGHT?

403

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. LAVINE: THEY -- THEY JUST HAVE TO BE RESIDENTS

OR DOMICILIARIES -- OR DOMICILED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S SAY YOU'VE

GOT ONE WITNESS IS IN COLORADO, ONE WITNESS IS IN CONNECTICUT. YOU'VE

GOT THE TESTATOR WHO'S IN NEW YORK, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A NOTARY

SERVICE THAT'S -- THAT'S IN ANOTHER SQUARE IN THE -- IN THE ZOOM, CORRECT?

MR. LAVINE: YES.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO IS IT POSSIBLE UNDER THIS

SCENARIO THAT THE TESTATOR COULD BE ALL BY THEMSELVES IN WHEREVER THEY

ARE. LIKE IN THEIR HOME OR -- I DON'T KNOW, WHEREVER THEY ARE. NURSING

HOME, WHATEVER.

MR. LAVINE: OF COURSE.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. SO WHEN I HAVE EXECUTED A WILL

BEFORE, NOT MY OWN, BUT WHEN I HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A -- A WILL

CEREMONY, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE ALWAYS REFERRED TO IT AS A WILL

CEREMONY, IT WOULD GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY AS THE ATTORNEY TO BE ABLE

TO BE FACE-TO-FACE PRESENT WITH THE TESTATOR TO HAVE A SENSE OF -- I'VE

GENERALLY MET WITH THAT CLIENT BEFORE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THEIR -- WHAT

THEY WANT THEIR WILL TO BE. I USUALLY WOULD DO A PACKAGE WHERE I'D DO,

YOU KNOW, A HEALTHCARE PROXY, MAYBE A LIVING WILL, A POWER OF

ATTORNEY. WE EXECUTE ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS ALL TOGETHER. SO IT WOULD

GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY WHEN I ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY AM MEETING WITH

THE CLIENT IN THE ROOM, THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIGURE OUT IS THAT PERSON

ORIENTED TO PLACE AND TIME? DO THEY KNOW WHO THE PRESIDENT IS? DO

THEY -- HOW DO THEY LOOK? DO THEY LOOK LIKE THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING

404

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ON? DO THEY -- ARE THEY MAKING SENSE? HOW -- HOW -- DON'T WE LOSE

SOME OF THAT WHEN WE'RE DOING THIS VIRTUALLY LIKE THIS?

MR. LAVINE: WELL, TO BEGIN WITH, THIS BILL HAS

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP AT ALL. AND IN MOST

INSTANCES, THE ATTORNEY IS GOING TO HAVE SOME FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION

WITH THE TESTATOR. THE --

MS. WALSH: DOES THIS BILL REQUIRE -- I'M SORRY.

DOES BILL REQUIRE THAT, THOUGH?

MR. LAVINE: NO. NO. THE BILL DOES REQUIRE THAT

OCA-TRAINED NOTARIES WHO ARE GOING TO INQUIRE AS TO THE COMPETENCE

OF THE TESTATOR. AND I KNOW THAT IN -- IN COMMITTEE YOU HAD EXPRESSED

SOME CONCERN BECAUSE YOU HAD, AS HAD I AS A YOUNG ATTORNEY, BEEN

INVOLVED IN PREPARATION FOR A WILL FOR SOMEONE AND YOU HAD GRAVE

SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT PERSON'S COMPETENCE.

MS. WALSH: CORRECT.

MR. LAVINE: AND YOU AND I HAVE SHARED THAT, HAVE

HAD THAT EXPERIENCE. BUT I -- I THINK THAT THE WORRY THAT E-WILLS -- AND

HERE I'M GONNA QUOTE SOMETHING FROM A BRILLIANT ARTICLE THAT WAS

PUBLISHED. SOME --

MS. WALSH: DID YOU WRITE IT?

MR. LAVINE: SOME PEOPLE -- WAIT, DON'T STEAL MY

THUNDER.

MS. WALSH: I'M SORRY, SPOILER. SORRY.

MR. LAVINE: SOME -- I WROTE IT WITH TWO OTHER

PEOPLE. SOME WORRY THAT E-WILLS MAY ENABLE FRAUD OR FOUL PLAY. THAT'S

405

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AN UNDERSTANDABLE CONCERN. AND ESPECIALLY UNDERSTANDABLE BECAUSE

THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW CONCEPT. ALTHOUGH THIS IS TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY

AND IT IS THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY. SO THAT'S AN UNDERSTANDABLE

CONCERN. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

INCLUDES NUMEROUS PROVISIONS TO ENSURE THE WILL'S SECURITY. E-WILLS

REQUIRE ALL THE SAME FORMALITIES AND SAFEGUARDS OF TRADITIONAL WILLS. IT'S

JUST THAT EVERYTHING HAPPENS ONLINE. E-WILLS, LIKE THEIR PAPER

COUNTERPARTS, MUST BE PREPARED AND ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED BY SOMEONE

QUOTE, UNQUOTE, "OF SOUND MIND." THEY MUST ALSO BE ELECTRONICALLY

SIGNED BY TWO WITNESSES BEFORE A STATE-AUTHORIZED REMOTE ONLINE

NOTARY. IN FACT, E-WILLS DO OFFER MORE ANTIFRAUD PROTECTIONS THAN

TRADITIONAL WILLS, INCLUDING AN ACTUAL VIDEO DEPICTION OF THE -- AND

PORTRAYAL OF THE TESTATOR, A TIMESTAMP AUDIT TRAIL, AND A FRAUD EVIDENCE

SEAL. SO I -- I HOPE THAT DEALS WITH SOME OF THE REAL-LIFE CONCERNS THAT

YOU AND I HAVE HAD WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPETENCE OF TESTATORS.

MS. WALSH: I FIND IT INTERESTING BECAUSE THE -- THAT

REALLY IS PLACING RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE NOTARY THAT A NOTARY REALLY

DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE. DO THEY -- USUALLY THE WITNESSES ARE THE ONES

WHO ARE KIND OF THERE TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW --

MR. LAVINE: SO, MS. -- MS. WALSH, I AM GLAD THAT

YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE OCA WAS INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION

OF THIS PARTICULAR BILL. AND THIS BILL HAS BEEN IN PREPARATION FOR TWO OR

THREE YEARS AT LEAST. AND OCA IS GOING TO TRAIN NOTARIES. THERE WILL BE

A PANEL OF NOTARIES WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED EDUCATION IN RECOGNIZING

WHETHER TESTATORS ARE OF SOUND MIND OR NOT, AND WILL BE ASKING

406

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

QUESTIONS OF THE TESTATORS TO ESTABLISH THAT.

MS. WALSH: OKAY.

MR. LAVINE: AND THERE'S ALSO A PROVISION IN THE

BILL THAT REQUIRES THAT THE ELECTRONIC WILL SIGNING ALSO CONTAINS A

PLACARD WITH 12-POINT FONT ADVISING THE TESTATOR OF ALL THE TESTATOR'S

RIGHTS.

MS. WALSH: NOW, I -- AND I LIKE THE FACT -- I DO

LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE -- THE VIDEO RECORDING OF IT WILL BE

ELECTRONICALLY FILED WITH THE -- THE BILL REQUIRES THE WILL TO BE

ELECTRONICALLY FILED WITH THE SURROGATE'S COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ITS

EXECUTION. BUT ISN'T THERE ALSO A PROVISION THAT THE -- THE VIDEOTAPE --

AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S AN OLD TERM.

MR. LAVINE: DON'T WORRY.

MS. WALSH: BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WILL BE

MAINTAINED AND COULD BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AT SOME LATER POINT IF THERE'S

AN ISSUE? I -- I THOUGHT I SAW THAT IN THE BILL.

MR. LAVINE: THE IDEA IS THAT THOSE ELECTRONIC

DEPICTIONS OR VIDEOS ARE GOING TO BE FILED IN THE SURROGATE'S COURTS.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. AND -- AND SO THE SURROGATE

COURT THEN WILL NEED TO IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM FOR STORING THESE

ELECTRONIC WILLS?

MR. LAVINE: AND THAT'S WHY THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS A

YEAR-AND-A-HALF OFF. AND THE COURTS -- OCA, ALONG WITH ANY NUMBER OF

OTHER INVOLVED ENTITIES, HAVE PREPARED AND HELPED IN PREPARATION OF THE

BILL AND WILL CONTINUE TO HELP IN TERMS OF GEARING OCA AND THE COURTS

407

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

UP TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS. AND THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN NOT ONLY WITH

WILLS; IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH A LOT OF -- FOR EXAMPLE, EBTS,

EXAMINATIONS. EVEN TRIALS. THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A VIDEO CAPACITY TO

HOLD ONTO THOSE THINGS AND PROTECT THEM.

