New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker,

[Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember)]: would you

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: please call the house to order?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The house will come to order. Good afternoon, colleagues. In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the Pledge of Allegiance. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Tuesday, January 27, miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Tuesday, January 27 and that the same stand approved.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Without objection, so ordered.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: And welcome colleagues to the chambers today and the guests that are with us as well. I have a quote we'd like to start out with. This one is from Alice Walker. Most of you probably know her. She's an African American woman, novelist, short storyteller. Her words for us today, the most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have it. Again, these words are from the very esteemed Alice Walker. Madam speaker, colleagues have on their desk a main calendar. And before you do any housekeeping or introductions, we're going to be file calling for the following committees off the floor. Today, we're gonna start with ways and means and immediately follow it with rules. These committees are gonna produce an a calendar of which we will take up today. After housekeeping and introductions, we will take up a debate calendar number two forty one by miss Paulin. There may be a need for additional floor activity as we proceed, madam speaker. If that is the case, we will be happy to advise. Majority members should be aware that there will definitely be a need for a conference immediately following our work on the floor. And as always, we will check with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to determine what their needs, if any, may be. That's the general outline of where we're going today. Madam speaker, if you could begin by calling the Ways and Means Committee to the Speakers Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Ways and means committee to the Speakers Conference Room. Please make your way to Speakers Conference Room. Ways and means committee members. We do have a piece of housekeeping on a motion by Mr. Dinowitz, page 21, calendar number 92, bill number 2,565. The amendments are received and adopted. We have no introductions, so we're going to go straight into our work. Members, we're gonna be on debate, so take your seat. Take your conversation outside. Page 45, calendar number two forty one. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ninety two seventeen, calendar two forty one, miss Pollan, an act to amend the penal law. On

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: a motion by miss Pollan, the senate is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Pollan.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, Ms. Speaker. The bill would ensure that state law did not prohibit the prescribing or dispensing of mifepristone or any drug used for medication abortion solely because it is no longer approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Ms. Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I would be happy to.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Thank you very much. So I guess the first thing I'd like to do is just to walk through the bill. I appreciate your explanation but to walk through the bill, the changes that it makes specifically to the penal law and to the education law and just kind of start from there if we could. Sure. So first off, does this bill apply to both mifepristone and misoprostol? Am I I don't know

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: what you mean John's. So it applies to any drug that is involved with medication abortion that there would be a change in the federal FDA approval for.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Okay. So and the reason I ask that is that it looks as though as I read accounts of what was going to be studied by the FDA, it was specifically talking about mifepristone. But this bill is actually a little bit broader in the sense that it covers any medications used to perform a medication abortion, correct?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I believe there's only two, So we just cover both just to ensure, you know, we don't exactly know, it hasn't been predictable, you know, what is coming out of the administration.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Okay. Yeah I noticed that so the reference I would just give for colleagues is page one, line 17 of the bill. It specifically names mifepristone but then it says or any drug used for medication abortions. So that's what this bill is covering,

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: correct? Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Okay, very good. So could you talk a little bit about the portion of this bill that specifically deals with changes to the penal law and the criminal diversion act more specifically in Section 178. So

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: the first two sections of the bill are really definitions. And it's the change in section three that is really the heart of the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Okay. Could you summarize what that section does? So

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: it essentially allows for any existing drug in the way we described that's on the shelf of the pharmacy already. So it already is there, but it's labeled for use because it's currently used for medication abortions. So if it's labeled for that use, it could still be used. You know, once the federal government changes it, then the labels would change and that wouldn't really apply anymore.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: So just to recap what you just explained then, the way I understand it is mifepristone is on a pharmacy shelf or is already here ready to be prescribed and the black box warning that's currently on that drug changes in any way, it may still be prescribed without falling prey or subject to the Criminal Diversion Act under the penal law, correct?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: So we protect our professionals here in New York for the existing drugs that they currently are using.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Okay. So as far as I was looking at a 2023 press release from the Governor's office and in it the Governor stated that New York was going to begin stockpiling up to five years of doses of

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: misoprostol. It's okay, we could call it some nickname.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Yeah, I feel like I need to. But it was good, so does the bill contemplate that anything that's been stockpiled, I don't know if that actually happened.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I don't know if it happened either.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Okay. But if it did happen and we do have some kind of a stockpile of one or either or any of those abortion producing medications for medication abortions It apply. It would apply to that as well. Yes. Okay, very good. So the section about the education law addresses something different. And I'm looking at page two of the bill, section two. Could you just talk about that portion of the bill, what that

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: does? Sure. Let me just reread it.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Or I think Yeah, that's more accurately

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: section three. Before. Yeah.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: It would section three that I'm talking about. Apologize, yeah.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: So which section, I'm sorry?

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Section three which talks about section 6,815 of the education law being amended.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: So that's the part of the bill that does essentially say that it's not deemed adulterated or misbranded. So that's really the part that protects the pharmacist who would be dispensing the drug from being, you know, from doing anything inappropriate? Like any kind of professional licensure issue

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: or anything as like a result? Okay. All right. So I mentioned before that the mifepristone already has a black box warning currently that talks about that serious and sometimes fatal infections and bleeding occur very rarely, is what the black box currently says, following spontaneous surgical and medical abortions. And it talks about very rarely deaths have been reported in patients who presented without fever, with or without abdominal pain, etcetera. So what do you think I mean the FDA is going to be studying this. We know from the Health and Human Services Director, RFK Jr, that he's going to take he's directed FDA to take a top to bottom review of the efficacy safety and efficacy of these drugs. What is the fear? Is there a fear that the FDA is going to come out in a particular way? Because the study isn't completed or anything, right?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Well, there was one study that was done by a group that has been labeled anti choice who's done a study. And that study has been refuted by, I'm going to say legitimate scientists, Kaiser Foundation, as being a study that doesn't really follow scientific protocol. And so the concern is that that study is being used to and was cited as the basis for a continued review. So we don't know if there's going to be a real review, whether or not the FDA is going to look at real scientific studies or not. The concern is not that. If they do that we feel confident that just like all the other studies that have been done it's going to show that it's less than one percent have serious impact. Unlike a drug like Viagra which also has the same kind of black box which has a two percent serious rate. In fact, Viagra has, can cause dangerous drops in sudden rare or serious reduction or loss of vision or hearing, heart attacks and strokes. And for the sake of this group, I'm not going to say what else it could cause because it might be embarrassing.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: So

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I think that it's very common to have those kinds of warnings on medications that are behind the counter dispensed. And I would argue, because I have another bill that does this, you know, that the safety measures and the use over time, know, mifepristone is used in 100 countries. Medication abortion is used in 100 countries safely and effectively with such few instances of seriousness. That, you know, so if those are the studies that are done, and I would say that a broader evidence is the fact that so many women have used it over time, then I would feel very confident. But I fear having looked at the one study, which has been again debunked by many scientists, that if that's what is the basis, we have to do this.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: So but that and I think you're referring to the ethics in public policy center study that looked at eight hundred and sixty five thousand cases between 2017 and 2023 and reported nearly eleven percent saw complications like sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection in the ER visits, which would be 22 times higher than the current FDA label, which says point zero five percent of complications. That study which was not an FDA study though, correct? That was correct. All

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: studies are really done by the FDA. The FDA looks at clinically appropriate studies so they could look at that one but it wasn't sponsored or asked for by them.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: That's right. So RFK Jr's letter to senators, there were 22 senators from Republican states who were asking for this review of these abortion medication drugs. Back in September 2025, stated that FDA's own data collected between February 2012 indicated two thousand seven hundred and forty adverse events including four sixteen events involving blood loss requiring transfusion. That appears to be distinct and different from that ethics and public policy center study that I know and I know you mentioned it in your memorandum of support of this legislation saying that that was considered to be, you know, an unreliable or

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: No, no, Not suggesting Maybe not unreliable.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: I don't know what adjective you'd want to use, but not in line with other studies that have shown that since mefepristone has been approved for this use in 2000 to the present time, that it's an outlier in terms of

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I think that all drugs, you know, they keep a record on adverse effects so that they know whether or not to pull them, absolutely. The data that they're citing though and that they've cited should aren't that serious comparative to other drugs again like a Viagra where the seriousness and the level of reporting is even higher. But yet we don't see that drug being pulled from the market or being reevaluated. So, I do think that there's a political concern, you know, or a legitimate concern here that we just want to make sure that whatever we have, no one is being jeopardized by sending it out because it has been safe and effective.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: So and also two other states have essentially done very similar legislation to what this is proposing, right? California and Illinois, correct?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Yes, I believe so. There might even be a third, I'm looking.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Those are the two that I was looking for.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Yeah, in this pile I have it. So look as we're talking. Okay,

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: well I guess the last thing I kind of wanted to touch on was the fact that this legislation contemplates that moving forward as long as the WHO, the World Health Organization in its clinical guidance says that this is these medications are safe to prescribe regardless of what the FDA may or may not say. And that we're going to just adopt what the WHO is Similar to what

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: we did in the insurance law, you know, for the same drug I think two years ago. So, yes, so that is what we're anticipating. And you were right, California and Illinois are not

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: a third. Okay. Do we do that for have we done that for any other medication that you're aware of where we've

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: No, not in New York State law.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Okay. Not that I'm aware. Okay, just

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Just these this for reasons that I think we all know.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Yeah, okay. Well thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, I'll go on the bill and I do notice that I'm running short on my first fifteen minutes and so I'm going to anticipate and say that I'm going to need a little bit longer than that to wrap up and I'd like to exercise my second fifteen when the time is right.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: One moment with Ms. Walsh. Mr. Fall for

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: announcement. Yes

[Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember)]: Madam Speaker, would you please call the Rules Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Rules Committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. Rules committee to the Speakers Conference Room. Ms. Walsh.

[Michael Reilly (Assemblymember)]: Thank

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: you Madam Speaker. So I will at this point go on the bill. Thank you. So my colleagues, so this bill today is interesting in the sense that we don't do this for any other medication that I'm aware of where we're basically saying that we're concerned that the FDA that will study these abortion medication drugs and will somehow adversely affect our current method in New York of prescribing them either directly to a patient or through mail or telehealth and all of the different ways that we allow these abortion medications to be distributed in New York currently. So I thought it would be interesting to just take a look at what's happened in New York State just since I've been elected. So in 2019 we had the reproductive health act allowing abortions after twenty four weeks. Then in 2019 we had an expansion of providers that authorized nurse practitioners, PAs and midwives to perform abortions. In 2019 we also had the comprehensive contraception coverage act mandated insurance coverage for contraception. In 2022 and 2023 we've had shield laws implemented, legal protections for providers and patients traveling to New York for abortion care. And last year we had a bill that passed and is law now shielding a shield law allowing for the prescriber name and address to be removed from labels. So it's been noted that in the research that I've done that starting at around 2023, even if you look nationwide, during the Biden administration, there was an expansion to allowing more telehealth and more mail order prescriptions or not mail order prescriptions, but prescriptions sent by mail for abortion care. And perhaps because of that expansion, there were, as I mentioned prior, there were 22 senators that wrote a letter of concern to the HHS director, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, for these abortion drugs to be reviewed, specifically methopristone, which is one part of the two part cocktail that results in abortion, the way that it's dispensed generally speaking. So that it did cite, I believe that the senators did raise this research that I mentioned before, this ethics and public policy center study. I think that that study may have provided more of a I would describe it as more a catalyst for asking for the examination into the efficacy and safety of these medications. But also in RFK Jr. Letter of response to the senators, he states that the FDA's own data collected showed that between February 2012 there were two thousand seven hundred and forty adverse events including four sixteen events involving blood loss requiring transfusions. So even if we say, as the sponsor I believe is saying, that the ethics in public policy center study is not to be completely credited because it's maybe over amplifying the number of complications. Even if we think that it's greater than the point zero five percent that's currently in the black box warning for this medication, I would argue that there's nothing wrong with taking a look at what the data actually shows and doing a study. And that study has not been completed. We don't know what this study is going to say. I mean I will, I'll admit that sometimes it's exciting to hear what the HHS director is saying, right? He's coming out with statements about additives and dyes and stuff in food, or the use of sugar or the use of alcohol. And some things that we would have general, you know, maybe agreement, maybe a good appreciation that he's taking the lead in talking about some of these things. But there is an uncertainty in knowing what this report and what this study is going to show. But I would just say that until we know what it shows, until we know what the recommendation would be, that it would be possibly changing the warning, which is I think what he stated, RFK stated in his letter. He said maybe that there would be a change in the black box warning that already exists on the mifepristone. But regardless, we don't know what this study is going to show. I think we're kind of putting the cart before the horse here. I think this is we're engaging in a little bit of hypothetical FDA rescission, you know, hypothesis here of what FDA is going to come out with. And I think that until we do know what FDA is going say, I think that we're kind of premature on this. And I would say that we should probably, it would be wiser to wait. Because if we're going to act now and say maybe if, but if, I just don't think that that's a great way to legislate. So can appreciate the sponsor bringing this forward. The other thing I'll say is that using the World Health Organization's insight and clinical guidance over our own FDA just doesn't seem right to me. We don't do it for anything else. Why are we doing it here? So for all those reasons, and some that I imagine will be mentioned by other colleagues, I'm planning on voting no on this piece of legislation and I would encourage my colleagues to also vote no. Thank you so much Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Mr. Durso?