MS. WALSH: AND WILL THEY BE HELD ON TO -- WHAT

WILL BE THE RETENTION POLICY? WILL THEY BE HELD ONTO FOREVER? WELL,

WHEN CAN THEY BE DESTROYED?

MR. LAVINE: I -- I WOULD EXCEPT THAT AFTER -- AFTER

THE TESTATOR GOES ELSEWHERE AND THE COURTS ARE ADMINISTERING THE ESTATE,

THAT THE COURTS WILL THEN FIGURE OUT A WAY WITH RESPECT TO HOW LONG THEY

SHOULD MAINTAIN THOSE DOCUMENTS.

MS. WALSH: BUT THE BILL -- THE BILL IS SILENT AS TO

THAT?

MR. LAVINE: YES. YES.

MS. WALSH: OKAY. LET'S SEE. IS THERE ANY -- I

WOULDN'T -- I -- I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BILL THAT

ADDRESSES ANY FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE SURROGATE COURT SYSTEM FOR

HAVING TO DEVELOP AND MAYBE -- I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY STORE

THIS STUFF. BUT, I MEAN, I WOULD IMAGINE THEY'RE GONNA NEED SOME --

SOMETHING TO DO THAT.

MR. LAVINE: THERE'S -- THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC IN

THE BILL'S LANGUAGE; HOWEVER, OCA HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR BILL, AND I SUSPECT WHEN OCA

COMES TO US WITH ITS BUDGET THAT WE WILL SHOW OCA THE SAME

DEFERENCE AND RESPECT THAT WE HAVE THE LAST YEARS.

408

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MS. WALSH: I -- ONE LAST THING AND THEN -- AND THEN

I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO JUST GO ON THE BILL AND KIND OF EXPRESS THE REST

OF MY CONCERNS. BUT ONE QUESTION. BECAUSE YOU DO KNOW THAT I'VE

HAD SOME -- SOME EXPERIENCE WITH THIS THAT HAS CAUSED ME SOME

CONCERN, AND ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS IS THAT THERE -- THAT WHEN

YOU'RE DOING THINGS VIRTUALLY -- AND WE ALL HAVE HAD THIS EXPERIENCE. I

THINK MOST RECENTLY WHEN WE DID ENDLESS ZOOM MEETINGS DURING, YOU

KNOW, COVID, DURING --

MR. LAVINE: PLEASE DON'T REMIND ME.

MS. WALSH: -- THE PANDEMIC -- I KNOW, WE ALL WANT

TO FORGET THAT. BUT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THAT, WE ALL GOT A GLIMPSE INTO

EACH OTHER'S WORLD A LITTLE BIT, AND -- BUT YOU COULD ONLY SEE WHAT YOU

COULD SEE ON SCREEN. YOU COULD SEE MAYBE WHAT WAS DIRECTLY IN BACK

OF THE PERSON OR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT AROUND THEM. BUT WHEN WE TALK

ABOUT THINGS LIKE UNDUE INFLUENCE OR OTHER ISSUES, IT'S THE -- IT'S WHAT

YOU CAN'T SEE IN THAT FRAME THAT WORRIES ME. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, I'LL

SHARE THAT -- THE EXPERIENCE THAT I HAD WAS I DEVELOPED A WILL FOR AN

ELDERLY LADY, AND COME TO FIND OUT IT WAS HER GRANDCHILDREN WHO WERE

REALLY LEANING ON HER QUITE HARD. AND SHE HAD REAL PROBLEMS WITH

DEMENTIA, AND HAD I NOT BEEN THERE PERSONALLY AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY

TO SEE THE GRANDCHILDREN INTERACTING WITH THE GRANDPARENT, IF THEY HAD

BEEN OFF-SCREEN AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY WERE THERE AND I DIDN'T

REALIZE THE INFLUENCE THAT THEY REALLY WERE HAVING OVER THIS LADY, I -- I

MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE -- I MIGHT NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE SIGNING OF

THAT WILL. AND I -- SO THAT'S A WORRY FOR ME AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU

409

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY TO MAYBE ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.

MR. LAVINE: YES. WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT THAT

CAN BE THE CASE WHETHER THERE'S AN ELECTRONIC WILL OR A REGULAR WILL.

GOOD LAWYERS WILL WATCH FOR THAT. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, NOTARIES ARE

GOING TO BE TRAINED TO MONITOR AND MOVE THE VIDEOS SO THAT WE GET A

FULL PERSPECTIVE. BUT IN THE END, THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT HERE IS ALWAYS

THE ASSISTANCE OF A VERY COMPETENT LAWYER.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. LAVINE.

MR. LAVINE: THANK YOU, MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: I APPRECIATE IT.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MS. WALSH: I -- I DO APPRECIATE THAT I'M PERHAPS A

LITTLE BIT OLD-FASHIONED IN THE WAY THAT I -- THAT I PRACTICE LAW, BUT I

DON'T THINK THAT I'M ALONE. I'M NOT RESISTANT TO TECHNOLOGY, I JUST THINK

THAT WHEN IT COMES TO SOMETHING LIKE YOUR WILL, I CAN'T THINK OF ANOTHER

DOCUMENT THAT YOU PREPARE -- I MEAN, YOU THINK ABOUT A REAL ESTATE

CLOSING AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS WHEN YOU BUY YOUR HOME OR YOU BUY A

PIECE OF PROPERTY AND HOW -- AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. A WILL -- YOUR

-- YOUR WILL IS, I THINK, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT YOU DEVELOP AND

SIGN. IT'S THE CULMINATION OF YOUR -- YOUR DESIRES. IT -- YOU MAY BE

EXECUTING OTHER DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH IT THAT GIVE MEDICAL DIRECTIVES.

YOU -- I JUST CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT'S MORE IMPORTANT. AND I THINK

THAT SOMETIMES TECHNOLOGY SHOULD NOT BE EMBRACED SO READILY WHEN

THERE REALLY IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR BEING FACE-TO-FACE, HAVING AN ATTORNEY

410

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AND THEIR CLIENT TOGETHER IN A ROOM WITH WITNESSES AND A NOTARY WHO

CAN -- WHO CAN EVALUATE AND ASCERTAIN AND MAKE SURE, IS THIS REALLY

WHAT YOU WANT? DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON? ARE YOU COMPETENT?

AND -- AND ALSO, NOT FOR NOTHING, BUT WHEN YOU'RE A -- A NEW YORK

STATE ATTORNEY AND YOU -- AND YOU PRACTICE IN THIS AREA, YOU KNOW, I -- I

THINK THAT THERE COULD BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE BY ALLOWING THIS

THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU -- YOU MIGHT -- I DON'T KNOW, I THINK YOU'RE LOSING

SOMETHING. YOU'RE LOSING SOMETHING. YOU'RE LOSING SOME OF THAT

PERSONAL CONNECTION BY DOING SOMETHING OVER ZOOM. I THINK WE ALL

CAN RELATE TO THAT BECAUSE WE ALL WENT THROUGH THAT. WE ALL UNDERSTAND

WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE PASSING BILLS ON ZOOM. TO BE CONDUCTING THIS --

THIS CHAMBER'S BUSINESS FOR QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON ZOOM. WE LOST

SOMETHING DURING THAT TIME. AND -- I'M JUST PAUSING BECAUSE I SEE THAT

MY BUZZER'S GONNA GO OFF AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE AND JUST FINISH

MY THOUGHT. I THINK THAT THAT IDEA, THAT CONCERN THAT I HAVE OF WHAT'S

GOING ON JUST OUTSIDE THE CAMERA ANGLE IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK

THAT IF WE PUT CONVENIENCE AHEAD OF JUST -- JUST MAKING SURE THAT IT'S

RIGHT, I THINK -- I THINK WE'RE GONNA LOSE SOMETHING HERE. AND I THINK

THAT -- I DO APPRECIATE THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE PLACED IN THE BILL TO

ACTUALLY KEEP A RECORDING AND HAVE THAT FILED ALONG WITH THE WILL WITH

-- WITH THE SURROGATE'S COURT OR WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR HOWEVER IT'S

GONNA BE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GONNA BE DONE. I MEAN, THAT'S A

GOOD PART OF THE BILL. I DO LIKE THAT. BUT I DON'T KNOW, I JUST -- I DON'T

-- I JUST DON'T -- I JUST DON'T -- I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. I THINK THAT THE POINT

THAT WAS MADE DURING THE SPONSOR'S EXPLANATION OF THE BILL WHERE HE

411

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SAID THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE IN NEW YORK STATE THAT DON'T HAVE A

WILL, THAT'S TRUE. BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T NEED ONE.