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: some Will the sponsor yield? Yes, I would. The sponsor yields.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, Ms. Poland. So just to continue what my colleague was saying, so and and I apologize we may go into some of the same questions. Is the this is currently this bill would change the penal law and education law. Correct? Mhmm. In regards to just this one specific medication.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Yes.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: What what's the penalty now? In other words, in in as far as education law and penal law, if someone was to prescribe a medication that's not FDA approved now in New York State.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: The penalty now, I'm gonna turn to staff. So if you commit, there's different levels like there are, you know, right? So if you commit a criminal if you let me restate that. So, if it's in the fourth degree for committing a crime in the Criminal Diversion Act, it's a misdemeanor A. Third degree, which commits the crime of diversion, of criminal diversion and prescriptions in the fourth and has previously been convicted. So in other words, repeat offender. Then it's an e felony.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: So it starts at, and I

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: But don't want to make you go through the whole that's still something that you don't want to necessarily have on a record of a pharmacist or a doctor who is prescribing the

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: So it starts at misdemeanor. Right? And then, obviously, goes up

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: It goes up

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: to a

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: upon felony.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Right. So now this obviously, that just changed New York state law, but federal law still comes into effect, correct, when it it comes to

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: These are state laws that regulate this type of thing. I don't think that there's federal laws that are are used for the distribution of drugs.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Right. But the state is allowed to make its own laws from my understanding. When it comes to the FDA, and again, I'm not 100% sure, but my understanding was that you can make stricter laws when it comes to the FDA, not less strict.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Well that's why we're just saying for the existing drugs as opposed to going forward.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Okay. So, and I know my colleague had asked this, are there any other prescription drugs that's not FDA approved that New York State approves? No. Like do we do this for any other prescription medications?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: But you know, I would wonder if one of my male colleagues, if they decided to reevaluate Viagra, which by the way has five to 10 times the number of serious adverse outcomes, you know, like death for example, compared to mifepristone. You know, and twice as many serious injuries that I might see a bill of that sort because I think it is widely used, also widely

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: I'm used by going have to take your word for it. Not sure. But so but but so what you're saying is that that drug, something like Viagra, has been proven that there are worse side effects to it. Correct?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Than Than mifepristone and and is almost entirely prescribed by telehealth.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: So why are we not banning Viagra right now?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Well, they haven't threatened. You know, they haven't said they're going to reevaluate that. So there's no concern on the part. There's no bills that I've seen.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: No. I I understand. But I'm saying you're saying that Viagra has numerous amounts of of issues with it. Right? That could cause so many more issues for men. Correct? Yes. So if we who is who makes that statement? Who has done that study?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Well, the FDA would look at the studies. Should New

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: York lead the way then and ban Viagra right now? If we know it's that

[Michael Reilly (Assemblymember)]: much We

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: we don't have the authority to ban a drug that's approved by the FDA.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: We we actually do. We we we're allowed to, as a state, make things stricter, not take away. That's federal law. So why aren't we banning a drug that you're saying is much worse for us than a drug that we're gonna allow?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I'll think about it.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Oh, alright. It doesn't bother me personally, but I'm just trying to use it as an example. Yeah. But that being said, and that's really my point is, okay, so the FDA and listen, we we could say without saying it, we understand the the reasoning behind this, a bill like this coming forward. But what if tomorrow the FDA was to say or excuse me, the World Health Organization was to say that a particular drug is bad, right, a prescription is bad. Are we going to follow them on that and ban it also?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I guess, you know what, everything is an individual bill, an individual legislator and if something is if something is going on like that, I guess we would think about it. Yeah.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Well, mean, some like a drug like hydrochloroquine, right, which obviously we used a lot during COVID, right, for those who have had COVID-nineteen, the World Health Organization says it's in their suggestion would be that it's not allowed, that it wouldn't be FDA approved. And I've taken it, I know plenty of people that have, but it's also used for other things like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, suppressing overactive immune systems, which cause other issues. So, the World Health Organization is saying that's bad. We have no problem allowing people to take that in New York State. So, why are we just particularly do I understand the political end of this. Right? So, don't get me wrong. I'm not I'm not silly in that way. I I get it. But I think that it's a it sets a dangerous precedent when we're telling the FDA, we're not gonna listen to you on this. We're gonna listen to the WHO on this, but not on other things. And one that you've stated three times being Viagra being apparently extremely dangerous, and I thank you for that that letting me know that. But we're not banning that. Just like I'm sure the WHO and the FDA tell you that smoking is bad. No one here has a bill to outlaw cigarettes.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: We have some bills like

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Well, I but I'm saying and and what I'm saying is and and I get it and I understand. I'm just saying consistency wise. Right? Know what?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I I think millions of

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: people die from lung cancer every day. We're not sitting here banning tobacco. Why not? Why just this one thing, which again is political and I understand it. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency with it. And I understand and I and I sympathize with this specific thing, but it's just the inconsistency and I feel like it opens up a dangerous door. So, with that being said, it is still going to be, if, because it's not even that the FDA has done this yet, Right? We're just doing it preemptively. So, if they do it and New York says state says, the hell with the FDA, we're gonna do what we want. What then happens to those that are transporting it? If we don't have this imaginary stockpile already, right? Like I I have I have a CDL. If I'm driving from, let's say, Pennsylvania or wherever they do, they produce it and make it, and they drive across state lines to deliver it, is New York State going to indemnify The those

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: minute the FDA would change the label, then the manufacturers would change the label. So it's really anything that's currently outside of the manufacturer's hands that we're talking about. So it's limited. Again, I don't know what New York did after the governor had pronounced that we were going to stockpile. I don't know if we did or not. But there are, we know, existing mifepristone on shelves in pharmacists that we just want to be able to say you can use that. The label says you can use it and you're not in harm's way if you dispense it.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Right, so it's really protecting the dispensers, Correct? I mean, that's that's it's not it's not about protecting the people that take it regardless of what side you you you feel on that. Right? I'm more concerned about the changing the penal law and the education law and also protecting those, and I agree with you, those that that are dispensing it. But we're protecting people that are dispensing it, not the people that are taking it. So or those delivering it, or the so can the federal government then go after those that are delivering it across straight lines, or is it just for prescribing it? And I'm trying to understand because I really don't know.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Okay. So I guess I'm just going to try to repeat the circumstance so I can understand that I'm reacting to the right thing. Right? So you're saying it's already been manufactured, so it already has the old label on it. Sure. And somebody's bringing it across state lines.

[Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember)]: Okay. Yep.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: To deliver to a person or or

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: No. No. To to a let's say a pharmacy. Let's say a a pharmacy that delivers. Right? My pharmacy that that in Massapegoat Park delivers. Right? It it allows the no. This bill would allow the protections for those that are filling it, prescribing it. Right? But can the FDA, and I'm asking because I don't know. I'm So being

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I would say that from what I understand you're saying that it would then protect any drug or any dispenser who even obtained a drug. So say there was a truck coming to deliver, right? Right. As the FDA was making their pronouncement. So there's still existing drugs on some truck that is driving from Pennsylvania to New York to go to Spencer Pharmacy in my district.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Forever, right.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: And they were receiving it. Units be known that the FDA was about to make a label change, those would in my view be okay.

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: Okay. No, no, that's I appreciate that. So, my last two questions and I apologize and I probably lost them, so it may be my last question. I apologize. No, that'll be it. Miss Pollen, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. You, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Mister Smolin?

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions, please?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Will the sponsor yield? Happy to. The sponsor yields.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Well, thank you. Just, just wanted to go over some of the constitutional provisions of this bill. Is this bill constitutional in your mind?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: As far as I know, yes.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Oh, well, with that being the state constitution, but is it also with The US constitution?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I'm unaware of any provision in the in The US constitution that would preclude us from doing this.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: And is there anything at the above The US constitution that would apply here from a sovereignty standpoint? Not that I'm aware. Okay. So I just I just wanted to go back to a previous line of questioning about the World Health Organization. Could you tell me who is the leader of the World Health Organization?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I can't without Googling it.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Sure. It's Doctor. Tedros Adhanem Gabriel Ehosos, and he's from Ethiopia. He's a former Ethiopian Minister of Health, former Ethiopian Foreign Minister, and he's been heading that organization since 2017. So what I wanted to ask you specifically is, if New York State is going to not follow FDA regulations, in this case regulations that are codified under US law, why are we going to follow World Health Organization regulations from someone who is not elected by US citizens?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: So I would say that what this bill is about is protecting those who are dispensing the same drugs they dispensed yesterday to be able to dispense them tomorrow. If, as one of our colleagues stated, that it's merely a label change, then they'll still be able to dispense them. But if we think perhaps that there's going to be added REMS, you know, that's also one of the things that might have could happen and make it very difficult for medication abortion to be used in New York State, then this bill protects that. So I as a, you know, there was a lot of reference to other drugs that could be brought up by the FDA. And there are, there always are. But I believe, as I think almost everyone here regardless of your support or lack of support for choice, that mifepristone is being targeted because of what its use is for. And and because of that, and as a a woman who I believe the women are being targeted because of what because of they and as abortion has always been targeted. I I believe strongly that this is merely to protect our professionals and to allow for something that has been safely used. And by the way, abortions in New York State primarily are yes telehealth but also primarily medication abortions. So we're telling women you have to go back and you can only then have procedures that are more complicated. I just don't want to go there. Don't think that's fair or right. And I want to be able to protect the right of women to have medication abortion in New York because it's obviously in a 100 countries and throughout the entire United States, we've been using it for a long time and so many women are dependent on it that this is merely a bill to protect their interest.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Well, certainly, could you actually answer the question as to how many medication abortions happen in New York each year?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I don't think I have that data, but I am going to call on all my helpers out in the world to maybe text me And I'll look at my text. But I I don't know that number.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Well, mean certainly it's a it's a deadly chemical, that's for sure. And the FDA has clear regulatory authority to regulate that chemical according to US law. Wouldn't you agree?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Yes. That's well, I mean, the FDA has authority to regulate all drugs.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: And and who's the head of the FDA currently? Is it a is it a US medical doctor or is it a PhD from Ethiopia?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: No, I understand what you're saying, but there's a lot of doctors with a lot of different perspectives.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Well, it's Marty Makary. He's trained from Johns Hopkins. He's a very proficient doctor and he's been appointed and confirmed by the U. S. Senate to that role. To do actually, to do this very thing for The United States people, that's that's his job, that's what he's appointed to do in this administration. So, let's go back to the WHO. And you you cite this in your sponsor's memo that we're going to follow WHO protocols in this case. Is that true?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: Yes, but we're also suggesting by the way the bill is worded that it's only for the existing drugs that are currently out there that

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Well, this matters for this drug. The reason is, as I ask you about the constitutionality of this, did you know that The United States has withdrawn from the World Health Organization?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I I would imagine that, you know, we're gonna see a lot of things that are upsetting over the next three years.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Well, let me let me just read something. This is a fact sheet from the US government. On 01/20/2025, President Trump signed Executive Order fourteen thousand one fifty five, formally initiating The United States withdrawal from the World Health Organization. This decision was driven by profound failures in the WHO's handling the COVID-nineteen pandemic originating in Wuhan, China. Its persistent refusal to implement necessary reforms, its lack of accountability, transparent independence, and fulfillment of this directive and following the required one year notice period, the United States government has formally exit exited from the WHO on 01/22/2019. So, one week ago, we are formally no longer a member of the WHO because of the issues that The United States has had with that organization. Yet, here we are in New York State saying we're going to follow WHO things from from someone who's ahead of an organization who's not even a doctor. We're going to actually not do what our own FDA says. To me, that doesn't seem reasonable, but nor does it seem constitutional. Do you know what the legal treaty requirements are for the United Nations agreements, which the WHO is is actually part of?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: No, I don't.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: So I'm I'm here to say and make sure that everyone knows that I think this is unconstitutional, that we can't pass a bill in New York State saying we're going to rely on a super national international organization for technical advice on something that's already regulated by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: We we already have in New York done exactly the same thing in our insurance law. What well,

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: what is what in New York State then? Who in New York State is going to sign off on this bill to say

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: that No this challenge those two provisions, you know, constitutionally or otherwise. So why would this provision be different if it's identical to the ones we've already adopted?

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Well, it's because of politics and it's because we're passing a law, a preemptive law for something that doesn't even exist on hypothetical. And I find that to be totally undramatic in so many ways. Madam speaker, on the bill?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On the bill.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I held the number by the way. Abortions if you want that before you

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Oh, what yes. So how many abortions were conducted in New York State by this medication cocktail?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: So there were 60 approximately sixty eight thousand as of 2022, which is the last time we have that kind of data, abortions generally sixty eight thousand and about more than sixty percent were medication abortion.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: So that's a lot. That's a very toxic, very deadly chemical, wouldn't you say?

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: I think there's you know, we want to give women choices and the other choice might be one that a woman would not choose. We don't I don't believe that it's gonna lessen the number of abortions. All it would do is steer women to a surgical abortion.