THEY -- THEY DON'T. THEY -- INTESTACY WORKS JUST FINE FOR SOME PEOPLE

BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT IF THEY PASS AWAY OR WHEN THEY PASS AWAY, IF

THEY'RE MARRIED IT'S GONNA GO TO THEIR SPOUSE. IF THEY -- THEIR SPOUSE IS

PREDECEASED AND THEY HAVE CHILDREN IT'S GONNA TO GO THE CHILDREN IN

EQUAL SHARES. AND IF THAT'S ALL YOU WANT, YOU DON'T --YOU DON'T NEED A

WILL. IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A HEALTHCARE PROXY OR A

LIVING WILL OR A POWER OF ATTORNEY? SURE. YOU MIGHT NEED THOSE

THINGS. BUT INTESTACY IS NOT -- NOT TERRIBLE. WE DON'T NEED 100 PERCENT

OF PEOPLE IN NEW YORK STATE TO HAVE WILLS.

SO IT IS A NOBLE GOAL TO HOPE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY

DO NEED THEM HAVE ACCESS TO THEM AND CAN DO THEM. BUT THIS IS BREAD

AND BUTTER FOR A LOT OF ATTORNEYS IN THE AREA IN NEW YORK STATE. AND I

BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT ACCESS TO PRACTITIONERS, EVEN IN RURAL

AREAS, TO PREPARE WILLS. IT'S -- GENERALLY SPEAKING, EVEN IN A SMALL TOWN

YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOMEBODY THAT DOES WILLS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE

SOMEBODY THAT CAN HANDLE AT LEAST MINOR CRIMINAL MATTERS AND YOU'RE

GONNA HAVE SOMEBODY THAT CAN DO CLOSINGS. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST -- THAT'S

JUST BREAD AND BUTTER LEGAL WORK. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A REAL

CRISIS IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO THESE PRACTITIONERS THAT WOULD BE A GOOD

ARGUMENT FOR MAKING THIS -- MAKING THIS BILL CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO

PASS.

SO I -- I THINK IN -- IN CLOSING, I JUST -- I THINK THAT

ALTHOUGH THIS MAY BE NEW TECHNOLOGY, I THINK THAT -- THAT FRAUD AND

412

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

UNDUE INFLUENCE IS, UNFORTUNATELY, AS OLD AS TIME. WE'VE HAD THIS --

WE'VE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT FOREVER. AND I THINK THAT BEFORE WE

PASS BILLS LIKE THIS, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT AND WE HAVE TO SAY, YOU

KNOW, IT MAY BE MORE CONVENIENT AND IT MAY EVEN HELP A FEW MORE

PEOPLE DECIDE TO -- TO CREATE A WILL AND TO HAVE A WILL, AND MAYBE THAT

HAS SOME SOCIAL UTILITY AND WE LIKE THAT IDEA. BUT AT WHAT COST IS THAT

CONVENIENCE? SO I WOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF SAYING NO TO THIS BILL, AND I

HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL ALSO SEE SOME WISDOM IN THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER. A

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. BAILEY.

MRS. BAILEY: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. LAVINE: CERTAINLY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MRS. BAILEY: I -- I BELIEVE YOU HAD INDICATED BOTH

OCA AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN; IS THAT

CORRECT?

MR. LAVINE: MAY -- MAY I CLARIFY? IF --

MRS. BAILEY: SURE.

MR. LAVINE: -- IF I SAID THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, I

MISSPOKE. THE -- THE PARTICULAR LEGISLATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS

BEEN THE PRODUCT OF YEARS OF COLLABORATION LED BY THE TRUSTS AND THE

413

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

STATE'S SECTION OF THE NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION IN PARTNERSHIP

WITH THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION AND THE SURROGATE COURT'S

JUDGES. AND IT ALSO REFLECTS INPUT FROM A BROAD COALITION OF

STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING AARP, METLIFE LEGAL PLANS AND MANY, MANY

OTHERS AS -- AS WELL.

MRS. BAILEY: YEP. I -- I SAW THERE. AND IT --

MORE JUST QUESTIONS AND -- AND I'LL GET TO WHY I WISH I HEARD THE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN JUST A SECOND. BUT MY -- I WOULD ASSUME THAT

WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT -- YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OCA; SO THE

NYSCEF SYSTEM OR THE -- THE SYSTEM THAT THEY CURRENTLY MANAGE FOR

SUPREME COURT RECORDS, AS WELL AS SURROGATE COURT, CRIMINAL COURT,

FAMILY COURT. IS THAT THE MECHANISM IN WHICH THE CONVERSATION HAS

TAKEN PLACES AS HOW THIS WILL BE UPLOADED INTO SURROGATE'S COURT?

HAVE YOU GOTTEN INTO THAT GRANULAR DETAIL OR...

MR. LAVINE: MS. BAILEY, THAT'S AN INTERESTING

QUESTION, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A QUESTION THAT'S GOING TO BE

DETERMINED BY OCA AND -- AND ITS JUDGES.

MRS. BAILEY: OKAY. AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I

ASK BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SURROGATE COURT RIGHT NOW IS ALL ELECTRONIC

THROUGH THAT SYSTEM. SO I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT WOULD TAKE THE

SAME MECHANISM? POTENTIAL --

MR. LAVINE: I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW AND I DON'T

WANT TO GUESS, BUT I THINK YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR

COURT SYSTEMS INCLUDES A WHOLE LOT MORE IN THE DAYS TO COME OF

ELECTRONIC STORAGE OF ALL KINDS OF -- ALL KINDS OF MATERIAL.

414

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MRS. BAILEY: I -- I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE

FOLKS AT OCA OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WITH THAT. SO YES, I

UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THE REASON I BRING UP THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS

UNDER EXECUTIVE LAW 135-C, WHICH IS THE ELECTRONIC NOTARY, THERE ARE

SPECIFIC RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ELECTRONIC NOTARIES NEED TO FOLLOW.

ONE OF WHICH IS THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A VIDEO OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

AS THEY'RE TAKING THAT AND THEY MUST RETAIN THAT FOR TEN YEARS. SO I

GUESS MAYBE I WOULD JUST PUT OUT THERE THAT WE -- IF WE HAVE NOT,

PARTNERING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AS WELL, BECAUSE IF -- IF WE'RE

UPLOADING THAT VIDEO INTO OCA'S SYSTEM, THE NOTARY IS NOW LOSING

CUSTODY OF THAT AND THAT IS DISCUSSION ON THE RECORDKEEPING OF THE

NOTARY MAINTAINING THOSE FILES FOR THE TEN YEARS AND THAT'S WHERE WE GOT

INTO THE JOURNAL KEEPING FOR REGULAR NOTARIES AS WELL.

MR. LAVINE: THAT -- THAT IS, AS THEY SAY IN COURT, A

POINT WELL-TAKEN.

MRS. BAILEY: SO, I -- I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT

THERE AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

MR. LAVINE: AND LIKEWISE AND THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. LAVINE: OF COURSE.

415

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. LAVINE. SO A COUPLE OF

QUESTIONS: NUMBER ONE, UNDER THIS IF THIS IS ENACTED, DOES AN ATTORNEY

WHO'S PREPARING THIS WILL HAVE TO BE IN NEW YORK STATE? OR A NEW

YORK STATE ATTORNEY?

MR. LAVINE: THIS -- THIS BILL IS NOT CHANGING ANY

EXISTING LAWS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH ATTORNEYS FROM WHICH STATES ARE

ABLE OR AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE WILLS FOR PEOPLE.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND WITH REGARD TO YOU TALKED

EARLIER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A SKILLED ATTORNEY RECOGNIZING THE INDIVIDUAL

THAT THEY'RE OF SOUND MIND. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WITNESSES? IF THE

WITNESSES -- ARE THE WITNESSES POTENTIALLY IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN

THE PERSON WHOSE WILL SIGNING THEY'RE WITNESSING?

MR. LAVINE: THEY MAY BE.

MR. RA: SO I MEAN -- AND ARE THERE [SIC] SIGNING

BASICALLY THAT THEY WITNESSED THAT THIS PERSON SIGNING THE WILL WAS OF

SOUND MIND WHEN THEY DID SO, CORRECT?

MR. LAVINE: WELL, THEY'RE WITNESSING THE FACT THAT

THE -- THE PERSON, THE TESTATOR, HAS EXECUTED THE WILL -- HAS SIGNED --

SIGNED THE WILL. I MEAN, IT HAPPENS VERY OFTEN THAT PEOPLE WHO WITNESS

WILLS DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT -- THAT -- HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE

TESTATOR.

MR. RA: SURE. SURE, BUT THEY -- THEY WOULD NEED TO

RECOGNIZE THAT THE PERSON IS, YOU KNOW, COMPETENT TO SIGN A WILL.

MR. LAVINE: I SUPPOSE SO IN A WAY, BUT THAT'S THE

416

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

LAW. WHATEVER THE LAW IS NOW, IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE THE -- THE LAW

GOVERNING ELECTRONIC WILLS THE SAME -- SAME --

MR. RA: MY -- MY POINT BEING --

MR. LAVINE: (INDISCERNIBLE)

MR. RA: I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT SAME CONCERN

THAT WAS EXPRESSED BY MS. WALSH, THAT THIS PERSON'S ON SOME TYPE OF

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FULLY SEE, YOU

KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON, WHETHER THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE THERE, IF -- IF THEY

ARE FULLY WITH IT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PHYSICALLY IN THE SAME PLACE AS --

AS THE TESTATOR.

MR. LAVINE: THE PEOPLE WHO SIGN -- SIGN THE WILL

AS THE WITNESSES, ARE GOING TO BE IN THE SAME POSITION AS THEY ARE RIGHT

NOW IN TERMS OF INTERACTION WITH THE -- THE TESTATOR.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. LAVINE.

MADAM SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON THE BILL.

MR. RA: I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT QUICKLY, WHILE THERE

ARE STATES WHO HAVE ENACTED THIS, THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO STATES WHO HAVE

EXPRESSLY FORBID THE USE OF ELECTRONIC WILLS. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW,

THESE TYPES OF THINGS CERTAINLY CAN BE HELPFUL BUT WE HAVE TO BE VERY,

VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS. CONVENIENCE IS A GREAT THING, BUT WHEN YOU'RE

DOING SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS SIGNING A WILL, THERE ARE SO MANY

PARTS OF THIS THAT COULD GO AWRY AND THAT -- LET'S FACE IT, IT'S AN

UNFORTUNATE THING, BUT WHEN A LOVED ONE PASSES AWAY, SOMETIMES

ASSETS BECOME CONTENTIOUS BETWEEN SIBLINGS OR OTHER HEIRS. IT'S AN

417

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

UNFORTUNATE REALITY AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL GOING DOWN

THIS ROAD. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: READ THE LAST

SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 545TH

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A PARTY VOTE HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. WALSH.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL GENERALLY BE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THIS

LEGISLATION. THERE MAY BE A FEW PEOPLE WHO WANT TO VOTE YES AND THEY

CAN DO SO NOW AT THEIR SEATS. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. HYNDMAN.

MS. HYNDMAN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

MAJORITY CONFERENCE WILL BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS PIECE OF

LEGISLATION. ANY MEMBER WISHING TO VOTE IT DOWN MAY COME TO THE

CHAMBER AND DO THE BUSINESS AT THE DESK. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. BURDICK TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. BURDICK: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, FOR

THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE. I WISH TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR

418

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FOR THIS BILL, HAVING BEEN THROUGH MANY WILL CEREMONIES. AND I

UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED; HOWEVER, THE

LEGISLATION CERTAINLY PROVIDES STRONG PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS. AND AS

THE SPONSOR SO RIGHTLY SAID, ANY WILL CEREMONY, WHETHER IN PERSON OR

ON ZOOM, REQUIRES THE OVERSIGHT OF THE ATTORNEY TO ENSURE THE

COMPETENCE OF THE TESTATOR AND THAT THERE EXISTS NO FRAUD, NO UNDUE

INFLUENCE. THIS BILL CLEARLY HAS BEEN VERY THOROUGHLY REVIEWED AND

VETTED AND OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT THE WILL CEREMONIES BE

CARRIED OUT BY VIDEO CONFERENCE. IT SIMPLY OFFERS AN OPTION. AS THE

BILL MEMO STATES, THE -- THIS LEGISLATION WOULD SIMPLY BROADEN EXISTING

STATUTES TO ALLOW FOR THE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AT THE STATION AND

NOTARIZATION OF THE WILLS.

I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. BURDICK IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. KAY TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. KAY: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I TOO WANT

TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT LEGISLATION THAT AS AN

ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, I'VE HANDLED THESE WILLS FOR YEARS AND WE

ARE GIVING AN ADDITIONAL CONVENIENCE PERHAPS FOR THE ELDERLY PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES WHO CANNOT ALL GET TOGETHER IN ONE PLACE.

SO AGAIN, I WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS

IMPORTANT LEGISLATION.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. KAY IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

419

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. LAVINE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. LAVINE: THIS WILL BE A METHOD THAT WILL ALLOW

FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT THINK IT'S JUST INCONVENIENT TO GO TO A

LAWYER TO FIND WITNESSES. IT'S AN EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION. THIS WILL

HOPEFULLY KEEP THE COST DOWN IN THE DAYS AND THE YEARS TO COME.

AND -- AND FINALLY, JUST ON A PERSONAL NOTE. I LOST A

BROTHER A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND I ONLY WISH THAT BEFORE HE DIED, I HAD

ASKED HIM, DID HE HAVE A WILL. I ASSUMED HE HAD A WILL. HE DID NOT

HAVE A WILL. AND I ONLY WISH FOR THE SAKE OF HIS CHILDREN THAT HE

WOULD'VE HAD A WILL.

THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. TODAY, LESS THAN A THIRD

OF NEW YORKERS HAVE WILLS AND IT JUST HELPS TREMENDOUSLY IN TERMS OF

FAMILY TO MAKE SURE THAT FAMILY IS PROVIDED FOR AND THIS IS ONE GOOD

WAY TO DO IT. I WITHDRAW MY ABSTENTION AND VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. LAVINE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 14, RULES REPORT NO. 698, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08413, RULES REPORT NO.

698, SENATOR GOUNARDES (A08870, PRETLOW). AN ACT IN RELATION TO

AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM THE STATE TO THE CITY OF DUNKIRK (PART A); AND

MAKING AN APPROPRIATION THEREFOR (PART B).

420

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: READ THE LAST

SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A PARTY VOTE HAS

BEEN REQUESTED.

MS. WALSH. OH, MR. GANDOLFO.

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL GENERALLY BE OPPOSED TO THIS PIECE OF

LEGISLATION; HOWEVER, ANY MEMBERS WHO WISH TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

MAY DO SO AT THEIR DESKS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

MS. HYNDMAN.

MS. HYNDMAN: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THE

MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS IN FAVOR OF THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. ANY

MEMBER WISHING TO REGISTER THEIR VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE MAY COME DO IT

AT THEIR DESK. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU.

THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. MOLITOR TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. MOLITOR: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I'LL

BE -- I'LL BE BRIEF. I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT EVERYTHING THAT I SAID LAST

NIGHT, BUT I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT I

RECEIVED THIS MORNING. YOU KNOW, THE -- A MAJORITY OF THE CITY

COUNCIL IN THE CITY OF DUNKIRK IS OPPOSED TO THIS AND I ALSO RECEIVED A

421

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

PHONE CALL FROM BOB BANKOWSKI WHO'S THE -- WHO'S THE CHAUTAUQUA

COUNTY LEGISLATOR WHO REPRESENTS DISTRICT 2, ONE OF TWO LEGISLATORS WHO

REPRESENTS THE CITY OF DUNKIRK. HE'S A DEMOCRAT AND HE CALLED ME TO

TELL ME THAT HE IS OPPOSED TO THIS LEGISLATION AS WELL. SO, THERE IS

BIPARTISAN, I GUESS, OPPOSITION TO THIS LEGISLATION WITHIN THE CITY IN MY

DISTRICT. SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT AS WELL.

I'LL BE IN THE NEGATIVE, THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. MOLITOR IN THE

NEGATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 14, RULES REPORT NO. 690, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08185, RULES REPORT NO.