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: Well, thank you. Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On the bill. What what we've got here

[Robert Smullen (Assemblymember)]: is a very clear case of putting the cart before the horse. We've got a preemptive bill for something that doesn't even exist about an FDA procedure that hasn't even been completed. And we know that this is a deadly chemical in all aspects. It's certainly deadly for the abortion that happens because of the chemical. And I think it's up to the FDA to decide, not the United Nations, not the World Health Organization, about what is safe and what isn't safe under US law. So I'm sticking with HHS and with the FDA in saying that what they do and what they say matters in The United States, that the sovereignty of The United States is very important, and this bill, we should vote against it. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minority conference will generally speaking be in the negative on this piece of legislation. If there are members who wish to vote yes, they may do so now at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Mister Fall?

[Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they could do so at their desk.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. DPHo to explain his vote.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Couple things on this bill. Sponsor made a comment that women are targeted, but I'm trying to figure that out because they're targeted from the left. When you're talking about men and women's sports, that's totally targeting women. When you're talking about different issues, there's a lot of targeting of women. I don't think this one does because New York State is the number one abortion capital of the entire world. We have post birth abortion now. I mean, how far does it have to go? You know? You've got feral cats are more protected than the baby in the womb. Horseshoe crabs are more protected. You know? Sorry, but this bill bows to the altar of full term and post birth baby killers because that's what I call them because I'm pro life. And they believe abortion in New York State, it never goes far enough. How much farther do we have to go in New York State for abortion? How much farther do we have to go do we have to have the three days afterwards? This bill, without even knowing what the FDA is gonna say, tries to preempt it to prevent women's abortion. Makes no sense. I didn't see I didn't hear any cognitive argument supporting supporting this bill that couldn't have been done until after the we get the report from the FDA. But this is what we have in New York State. I'll be voting no, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote no also. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Mister DPH, turn the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: 94 to 47.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The bill is passed. Page five. Oh, excuse me. Mr. Fall.

[Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember)]: Madam Speaker, members have on their desk the A calendar. I now move to advance the A calendar.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On a motion by Mr. Fall, the A calendar is advanced. Page five, rules report 71. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9,516, rules report 71, Mr. Delon. Enact to amend the correction law and the executive law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Dillon.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill enacts chapter amendments to the corrections omnibus package that we passed last year.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Mister Dipietro.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Absolutely, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Sponsor yields.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, mister Delon. Let's start with part a. One of the the second chapter amendment requires a reasonable good faith effort to get the footage going to seventy two hours additional footage within twenty four hours. What is the time frame now? I understand it is they try to get that within twenty four. Is it not is it sometimes it's tough to get the twenty four hours, but is this gonna be a mandate that it has to be, or is it can you explain that a little bit?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So under the chapter amendment, footage must be disclosed to the office of special investigations within seventy two hours under the chapter amendment of such death. And then post the seventy two hours initially, if any additional information is found, then that additional information would have to be turned over within twenty four hours. Okay. Twenty four hours. Correct.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Was that that seventy two hours, from what I understand, they're they're that's pretty standard. Is there been instances where there where for some reason it hasn't been? I'm sure there are, but is it is it been a problem?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yeah. So not that we're aware of, but we we in the negotiations because there's gonna be more cameras coming online in the future, they wanted to give a cushion in light that the in in the near future that there would be too much footage available, give them adequate amount of time to conduct a thorough review of the footage.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Understood. On the next page, on the on the amendment, it says, in addition, requires camera coverage of any vehicle used to transport incarcerated individuals. Is this are those in car cameras, first off? Or are those cameras that look in the parking lot and follow them?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So when you say next page, I'm assuming part b. You're on to part b now. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So it's it's car cameras, being that there will be or currently is fixed and body worn cameras inside of facilities, The obvious blind spot would be inside of vehicles while incarcerated individuals were being transported. That is something that is new to the bill that I believe made the bill better and that was asked for by, the executive, and we thought it was reasonable to add.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: So then those cameras would be on from the moment someone gets in the car the entire trip to and from wherever they're going, those cameras would be on?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: That is that's correct.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Okay. And the footage then would be able to be retrieved. Okay. On part d And and to answer the last part of

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: your question, it does not include parking lot. Does not. Okay.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Part D has to conduct a comprehensive study of ten years in custody death reports, recommendations.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Which part? Parts D? Part D?

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Yes. That's in a it it it reports submission deadline from one year to eighteen months. Has that been a problem?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: No. Just in in part of seeking a three way agreement, the executive had asked for the additional time. We thought it was reasonable to grant the additional time.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Can we go down to part h? Three members, part h says the chapter amendment decreases the number from nine to five. Well, two two part questions. First off, it says, was there any it says formerly incarcerated person, these are people on the membership, a public health professional, a behavior health care professional, and an attorney with a background, was any thought given to being put on that committee a corrections officer or a warden or a law enforcement individual from DOCS, something of that nature? Was that it was I see there's nobody on there that has that experience.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So so as it stands now, as we discussed in committee, it doesn't preclude the governor from making any of the individuals who holds the titles that you cited a member of the board. What we found is that historically incarcerated individuals have been excluded from SCAK and to add their voice to this panel we thought was valuable. The previous past chair, I believe he's past chair, he resigned, believe, has been a county sheriff and there's been numerous heads of law enforcement that have been appointed by governors, either to be a member of or to lead this panel, but we've never had, the voices that we are adding to this bill be a member of this panel and I think it's a good step forward.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Gotcha. The second part to that question is, again, is that this is another bill, appointed by the governor and with the consent of the senate. It's going to be all democrats again. Is there any way that a republican can get put on that

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: against this? In my view, this part is nonpartisan. I think the bill we passed last year did have appointments from the legislature. That part in the discussions that, were done to reach a three way agreement were found to be unconstitutional. So the, appointments will remain with the executive. Now it says governor, it doesn't say democratic governor or republican governor. So to the extent that the governorship changes, either a democratic governor or a Republican governor would be responsible for making these appointments.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: I just wanna clarify that. Mhmm. And that's on part j, you've you've provided an additional two year window. Just explain that. Could you remove the three year statute of limitations, provides an additional two year window? Can you explain just explain that in general for us?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yeah. And I I I wanna make sure that this part, you know, as being a non attorney, I I get correct. So I'll lean on the attorneys around me. So the way the way I see it is normal law and normal statutes will apply and they will expire as as they normally would whether you were incarcerated or or not incarcerated. I think that the difference here is post incarceration, if those statues have already expired, post incarceration an incarcerated individual would get the benefit of a two year look back to to start this case if that statute has already expired because they were under incarceration.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: Okay. Thank you, mister Dwine. No further questions. That that's my attorney speak.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yeah. For the questions.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: On the bill, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On the bill.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: On the bill, there's a there's a lot of merit in this bill, but there are some things that are a concern. There are some things that I just I'm gonna let my other colleagues expound on. We do have a few issues with this, and a lot of it is a is a redundancy. So I'm gonna be voting no on this bill and urging my colleagues, but I know that there are some other questions that need to be answered. So thank you very much, and I appreciate the speaker.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Where's David Vipietro today?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you, mister Gandolfo. Thank