690, SENATOR SALAZAR (A08706, WALKER). AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL

PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, IN RELATION TO PROHIBITING CERTAIN ENTITIES FROM

NEGOTIATING ANY CONTRACTS OR SETTLEMENTS RELEASING SUCH ENTITIES FROM

LIABILITY FOR A TORTIOUS OR POTENTIALLY TORTIOUS ACT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF

SUCH ACT.

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.

422

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MR. GANDOLFO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE WILL GENERALLY BE OPPOSED TO THIS BILL;

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

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MRS.

PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MADAM

SPEAKER. THE MAJORITY CONFERENCE IS GOING TO 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.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 19, RULES REPORT NO. 791, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: SENATE NO. S08091, RULES REPORT NO.

791, SENATOR COONEY (A05496-A, LUPARDO, STIRPE, PEOPLES-STOKES).

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO THE TIMEFRAME OF

DISTRIBUTORS OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS TO FILE TAX RETURNS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: READ THE LAST

SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

423

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 19, RULES REPORT NO. 850, THE CLERK READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08809-B, RULES

REPORT NO. 850, GIGLIO. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 495 OF THE LAWS OF

2011 RELATING TO THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND FORMALLY USED AS AN ARMORY TO

THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, IN RELATION TO THE USE OF

SUCH PROPERTY.

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.)

MS. GIGLIO TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. GIGLIO: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. THIS BILL

ALLOWS THE TOWN TO LEASE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE FORMER RIVERHEAD

ARMORY TO THE YMCA OF LONG ISLAND FOR A VARIETY OF USES, ALL CENTERED

AND FOCUSED ON EXPANDING COMMUNITY BENEFIT, IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY

AND INCLUSIVITY, INCREASING OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND PROVIDE FOR COST

SAVINGS THAT BETTER ALIGN LONG-TERM COMMUNITY GOALS AND PROVIDE FOR

COMMUNITY INTEGRATION OPPORTUNITIES WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ALL

424

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

RESIDENTS REGARDLESS OF INCOME AND AGE, OR BACKGROUND. REPURPOSING

THE RIVERHEAD ARMORY FOR USE BY THE YMCA REPRESENTS A

FORWARD-THINKING INVESTMENT IN THE HEALTH, WELL-BEING AND UNITY OF OUR

COMMUNITY. THIS CHANGE TRANSFORMS A LIMITED-USE FACILITY INTO A

VIBRANT COMMUNITY HUB SERVING THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS ANNUALLY AND

ENHANCING QUALITY OF LIFE FOR GENERATIONS ACROSS GENERATIONS.

I'M ECSTATIC. I KNOW IT'S LATE. I WANT TO THANK YOU TO

THE GREAT STAFF IN THE ASSEMBLY ON BOTH SIDES; VERY THOROUGH,

KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HELPFUL. THANK YOU TO THE LEADER, THE SPEAKER,

THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, THE YMCA, THE FLOOR

LEADERS, FOR REALIZING HOW IMPORTANT THIS BILL IS AND FOR BRINGING THE

FLOOR -- TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE. THE YMCA CAN NOW SEEK GRANT

FUNDING AND THEY CAN START FUNDRAISING TO TRANSFORM THIS ARMORY THAT

HAS BEEN DILAPIDATED FOR OVER 20 YEARS. SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO

BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER IN THIS GREAT FACILITY AND AGAIN, THANK

YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO HELPED GET THIS TO THE FLOOR. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MS. GIGLIO 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

CAN NOW MOVE TO B- AND C- CALENDARS AND TAKE THEM UP IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON CONSENT, PAGE 4

425

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

-- ON MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES' MOTION, WE WILL BE ADVANCING THE B- AND

C- CALENDAR.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU. AND WE

WILL BEGIN ON PAGE 4. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THANK YOU. ON

CONSENT, PAGE 4, RULES REPORT NO. 885, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00074, RULES REPORT

NO. 885, PHEFFER AMATO, JONES, HUNTER, WOERNER, MCMAHON, CONRAD,

HYNDMAN, LUPARDO, STERN, WEPRIN, LUNSFORD, LAVINE, BURDICK,

DAVILA, MEEKS, EACHUS, RAGA, BARRETT, KAY, HEVESI, P. CARROLL,

BRONSON, SAYEGH, KASSAY, SCHIAVONI, MCDONALD, BRAUNSTEIN, GRIFFIN,

BERGER, BENEDETTO, SEAWRIGHT, ANDERSON, BURROUGHS, O'PHARROW,

BUTTENSCHON, BRABENEC, OTIS. AN ACT TO AMEND THE REAL PROPERTY TAX

LAW, IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHING A REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR

VETERANS WHO HAVE A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON MOTION BY MS.

PHEFFER AMATO, 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.

426

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02341, RULES REPORT

NO. 886, PAULIN, HEVESI, TAPIA, LUNSFORD, MEEKS, REYES, KELLES,

ROSENTHAL, WOERNER, TAYLOR, MCDONALD, LEVENBERG, LUPARDO,

SEAWRIGHT, BRABENEC, JENSEN, CHANDLER-WATERMAN, SAYEGH, GRIFFIN,

BURKE. AN ACT TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN RELATION TO REGISTERED

DENTAL HYGIENISTS WORKING WITHOUT SUPERVISION BUT WITHIN A

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE AGREEMENT WITH A LICENSED DENTIST.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 547TH

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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02595, RULES REPORT

NO. 887, RA. AN ACT IN RELATION TO AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF NASSAU

ASSESSOR TO ACCEPT AN APPLICATION FOR A REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION

FROM THE CATHEDRAL OF THE INCARNATION IN THE DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND.

427

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

RA, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A04136, RULES REPORT

NO. 888, TAGUE. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION FOR IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL SALES TAX IN

THE COUNTY OF SCHOHARIE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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.

428

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A04613-B, RULES

REPORT NO. 889, PRETLOW, ROZIC, BRONSON, PAULIN, GRIFFIN, KAY,

BERGER, EACHUS, STIRPE, CLARK. AN ACT TO AMEND THE EDUCATION LAW, IN

RELATION TO MODERNIZING THE SCOPE OF THE PRACTICE OF PODIATRY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 545TH

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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A04842, RULES REPORT

NO. 890, TAGUE. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION FOR OTSEGO COUNTY TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL

RATES OF SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAXES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. HOME RULE MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

429

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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. A04986, RULES REPORT

NO. 891, TAGUE. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION FOR IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL SALES AND

COMPENSATING USE TAXES IN GREENE COUNTY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A05007, RULES REPORT

NO. 892, TAGUE. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 218 OF THE LAWS OF 2009

AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF GREENE TO

IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL MORTGAGE RECORDING TAX, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING

430

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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 RESULT.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A05393, RULES REPORT

NO. 893, RA, MCDONOUGH. AN ACT GRANTING RETROACTIVE MEMBERSHIP

WITH TIER IV STATUS IN THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES'

RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO DAWN WARD.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

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.

431

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A05514, RULES REPORT

NO. 894, BLANKENBUSH. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY OF LEWIS TO IMPOSE AN

ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT OF SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAXES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A05574, RULES REPORT

NO. 895, BARCLAY. AN ACT TO AMEND THE COUNTY LAW, IN RELATION TO

REESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF CORONER IN THE COUNTY OF OSWEGO AND

REMOVING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF CORONERS FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

IN SUCH COUNTY AND ALLOWING OSWEGO COUNTY TO APPOINT A CORONER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: HOME RULE

MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

432

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 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. A05621, RULES REPORT

NO. 896, BARCLAY. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COUNTY OF OSWEGO TO IMPOSE AN

ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT OF SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAXES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A05832-B, RULES

REPORT NO. 897, KELLES, ROSENTHAL, REYES, EPSTEIN, MAMDANI,

BURDICK, SIMONE, COLTON, MCMAHON, DAVILA, SHRESTHA, SHIMSKY,

433

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

FORREST, ALVAREZ, CLARK, GONZ LEZ-ROJAS, RAGA, ROMERO, GRIFFIN, OTIS,

SCHIAVONI, STIRPE, LUNSFORD, JACOBSON, SEAWRIGHT, WOERNER, DINOWITZ,

PAULIN, LEVENBERG, MCDONALD, LASHER, SIMON, BENDETT, HEVESI. AN

ACT TO AMEND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, IN RELATION TO

ENACTING THE "PFAS DISCHARGE DISCLOSURE ACT".

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED.

THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A06344, RULE REPORT

NO. 898, RA. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING

THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU TO IMPOSE HOTEL AND MOTEL TAXES

IN NASSAU COUNTY; TO AMEND CHAPTER 179 OF THE LAWS OF 2000

AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO HOTEL AND MOTEL TAXES IN NASSAU

COUNTY AND A SURCHARGE ON TICKETS TO PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT IN SUCH

COUNTY, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS THEREOF; AND TO

AMEND THE TAX LAW IN RELATION TO EXTENDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE

COUNTY OF NASSAU TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL SALES AND COMPENSATING USE

TAXES, AND IN RELATION TO EXTENDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS IN NASSAU COUNTY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

HOME RULE MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

434

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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. A06405, RULES REPORT

NO. 899, PALMESANO. AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, IN

RELATION TO GRANTING PEACE OFFICER STATUS TO ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS OF

THE COUNTY OF SCHUYLER.

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. A06450-C [SIC], RULES

REPORT NO. 900, BORES, CUNNINGHAM, KELLES, FORREST,

CHANDLER-WATERMAN, TORRES, OTIS. AN ACT TO AMEND THE GENERAL

BUSINESS LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING SYNTHETIC CONTENT CREATIONS

SYSTEM PROVIDERS TO INCLUDE PROVENANCE DATA ON SYNTHETIC CONTENT

PRODUCED OR MODIFIED BY A SYNTHETIC CONTENT CREATIONS SYSTEM THAT THE

435

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SYNTHETIC CONTENT CREATIONS SYSTEM PROVIDER MAKES AVAILABLE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A06614-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 901, RA. AN ACT IN RELATION TO AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF

NASSAU ASSESSOR TO ACCEPT AN APPLICATION FOR A REAL PROPERTY TAX

EXEMPTION FROM CHABAD OF WEST HEMPSTEAD.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

RA, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A06659, RULES REPORT

NO. 902, PALMESANO, BAILEY, SEMPOLINSKI. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER

365 OF THE LAWS OF 2005, AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO THE

MORTGAGE RECORDING TAX IN THE COUNTY OF STEUBEN, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH CHAPTER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

436

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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

ADVANCED. 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. A06688, RULES REPORT

NO. 903, BLANKENBUSH. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL SALES TAX.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A06820, RULES REPORT

437

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NO. 904, TAGUE. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE TO IMPOSE AN

ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT OF SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAXES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A06916-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 905, HAWLEY. AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BATAVIA TO

ALIENATE CERTAIN PARKLANDS FOR USE AS A MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT AND TO

PRESERVE THE HISTORIC BRISBANE MANSION.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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.

438

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(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. A07452-B, RULES

REPORT NO. 906, DIPIETRO. AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGHWAY LAW, IN

RELATION TO DEDICATING A PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM TO THE

BOSTON NY FALLEN FIREFIGHTERS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

DIPIETRO, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A07885, RULES REPORT

NO. 907, PALMESANO. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TOWN LAW AND THE PUBLIC

OFFICERS LAW, IN RELATION TO AUTHORIZING THE TOWN JUSTICE OF THE TOWN

OF MONTOUR, COUNTY OF SCHUYLER, TO BE A NONRESIDENT OF SUCH TOWN.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

439

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A07930-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 908, BARCLAY. AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGHWAY LAW, IN

RELATION TO DEDICATING A PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM TO

LIEUTENANT DONALD R. HILL.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

BARCLAY, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A07968, RULES REPORT

440

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

NO. 909, MAHER. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 290 OF THE LAWS OF 2023,

AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE OF GOSHEN

TO IMPOSE A HOTEL AND MOTEL TAX, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS

THEREOF.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A08072, RULES REPORT

NO. 910, BARCLAY. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE CITY OF OSWEGO TO IMPOSE AN

ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT OF SALES AND COMPENSATING USE TAXES.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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

441

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08079-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 911, HAWLEY. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 530 OF THE LAWS

OF 2024 AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO AUTHORIZING AN OCCUPANCY

TAX IN THE VILLAGE OF MEDINA, IN RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A08143-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 912, BARCLAY. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

PERMITTING FUNDS COLLECTED FROM THE OSWEGO COUNTY OCCUPANCY TAX

TO BE USED ON MAKING TOURISM RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: HOME RULE

442

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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. A08234-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 913, HAWLEY. AN ACT TO AMEND 220 OF THE LAWS OF 1976

INCORPORATING THE BROCKPORT EXEMPT FIREMAN'S BENEVOLENT

ASSOCIATION, MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, AND PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS

AND DUTIES, IN RELATION TO ITS PURPOSE AND THE USE OF FOREIGN FIRE

INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

HAWLEY, 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.)

443

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08235, RULES REPORT

NO. 914, HAWLEY. AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, IN

RELATION TO DESIGNATING AS PEACE OFFICERS DOG CONTROL OFFICERS OF THE

VILLAGE OF HOLLEY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: READ THE LAST

SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL -- 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. A08268, RULES REPORT

NO. 915, E. BROWN. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 676 OF THE LAWS OF

1978, AMENDING THE TOWN LAW RELATING TO PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR

CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING

THE EXPIRATION THEREOF.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

444

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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. A08290, RULES REPORT

NO. 916, MAHER. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING AUTHORIZATION TO IMPOSE CERTAIN TAXES IN THE COUNTY OF

SULLIVAN.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A08366, RULES REPORT

NO. 917, E. BROWN. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 821 OF THE LAWS OF

1970 AMENDING THE TOWN LAW RELATING TO PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR

PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR PARK OR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES BY THE TOWN OF

445

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

HEMPSTEAD, IN RELATION TO THE TERM OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH CHAPTER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

E. BROWN, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED. 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. A08650, RULES REPORT

NO. 918, E. BROWN. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 672 OF THE LAWS OF

1993, AMENDING THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW RELATING TO THE

CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF FACILITIES FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC LIBRARIES, IN

RELATION TO INCLUDING THE ISLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

E. BROWN, 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.)

446

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08776-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 919, CHLUDZINSKI. AN ACT TO AMEND THE TAX LAW, IN

RELATION TO AUTHORIZING AN OCCUPANCY TAX IN THE TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA;

AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF SUCH PROVISIONS UPON EXPIRATION

THEREOF.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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. A08777, RULES REPORT

NO. 920, SLATER. AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 339 OF THE LAWS OF 2023

AMENDING THE TAX LAW RELATING TO AUTHORIZING AN OCCUPANCY TAX IN THE

TOWN OF PUTNAM VALLEY, IN PUTNAM COUNTY, IN RELATION TO EXTENDING

THE EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

447

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

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

ADVANCED. 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. A08782-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 921, KIM, MCDONALD, GLICK, HUNTER, BENDETT, JONES,

MEEKS. AN ACT IN RELATION TO A FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT ON THE

POTENTIAL REESTABLISHMENT OF THE EMPIRE STATE SUMMER GAMES.

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.)

MR. BENDETT TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. BENDETT: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, TO

EXPLAIN MY VOTE. THIS BILL MAKES ME VERY, VERY HAPPY. I WANT TO

THANK THE SPONSOR. AS SOMEBODY WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE EMPIRE STATE

448

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

GAMES TWICE AND MEDALED, MY BROTHER AND MY SISTER BOTH PARTICIPATED.

THE EMPIRE STATE GAMES WERE STARTED IN 1978 BY A

MAN NAMED HERBERT MOLS FROM BUFFALO AND IT WAS THE LARGEST AMATEUR

EVENT IN THE COUNTRY. WE WERE THE FIRST STATE TO DO IT AND AFTER THAT

OTHER STATES FOLLOWED. IN 1983 WHEN I WAS ON THE TEAM AS SCHOLASTIC IN

THE OPEN DIVISION IN WRESTLING, WE HAD OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST JEFF

BLATNICK COMPETE AND OTHER OLYMPIANS ALSO. IT'S BEEN A REALLY

WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE FOR A LOT OF KIDS AND I HOPE THAT NEXT TIME WE

CAN COME BACK AND -- AND PUT TOGETHER A BILL THAT WILL REESTABLISH THE

EMPIRE STATE SUMMER GAMES AND VALIDATE ALL OF THE WONDERFUL

ATHLETES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR STATE. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I

VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: MR. BENDETT IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

(APPLAUSE)

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08794, RULES REPORT

NO. 922, E. BROWN. AN ACT TO AMEND THE CHAPTER 846 OF THE LAWS OF

1970, AMENDING THE COUNTY LAW RELATING TO PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES

FOR PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR PARK OR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, IN RELATION TO

EXTENDING THE TERM OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH CHAPTER.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: HOME RULE

MESSAGE IS AT THE DESK.