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: you, madam speaker. With the sponsor, please yield for some questions.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Absolutely. It feels like a

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Conscience. Moment

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: between the three of us.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Thank you. So, I have a few questions on the chapter amendment and I'm gonna focus in on part I, specifically the provision providing for a hotline for those incarcerated in prisons to call the Corrections Association of New York. So, I know the original bill provided for a hotline and the chapter amendment actually removes language that allowed the incarcerated to email the corrections association. Is there a reason why the ability to email was removed from the language?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So, what I'm told is that of incarcerated individuals at the moment, if they would have sent the email of this nature to Kaney, those emails would not be confidential. So, that's why it's being done in this manner.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Okay. And the chapter amendment also specifies that Kaney is one that sets up and runs the hotline. Was that the original intention of the bill and is this just a clarification?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yes.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Okay. Thank you. And now, the language in the chapter amendment also adds that the department shall not track or monitor such calls. So, I guess my question is how exactly do these calls work? Are they made from the regular phone that's in the prison?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: They can be, but they can be made from the tablets as well.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Okay. So, there's no dedicated phone to be used to call

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: There's no dedicated phone and I think that's by design. Right? So Correct.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Yeah. And then, I understand that the goal is to keep it confidential. Yes. So, I guess, functionally, how does it work if someone incarcerated is there a limit to how many times they can call the hotline? And, is there any way for the CEOs to verify that they're actually calling the hotline when they're using the phone? No. No. Right?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So, the first part is no. Okay. And then, the second part of the question, is there any way for the COs to verify?

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Right. If there's request to use the phone to call the hotline that they're permitted to call, is there any way for the COs to actually verify that's the call they're making?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yeah. On every tablet.

[Amy Paulin (Assemblymember)]: On every tablet.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So, the hotline number will be programmed on every tablet. So, it makes it so that an incarcerated individual does not have to ask for that phone number to be on their call list on the tablet. They have access.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Okay. Is that among and I'm this is ignorance on my part. Is it is there a set list of numbers that they're able to call or can they just dial out on the phone?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: They get 15. Okay.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Okay. But there's no way for the CEOs to verify that they are calling that and is that numbers they could call is there any limit on phone calls that the incarcerated can make per day? Is there No. Okay. So it's just in the course of their permitted calls, they can also dial the hotline?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: If they feel the need to, yes. Alright.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Thank you for that clarification. Now, when a complaint comes into Kaney through this hotline, what exam what does Kaney do with that complaint? Do they launch their own investigation?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So, this is this part is will be new for Kaney.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Okay.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: But with Kaney being, you know, one of

[Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember)]: the

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: independent oversight entities that the state uses, you know, they certainly use it can use it to to track and to see if maybe more than one incarcerated individual is complaining. If one incarcerated individual is complaining several times. So they can, I would imagine, use the data that comes in and warrant and use that to make a determination if a visit or any other action is is warranted?

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Okay. So I guess you're kind of using that as a trend analysis rather than opening their own investigation into the specific complaint?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: That's my thought.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Yeah. And would that still be handled by the the Bureau of Internal Affairs within the prison? Would what be handled? Like, if a specific complaint coming from an incarcerated individual, that won't be investigated by Kanes, but it would still go through the Yeah. Internal Affairs

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: This doesn't take any power away from OSI.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Okay. And with regard to the hotline to Kaney, are there any repercussions to false allegations or erroneous allegations that might be being made to the hotline, I guess, to gin up the numbers?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: No. But I would think, know, to the extent that you make several erroneous or false complaints to Kainey, you run the risk of being ignored. I I would think you would want to use this when when you actually need it and if you're in trouble that someone's actually listening to it. But the answer short answer is

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: no. Alright. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you to the sponsor for answering them. Madam speaker, the bill, brief.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo (Assemblymember)]: Again, appreciate the sponsor clarifying some of these questions related to this chapter amendment. I'm I'm I know we have some changes to the makeup of the commission, but I still think glaringly absent is the requirement that someone who is specifically looking out for the interests of the corrections officers and who can share their perspective. I think that needs to be a requirement on this commission to make sure that we could get the prisons in our state to a place that is safe for both the corrections officers and those incarcerated in the prisons. So, without that change, it is difficult for me to support this chapter amendment. But I do hope that we can continue to continue the conversation on some of these reforms, whether it's getting that representation on the commission on corrections, revisiting the HALT Act, which has caused an exponential increase in assaults on our corrections officers. So, hopefully, we can continue progressing toward a place where the prisons are safe for everybody who is incarcerated there or has to work there. So, thank you madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Mister Molotar?

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Thank you. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Absolutely.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Thank you, Mr. Sponsor. I'd like to just go through a few changes from last year's bill if I can. Sure. At part B, Section C, which is line 29, comprehensive camera coverage.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Could you speak a little more directly into the mic? I'm

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: having Part hard B, subsection C, line 29 on comprehensive camera coverage. Am I right in understanding that it's the commissioner who will decide you know what kind of surveillance system is going to be used within the facility?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yes, you're right.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: So the video quality and how the video camera system is going

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: to work

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: and how it's going be all that information is going to be stored is up to the commissioner. Is that correct?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So this part, if I understand correctly, is not new. This part already exists For storage, was your question around storage?

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: It's really about it's really about discretion. So I understand that this law requires surveillance video cameras and requires the video from those cameras to be stored. But does the commissioner have discretion as to what kind of system they are purchasing, what the quality of the video is going to be, know, how it's gonna be stored and archived, all of those things.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yes, and it's also part of the procurement process,

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: so yes. Okay, and do you know, is there a separate budget item coming to fund the amount of surveillance cameras and retention facilities that are going to be needed for this amount of data?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: So, we passed we made a $400,000,000 appropriation in the current budget that the state is operating under. And I also believe that there was a previous $400,000,000 appropriation made in the budget prior to that. So everything that needs to be funded as it relates to cameras including the vehicles that we discussed earlier, the executive believes is fully funded with those amounts we've already appropriated.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Okay. Thank you. Going on to four D in regards to the requirements. Four d? Still part B? Still part B. Regarding the requirements for the data storage. So, the commissioner at a minimum has to keep all video stored for sixty days, Right? Yes. And then if it's part of a special investigation or there's an allegation of staff misconduct or criminal activity, it must be preserved no less than five years or longer if required by laws, rules, and regulations. Is that correct?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yes. So

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: if it's not apparent within that sixty days that, you know, video that's been stored belongs to an investigation under under this law, the commissioner could say, we're not storing it any longer. It's gone.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: They're not legally required.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Okay. I'm going to go back to that in a little bit, but I want to jump forward here to bear with me here. Statute of limitations section. Part J? Part J, yes. Thank you. So I know you already explained it once, but can you explain it again for me? How does the statute of limitations work now under this law?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Well, statute of limitations as this intends to work, does it so if there's a current law that has a statute of limitations outside of a correctional facility. That law still applies inside a correctional facility. The difference being is that once an incarcerated individual is released, they have two years, to look back and, make a claim under an ex statute that would have otherwise expired had they been in the free, you know, in free and and moving around about the state.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: So what if they don't get like what if they don't have a release date?