449

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

E. BROWN, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED. 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. A08906, RULES REPORT

NO. 923, TORRES. AN ACT TO AMEND THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, IN

RELATION TO REQUIRING ENTITIES THAT ACCESS A CONSUMER'S CONSUMER CREDIT

REPORT TO NOTIFY EACH CONSUMER OF THEIR RIGHT TO OBTAIN A SECURITY

FREEZE.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

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

ADVANCED.

THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00070-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 924, R. CARROLL, GONZ LEZ-ROJAS, LEVENBERG, DAVILA. AN

ACT TO AMEND THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, IN RELATION TO REQUIRING

450

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

THIRD-PARTY FOOD DELIVERY SERVICES MAINTAIN INSURANCE THROUGH A GROUP

POLICY THAT COVERS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING

FROM QUALIFYING ACCIDENTS INVOLVING A DELIVERY PERSON.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

R. CARROLL, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED.

THIS BILL IS LAID ASIDE.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A03347-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 925, SMITH. AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGHWAY LAW, IN

RELATION TO DEDICATING A PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM TO 9-11

FALL FIREFIGHTERS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

SMITH, 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.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A04915, RULES REPORT

NO. 926, PHEFFER AMATO, STERN. AN ACT TO AMEND THE RETIREMENT AND

SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, IN RELATION TO DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN

451

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY THE NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

PHEFFER AMATO, THE SENATE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE. THE SENATE BILL IS

ADVANCED. 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. A08645-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 927, DESTEFANO, STERN. AN ACT RELATING TO DISABILITY

RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR DEPUTY SHERIFF RICHARD STUEBER, A PARTICIPANT

IN WORLD TRADE CENTER RESCUE, RECOVERY, AND CLEANUP OPERATIONS.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MR.

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

ADVANCED. 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.

452

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

ON THE C-CALENDAR, PAGE 3, RULES REPORT NO. 928,

THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A08560-A, RULES

REPORT NO. 928, KASSAY, STERN, GRIFFIN, SCHIAVONI, RAMOS. AN ACT IN

RELATION TO DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO GRANT A

PERMANENT ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO THE METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: ON A MOTION BY MS.

KASSAY, 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.

ON THE B-CALENDAR, RESOLUTIONS, PAGE 3, THE CLERK

WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 820, MR.

HEASTIE.

ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PLAN SETTING FORTH

453

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

AN ITEMIZED LIST OF GRANTEES FOR A CERTAIN APPROPRIATION FOR THE

2025-2026 STATE FISCAL YEAR FOR GRANTS IN AID FOR SERVICES AND

EXPENSES OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, HUMAN SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS,

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ENTITIES, HEALTH AND

MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS AND PROVIDERS, PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL

PROGRAMS, VETERANS' ORGANIZATIONS SERVICES, ORDER ADULTS PROGRAMS,

VARIOUS NOT-FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES, AND EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL GRANTS.

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 RESOLUTION IS PASSED -- IS ADOPTED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 821, MR.

HEASTIE.

ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION

R 2002 OF 2008 ESTABLISHING A PLAN SETTING FORTH AN ITEMIZED LIST OF

GRANTEES FOR THE NEW YORK STATE CAPITAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO AN APPROPRIATION IN THE 2008-2009 STATE FISCAL

YEAR AND IN PART QQ OF CHAPTER 57 OF THE LAWS OF 2008.

ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

454

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

SPEAKER HEASTIE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES?

ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.

WELL, WELL, WELL. SO, WE CAME INTO THIS SESSION THIS

YEAR LASER-FOCUSED ON EASING THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON FAMILIES AND SINCE

JANUARY WORKED TOGETHER TO PUT MONEY BACK IN THE POCKETS OF HARD-

WORKING NEW YORKERS, CUTTING TAXES, SECURING INFLATION REBATE CHECKS.

OUR ASSEMBLY MAJORITY HAS SPEARHEADED THE EFFORT TO PAY OFF THE

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DEBT, A VITAL INVESTMENT IN THE SMALL

BUSINESSES THAT SIT AT THE HEART OF OUR COMMUNITIES. WE ALSO SECURED

FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS VITAL TO OUR FAMILIES, MAKING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MORE ACCESSIBLE, MAKING CHILDCARE MORE AFFORDABLE AND RELIABLE AND

PUTTING HIGHER EDUCATION WITHIN REACH FOR MORE STUDENTS. BUT -- SO

NONE OF THIS WORK WOULD BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT ALL OF THE HARD WORK OF

OUR INCREDIBLE MEMBERS AND I'LL SAY THAT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE STAFF ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE THAT REALLY DO A

LOT OF THE WORK.

(APPLAUSE)

AND OF COURSE, OUR AMAZING MAJORITY LEADER, CRYSTAL

PEOPLES-STOKES.

(APPLAUSE)

THIS YEAR IN OCTOBER, I'M HOSTING THE NATIONAL

SPEAKERS CONFERENCE AND SADLY, THE -- THE FORMER SPEAKER OF

455

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

MINNESOTA WOULD MOST PROBABLY WOULD'VE ATTENDED IT. BUT ONE OF THE

EVENTS THAT WHEN I -- WHEN I GO TO THE SPEAKERS CONFERENCES YOU DO A

-- A BREAK-OUT SESSION AMONGST THE SPEAKERS AND PART OF THAT IS A

DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR COUNTERPART. AND

WHEN I'M AT THE -- THAT MEETING, WHATEVER STATE IT IS, WHETHER IT'S A

DEMOCRATIC SPEAKER OR A REPUBLICAN SPEAKER, THEY ALL COMPLAINED

ABOUT HOW IT WAS LIKE A BLOOD FEUD WITH THEIR COUNTERPART. SO I SAT

THERE WITH A SMILE ON MY FACE AND I ACTUALLY SAID, I LOVE MY

COUNTERPART. AND -- AND WILL BARCLAY WHO'S AN AMAZING, GOOD FRIEND

AND LEADER.

(APPLAUSE)

AND BY THE WAY, IN --- IN THE SPIRIT OF THAT, I'VE ASKED

WILL TO DO THE WELCOME WITH ME AT THE SPEAKERS CONFERENCE IN

OCTOBER. SO THANK YOU, WILL, FOR DOING THAT.

(APPLAUSE)

SO WE HAD TWO NEWBIES THAT TOOK ON TWO IMPORTANT

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS HOUSE AND I JUST THINK THEY KNOCKED IT OUT OF

THE PARK AND THAT'S OUR SPEAKER PRO TEM PAM HUNTER.

(APPLAUSE)

AND THE OTHER NEWBIE WHO DID A FANTASTIC JOB AND

THAT'S OUR WAYS AND MEANS CHAIR, GARY PRETLOW.

(APPLAUSE)

AND I'D SAY TO THE PERSON WHO I ACTUALLY THINK HAS THE

HARDEST JOB IN THE ASSEMBLY AND THAT'S JEN BEST, WHO IS OUR HEAD OF

PROGRAM AND POLICY.

456

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

(APPLAUSE)

AND TO THE -- AND TO OUR ENTIRE PROGRAM AND COUNSEL

STAFF, I DO WANT TO THANK YOU AND -- AND I'LL GET TO THE WAYS AND MEANS

STAFF, I WANT TO REALLY THANK YOU ALL. YOU HAD TO DO OVERTIME BECAUSE

WE HAD A LATE BUDGET AND THEN YOU SWITCHED RIGHT INTO TRYING TO GET US

THROUGH THE REST OF THE SESSION. SO I WANT TO REALLY THANK YOU ALL FOR

DOING THAT.

(APPLAUSE)

AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY THE EASIEST JOB BUT --

BUT ALSO HE DOES AN INCREDIBLE JOB, PHIL FIELDS AND THE ENTIRE WAYS AND

MEANS STAFF.

(APPLAUSE)

PHIL EVEN FOUND SOMEBODY TO SHARE WITH OUR

REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AS WELL SO...

(APPLAUSE)

SO I HAD CHALLENGED DEB MILLER TO GET US TO AT LEAST

1,000 VOTES THIS SESSION. WE DID PASS MORE THAN WE DID LAST YEAR, BUT

I TOLD DEB SHE'S AN UNDERACHIEVER BECAUSE WE ONLY GOT TO 996.

(LAUGHTER)

BUT NO. I REALLY WANT TO THANK DEB AND -- AND

MARY-ANNE AND JOHN KNIGHT AND THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE SERVICES TEAM

FOR THE JOB WHICH YOU DO FOR US.