[Michael Reilly (Assemblymember)]: It doesn't apply.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Then it doesn't it doesn't apply.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Okay. So just as an example, if you're suing a state entity, you have one year and ninety days to commence a lawsuit against that against the state. If you're incarcerated, you still have one year and ninety days to commence a lawsuit against the state. But if you're incarcerated under, like, a life sentence, you don't get the you don't get the benefit of having the time told.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: You don't get the benefit of the look back period.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Okay. But let's say

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: no. But no, I think. Yeah. Give me one second.

[Michael Reilly (Assemblymember)]: Yeah. It's only post release. If you're

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: if you're serving a life sentence and you you you don't get released, it does not apply.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Okay. So let's say, you know, gets convicted of rape in the first degree and they serve a twenty five year sentence. And after that twenty five year sentence is served, they get released. They get a two year look back to file a lawsuit against the state. Is that right?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yes. If the normal statute has expired, yes. Answer is yes.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: But if they're let's say they're still let's say that same person is still in prison and the one year and ninety days go by, they are told from filing the lawsuit? They're prevented from filing the lawsuit until they get released.

[Michael Reilly (Assemblymember)]: No, they can still file it.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: No, no, think he's asking the question a different Could you just restate the question? Wanna make sure my answer is correct.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Yeah. I

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: think he's asking it differently.

[David DiPietro (Assemblymember)]: It's a

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: little bit confusing. So, So least I'm confused. So someone gets charged, someone gets convicted of rape in the first degree. They get sentenced for twenty five years, right? Let's say within the first year that they're in prison, they slip and fall and they want to file a negligence lawsuit against the state. They have one year and ninety days to commence that lawsuit. After that one year and ninety days has passed, they cannot file that lawsuit unless and until they were released after that twenty five year sentence?

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: That is correct.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: And that so you could have a lawsuit that appears on the court's docket twenty seven years after an incident has occurred? Well, Well, yes, but they

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: also do not have to wait. If they want to commence the action within the time that the normal statute of limitations allows, they can do that. They can just use this as a discretionary matter if they believe that their safety is at risk. What if it was beneficial for

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: them to wait? For example, after the sixty days when all the video has been destroyed.

[Michael Reilly (Assemblymember)]: It wouldn't be beneficial. Have to prove their claims. It

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: would be I would think it would be more difficult for them to prove their claims. It wouldn't be beneficial because if the camera footage is gone, they they still have to prove their claim. Just because they make an allegation doesn't mean that they get rewarded for their claims. So I would think that they would lose the benefit if the camera footage is not available. Would think it's something that they would want to use.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Well, if their claim was true, they certainly would they'd certainly lose that benefit. But if they were making it up, on a civil lawsuit, you only need to prove something by a preponderance of the evidence. So if you didn't have video to refute your claim, it would make it easier for you to file a summary judgment motion, would it not?

[Michael Reilly (Assemblymember)]: It would not be easier to succeed on a slip fall claim twenty seven years after the fact.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: Yeah, but it would be tough to succeed on a slip and fall claim twenty seven years after the fact. You know, don't think they would, you know, I don't and the keyword is think. I don't think they would wait that long on a slip and fall claim.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: But it's not just limited to slip and falls. Could be any injury you suffer.

[Erik M. Dilan (Assemblymember)]: It could be anything.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: Thank you, Mr. Dwyer. On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (male)]: I do think that there are a number of changes made in this bill, in this chapter amendment that are beneficial. I think having video in correctional facilities and in vehicles that are used for transport is a good idea and I'm glad to hear that it's being properly funded. I do have an issue with the statute of limitations extension. You know, a law abiding citizen who's injured as a result of the state's negligence only gets one year and ninety days. There's no tolling for them. I don't think we should give we should toll the statute of limitations for individuals that have been convicted of felonies, some of which are very serious crimes. It's create I think this bill creates this chapter amendment in particular creates two different classes under the law. And I think they're all this bill I think the way this bill is structured and the way the retention language is for the videos is going to be detrimental. I, you know, I think that you're gonna see a lot of meritless claims filed in court and that's gonna increase expenses for our state. So for those reasons, I'll be voting no on this bill and I'd encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are members who wish to vote yes, they may do so now at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Miss Maple Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, there may be some that desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mister Meigs to explain his vote.

[Demond Meeks (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise in support of the amendments we're making here. Many of us knew that when we passed the omnibus bill that it was truly a step in our right direction and recognizing the humanity of individuals who are currently incarcerated in the state of New York. And we didn't believe that we would get it 100% correct the first time, and that's why we are here today making necessary amendments. And we have a long way to go, but I do appreciate those who stand in support and those who have fought to recognize the humanity of our fellow brothers and sisters of the state of New York. They were some who have been convicted of crimes have been sentenced to due time, which should not subject them to perpetual punishment. So, I just wanna say thank you to the sponsors, and let's continue to fight the good fight.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Mister Meekson, the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 98. Nose, 43.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples Stokes, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: Thank you, madam speaker. It's an honor to introduce and ask for the cordialities of the house who are former assembly member Jack McEnany, who is here with the Massachusetts state inspector general Jeffrey Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro is visiting the Capitol today and he's also joined by New York State Inspector General Lucy Lang for a public program this evening in the museum. So if you would please offer these esteemed guests

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: to

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: our chambers the all cordialities of the floor and give them your best greeting, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Yes, of course. On behalf of Ms. People Stokes, the speaker, and all the members, we welcome our distinguished guests and our former colleague back to the Assembly Chamber and extending to you the privileges of the floor. We hope you enjoy the proceedings today. Thank you for joining us today. Sir, once a member, always a member. Welcome back. Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, if we can now go back to our a calendar and be continue our work with page three, rules report 60.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. On consent, page three, rules report 60. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ninety four thirty two, rules report 60, miss Warner, enact to amend the racing permutual wagering and breeding law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On a motion by miss Warner, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty one. Nose, zero.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9433, rules report 61, miss Warner, Enact to amend the general municipal law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9439, rules report 62, mister McDonald. Enact to amend the county law. Read the last section. This action will take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty one. Noes, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 9,457, rules report 63, Ms. Rajkumar, an act to amend the real property actions in proceedings law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On a motion by Ms. Rajkumar, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty nine, nos, two.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ninety four ninety, rules report 64, mister Stern, enact to amend the Veterans Services Law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On a motion by mister Stern, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Eyes, one forty one. Nose, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 90 four ninety five, rules report 65, miss Griffin. An act to amend the executive law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On a motion by miss Griffin, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty one. Nose, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 9496, rules report 66. Mister Levine, an act to amend the domestic relations law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On a motion by mister Levine, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 138, nos, three. The bill is passed. Assembly number 9497, rules report 67, Ms. Deline, enact to amend the Estates Powers and Trusts Law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9,004 99, Rules Report 68, Mr. Steck, enact to amend the Real Property Law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9501, rules report 69, Mr. Bronson, an act to amend the insurance law and the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On a motion by Mr. Bronson, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ninety five thirteen, rules report 70, mister Cashman, an act to amend

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: the county law. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty one. Nose, zero.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The bill is passed. Mister Cashman, this is your very first bill. Congratulations. Mister Fall?

[Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember)]: Madam speaker, can we move

[Michael J. Durso (Assemblymember)]: to

[Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember)]: consent on page 16, calendar 70?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. On consent, page 16, calendar number 70. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number eighteen sixty five a, calendar 70, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the real property law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number eighteen sixty seven a, calendar 71, Ms. Rosenthal, enact to amend the administrative code of the City Of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number eighteen eighty six, calendar 72, Ms. Rosenthal, enact to amend the administrative code of the City Of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number eighteen ninety two, calendar 73, Ms. Pollan, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number nineteen oh six, calendar 74, Mr. Colton, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1962b, calendar 75, Mr. Anderson, an act to amend the penal law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1967b, calendar 76, Ms. Pollan, enact to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number nineteen ninety four, calendar 77, Mr. Colton, enact to amend the vehicle in traffic law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 293c, calendar 79, Mr. Fall, an act to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2119a, calendar 80, Mr. Weapon, an act to amend the correction law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twenty one ninety three a, calendar 81, mister Magnarelli, an act to amend the vehicle in traffic law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty three. Noes, eight. The bill is passed. Assembly number twenty two twelve, calendar 82, mister Braunstein, an act to amend the state finance law and the general municipal law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number two thousand two and eighty seven, calendar 83, Ms. Rosenthal. An act to amend the administrative code of the city of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2,321, calendar 84, Mr. McDonald, enact to amend the Public Officers Law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2332B, calendar 85, Mr. Berger, enact to amend the Social Services Law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2384A, calendar 86. Mr. Eichenstein, enact to amend the insurance law and the public health law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2,430, calendar 87. Mister Bromstein, enact to amend the public service law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2431, calendar 88. Mister Bromstein, an act to amend the public service law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2,441, calendar 89, mister Hevesy, an act to amend the family court act.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2538A, calendar 90. Ms. Stabula, enact to amend the social services law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2539A, calendar 91. Mr. Dinowitz, enact to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number two thousand five and sixty five, calendar 92, was previously amended on third reading. Assembly number 2,573, calendar 93, Mr. McDonald, enact to amend the New York State Printing and Public Documents Law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2589A, calendar 94, Ms. Kellis, enact to amend the civil rights law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 26.11, calendar 95, Mr. Otis, enact to amend the real property law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2620b, calendar 97, Mr. Havassey, an act to amend the Family Court Act and the Criminal Procedure Law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 2630a, calendar 98, Ms. Skelis, enact to amend the criminal procedure law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly Number 2633A, calendar 99, Ms. Lunsford, enact in relation to directing the president of the State Civil Service Commission to conduct a study.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2657A, calendar 100, Mr. Otis, an act to amend the public authorities law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirty fifty eight b, calendar one zero one, mister R. Carroll, an act to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3121, calendar one zero two, miss Rosenthal, enact to

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: amend the real property law. This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3125a, calendar 103, Ms. Rosenthal, enact to amend the real property law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3126A, calendar 104, Ms. Lunsford, enact to amend the executive law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3228A, calendar 105, Mr. Levine, enact to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty one. Nose, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 3318, calendar one zero six. Mister Dinowitz, enact to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 03/1959, calendar 107, Mr. Dinowitz, an act to amend the penal law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3,361, calendar 108, Mr. Vanell, an act creating a temporary state commission to study.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty one. Nose, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number thirty three sixty nine a calendar one zero nine, mister Dinovitz, enact to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 341B, calendar 110. Mr. Vannell, enact to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Eyes, one forty one. Nose, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 3,536, calendar 111, Mr. Santa Barbara, an act to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3549, calendar 112, Mr. Santa Barbara, an act to amend the civil service law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Read the last action.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This action will take it back to immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty one. Nose, zero.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3595A, calendar 113, Ms. Bashat Hermelin. An act authorizing and directing the Commission of Education to conduct a study.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3681A, calendar 114, Ms. Warner, enact to amend the general municipal law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This action will take effect on the ninetieth day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Mister Riley, to explain his vote.

[Michael Reilly (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I can't help, but I'm looking at the board and just to break up a little bit of the monotony. My mom passed away on this date, in 2004, and she is an avid bingo lover. And when I saw that up there, it really, sparked a moment for me. So I I wanted to just stand here and just, just tell you, sometimes you're sitting here and you're voting on things, and all of a sudden it triggers a memory. So I'm hoping that this helped spark something in you. When you leave here, maybe you'll have a memory. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you, mister Riley in affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 141. Noes, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 3682A, calendar 115, Mrs. People Stokes, enacting directing the Department of Environmental Conservation and Health.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3687B, calendar 116, Mr. Wefren, enact to amend the insurance law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3,849, calendar 117, Mr. Wepprin, an act to repeal section four seventy of the judiciary law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3,919 b, calendar 118, Mr. Wepprin, an act to amend the insurance law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take it back to immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty one. Nose, zero.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: The bill is passed. Miss People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: Do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: We have no housekeeping. We have a number of resolutions before the house. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, could you please call on miss Clark for the purpose of an announcement?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Miss Clark for the purpose of announcement.

[Sarah Clark (Assemblymember)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm here to announce there'll be majority conference immediately following session, hearing Room c. Majority conference immediately following session, Hearing Room c.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: Thank you. Immediate majority conference at the conclusion of session, Hearing Room C, miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Assembly Majority Leader)]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene at 10AM, Thursday, January 29. Tomorrow being a session day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer, female)]: On miss People Stokes' motion, the house stands adjourned.