(APPLAUSE)

TO BECCA MUDI, HOWARD VARGAS AND DAVID

DECANCIO, I CALL THEM OUR SPECIAL OPS TEAM. TO KATIE BENDER,

457

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

LAUREN KEATING AND OUR CIS TEAM. I'M NOT DONE YET. AMY METCALFE,

ED HARRIS AND THE ASSEMBLY MAINTENANCE TEAM.

(APPLAUSE)

JOSIEL ESTRELLA AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL STAFF.

WENDY GALLEGOS AND MY OWN STAFF HERE IN ALBANY.

(APPLAUSE)

AND -- AND MY DISTRICT OFFICE IN THE BRONX AND AT 250

BROADWAY. AND OF COURSE, THE MOST BELOVED PERSON IN ALBANY, MR.

WAYNE JACKSON AND OUR CHAMBER SERGEANTS.

(APPLAUSE)

AND OF COURSE, OUR TWO WONDERFUL RECEPTIONISTS, ANITA

WILSON AND KIM MULLER WHO'S ACTUALLY RETIRING.

(APPLAUSE)

THANK YOU, KIM, FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE.

SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE WORK THAT YOU

DO AND MAY GOD CONTINUE TO -- TO BLESS US ALL.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

(APPLAUSE)

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS

AND STAFF, I LOVE YOU ALL. IT'S BEEN WAY TOO LONG FOR THIS SESSION. I GOT

TO GO. TAKE CARE, BE SAFE AND STAY BLESSED.

(APPLAUSE)

SPEAKER HEASTIE: MR. BARCLAY.

MR. BARCLAY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. CRYSTAL,

THAT WAS A GREAT CLOSING SPEECH. CAN I RECLAIM YOUR TIME ON THAT

458

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

SPEECH BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT I WANT -- JUST JOKING, JUST JOKING. 12:30,

MR. SPEAKER? 12:30, MR. SPEAKER? PRETTY GOOD.

SPEAKER HEASTIE: PRETTY GOOD.

MR. BARCLAY: I THINK THE LAST FEW YEARS WE WERE

ENDING A LOT LATER, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CLOSING. AND I APPRECIATE THE

FACT THAT -- YEAH, GIVE HIM A ROUND. HE DESERVES THAT.

(APPLAUSE)

I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS JOB CAN BE A CHALLENGE, BUT

WE DO IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP OUR CONSTITUENCY, AND I DO IT AND I

THINK MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER DO IT BECAUSE WE LOVE THE

PEOPLE WE WORK WITH. AND I CAN SAY THAT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE,

TOO. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE THAN THE

DEMOCRATIC SIDE.

BUT IF YOU ALLOW ME, MR. SPEAKER, I -- I WANT TO -- I'D

BE REMISE IF I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE A FEW OF THE PEOPLE ON OUR STAFF. BEFORE

I DO THAT THOUGH, THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR YOUR FRIENDSHIP AND YOUR

PROFESSIONALISM. I APPRECIATE IT. YOU'RE A GUY THAT I CAN CALL AND I

KNOW WE CAN HAVE A CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATION AND I JUST APPRECIATE

THAT VERY MUCH. SO THANK YOU. PLEASE GIVE THE SPEAKER ANOTHER ROUND

OF APPLAUSE.

(APPLAUSE)

CRYSTAL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR FRIENDSHIP AND YOUR

LEADERSHIP ON THIS FLOOR. PAM HUNTER, YOU'VE BEEN GREAT. MY FELLOW

CENTRAL NEW YORKER, YOU REALLY KNOW HOW TO INTRODUCE THOSE GUESTS

HERE, SO THANK YOU. AND KEEPING THE FLOOR IN ORDER. SO THANK YOU FOR

459

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DOING THAT.

IN OUR CONFERENCE, THE SPEAKER MENTIONED A FEW

NEWBIES ON HIS SIDE, BUT WE HAVE A FEW NEWBIES ON THIS SIDE. MARY

BETH WALSH, OUR FLOOR LEADER.

(APPLAUSE)

JARETT GANDOLFO DOES A GREAT JOB AS SECOND CHAIR,

THANKS JARETT.

(APPLAUSE)

OUR RANKER ON WAYS AND MEANS WE HEARD A LOT FROM

DURING THE BUDGET, BUT HE HASN'T STOPPED YET. HE CONTINUES TO CARRY OUR

MESSAGE HERE ON THE FLOOR, ED RA.

(APPLAUSE)

WHEN JUDY SKYPE, MY FORMER CHIEF-OF-STAFF, DECIDED

TO RETIRE LAST YEAR, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO. OBVIOUSLY,

IT'S A VERY KEY POSITION. I WAS VERY NERVOUS TO REPLACE HER, BUT I WAS

ABLE TO REPLACE HER WITH A GREAT REPLACEMENT, LAUREN O'HARE DOES A

TREMENDOUS JOB. THANK YOU, LAUREN.

(APPLAUSE)

I SUSPECT THIS PERSON WILL GET A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE

FROM MY CONFERENCE, BUT MICHELLE PELLEGRI DOES A GREAT JOB AS OUR

FLOOR COUNSEL.

(APPLAUSE)

AND YOU CERTAINLY KNOW, MR. SPEAKER, IF YOU DIDN'T

HAVE THAT TEAM AROUND YOU THAT WORK -- THAT YOU WORK WITH CLOSEST,

YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. SO I'M VERY BLESSED AND I JUST WANT

460

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

TO INTRODUCE ALL THESE PEOPLE AND THANK THEM AND THEN WE CAN GIVE A

ROUND OF APPLAUSE AT THE END. BUT I HAVE TOM KRAUS, MY EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR OF OUR CONFERENCE.

(APPLAUSE)

WE'LL DO IT AT THE END.

(LAUGHTER)

JASON KEHOE, POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR; ADAM

FUSCO, MY GENERAL COUNSEL; STEPHANIE HERRICK, MY SENIOR ADVISOR;

DAN KEARNS (PHONETIC) WHO OVERSEES OUR REGIONAL OPERATIONS AND

MIKE FRASER, MY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS. PLEASE GIVE THEM A

GREAT ROUND OF APPLAUSE.

(APPLAUSE)

AND ALL -- ALL THE -- ALL THE MINORITY STAFF AND THE

MAJORITY STAFF, TOO. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO. AND THEN I'LL JUST

CONCLUDE, MOST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO MY CONFERENCE. I LOVE WHAT YOU

GUYS DO. I APPRECIATE THE TRUST THAT YOU PUT ON ME, IT'S A GREAT HONOR

FOR ME TO SERVE AS YOUR LEADER. SO THANKS AND GIVE YOURSELVES A ROUND

OF APPLAUSE.

(APPLAUSE)

SO WITH THAT, EVERYBODY, HAVE A GREAT, SAFE SUMMER

AND ENJOY A LITTLE TIME OFF AFTER THIS SESSION. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

(APPLAUSE)

SPEAKER HEASTIE: THANK YOU.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF I FOLLOW

461

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

DIRECTIONS I'VE BEEN GIVEN BY THE HONORABLE WAYNE JACKSON, I WOULD

ASK EVERYBODY TO OPEN THE DESK -- THEIR DESK DRAWERS RIGHT NOW AND

TAKE OUT THE CANDY, THE CRACKERS, THE TRASH, TAKE IT ALL OUT NOW. AND

WHEN YOU HAVE IT ALL OUT, YOU CAN CLOSE YOUR DRAWERS BACK AND THEN WE

CAN CLOSE DOWN SESSION. THAT'S IMPORTANT. ARE WE DONE? GOOD DEAL.

MR. SPEAKER, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER HOUSEKEEPING

OR RESOLUTIONS?

SPEAKER HEASTIE: WE HAVE ONE RESOLUTION

BEFORE THE HOUSE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO.

THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I NOW MOVE THAT THE

ASSEMBLY STAND ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JUNE THE 18TH, TOMORROW

BEING A LEGISLATIVE DAY AND THAT WE RECONVENE AT THE CALL OF YOU, MR.

SPEAKER.

SPEAKER HEASTIE: ON MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES'

MOTION, THE HOUSE STANDS ADJOURNED.

(WHEREUPON, AT 12:37 A.M., THE HOUSE STOOD

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JUNE THE 18TH, THAT BEING A LEGISLATIVE DAY,

AND TO RECONVENE AT THE CALL OF THE SPEAKER.)

462

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2025

463