New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Charles D. Fall]: Miss speaker, will you please call the house to order?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The house will come to order. Good morning, colleagues. In the absence of clergy, 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 Monday, April 27. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Monday April 27 and at the same stand approve.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Without objection so ordered.

[Charles D. Fall]: Today we have a quote by Benjamin Franklin and the quote says, an investment in knowledge pays the best interest. And these words are by Benjamin Franklin. Madam speaker, members have on their desk a main calendar and a debate list. Before any housekeeping and or introductions, we will be calling for the following committees to meet off the floor today. Ways and means, energy, health, judiciary, labor, mental health, social services, transportation, veterans affairs and codes. We will begin our floor work by taking up calendar resolutions on page three. We will then continue to consent where we left off yesterday with calendar number three seventy one on page 39. After that, we will take up the following bills on debate, calendar three eighteen by Ms. Glick, rules report 98 by Mr. Adinowitz, and rules report 99 by Ms. Rosenthal. I will announce any further floor activity as we proceed. Majority members should be aware that there will be the need for a conference once we conclude our work on the floor. As always, I will consult with the minority on their conference needs. So with that as a general outline, Speaker, let's begin by calling for the Ways and Means Committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, Mr. Fall. Ways and Means Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Ways and Means Committee members, Speaker's Conference Room. We have no housekeeping this morning. Excuse me, we have several introductions. So let us start with Ms. Walsh for the purpose of an introduction.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you very much Madam Speaker and good morning colleagues. I'm so excited that a group is here today from the town of Galloway in the 112th Assembly District that I'm honored to introduce. The Galloway seniors who you'll see up above here are an incredibly vibrant and busy, busy group of seniors. They've come to the capital today for a capital tour guided by their fearless leader, Lizzie Fulner, who's here and many of my friends. These seniors travel, they do a lot of trips during the year. I'm so glad that they added Albany and a trip to the capital to their busy agenda. And Madam Speaker, if you could please welcome the Galloway seniors to the People's House and afford to them all the cordialities of the House. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Yes, of course. On behalf of Ms. Walsh, the Speaker and all members, I can't see you behind me up there but we welcome you to the assembly chamber and extend to you the privileges of the floor. Pleased to be able to have you in our midst today and putting you on the tour rotation. So thank you, Galway seniors, for being here today. Enjoy our proceedings. Thank you for joining us today. Mister Burdick, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Chris Burdick]: Thank you, madam speaker. It is my honor to introduce Koji Seido, a distinguished resident of my district. He's been a resident for over thirty five years of Chappaqua and serves as president of the Japanese American Association of New York, which has a one hundred and nineteen year history in the state. He is here today with colleagues to advocate for the Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution in commemoration of the Japanese American citizen, Fred Korematsu, who during World War II refused placement in a Japanese internment camp. Madam speaker, kindly welcome mister Sado and and extend to him the privileges and cordialities of the people's house.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On behalf of mister Burdick, the speaker and all members, welcome miss Rosado to the Assembly Chamber, our people's house, extending to you, sir, the privileges of the floor. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you for doing all of the important work that you are doing with the Japanese American Association of New York. Thank you for joining us today. Ms. Lee for the purpose of an introduction.

[Grace Lee]: Good morning, Madam Speaker. It is my honor to introduce Saki Mori, Director of the Japanese American Citizens League. Saki has served as the Director of the Japanese American Citizens League since September 2025, overseeing a national organization with over 100 chapters across The United States. Japanese American Citizen League or JACL is the oldest and largest Asian American civil rights organization in the country. Founded in 1929, the organization has advocated for the civil rights of Japanese Americans, Asian Americans and all Americans for nearly one hundred years. JACL promotes education of both civil rights and Japanese American history, including the history of Japanese interment and Fred Korematsu's fight against injustice. I'm very grateful to have Sakimori and the Japanese American Citizens League joining us here today. Madam Speaker, please welcome Sakimori and extend to her the privileges of the floor.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On behalf of Ms. Lee, the speaker and all members, welcome Ms. Mori to the Assembly Chamber extending to you the privileges of the floor. I'm hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Again, thank you for all of the important work that you are doing with the Japanese American Citizens League. Very important and wonderful to see you here today. Thank you so very much for joining us. Mister Gibbs, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Eddie Gibbs]: Good morning, madam speaker. It's an honor and a privilege to stand before you this morning. I'm also excited to recognize missus Aubrey, the lovely wife of our member Jeffrey Aubrey this morning. On behalf of assembly member Brian Cunningham and assembly member Jordan Wright, I am pleased to introduce Sweeney Chan Shu. Sweeney is the founder and chief executive officer of City Safe Partners, a Harlem based minority women owned security firm dedicated to advancing safety and stability in communities. The company specializes in comprehensive risk management and protective services operating across New York, New Jersey, Texas and Georgia. City Safe Partners provides highly trained personnel including active and retired law enforcement and military professionals and employees forward thinking technology driven strategies to safeguard communities, businesses and public spaces. A former NYPD officer, Sunini brings twenty two years of experience in the organized crime control bureau retiring with the rank of sergeant special assignment. She holds a master's degree in nonprofit public and organizational management from Maris College School of Management and a Bachelor of Science in Sociology from the College of New Rochelle. Her leadership and vision has earned national recognition including honors from the Women's President Organization and JP Morgan Chase which have recognized CitySafe Partners as one of the fastest growing women owned and women led companies in the country. Under her direction, CitySafe Partners has become a trusted provider of security services across the residential, retail, construction and government sectors. Madam Speaker, I ask that you extend Sunyini, Chan, Shu the cordialities of the floor, as well as welcome Ms. Mulberry back to the chambers.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. On behalf of Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Wright, Mr. Cunningham, the speaker, and all members, welcome Ms. Sweeney to our assembly chamber and congratulations ma'am on all of the wonderful accomplished work that you have done with CitySafe Partners. We definitely extend to you the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Continued best wishes to you as you build upon your previous successes. And I just, a moment of personal privilege to say hello and welcome to Mrs. Aubrey. It's wonderful, wonderful to see you here today, extending to you the cordialities of the house, of course. And please tell your hubby I said hello. Thank you so very much, both of you, for joining us today. Resolutions, page three. Clerk

[Marianne Buttenschon]: will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twelve fourteen, Ms. K. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 04/09/2026 as Yellow Ribbon Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Miss Kay on the resolution.

[Unidentified member ('Ms. Kay/Kaye', likely Anna Kelles)]: Good morning, madam speaker. I rise today to pay tribute to the members of the United States Armed Forces and particularly to those former prisoners of war whose service to our country will never be forgotten. Army Staff Sergeant Matt Malkin was the first POW of the Iraq war. He was captured 04/09/2004 and remains the inspiration for this special yet somber day, which serves as a reminder of all those who serve our country and deserve recognition throughout our state and our nation. In 2006, the New York State Legislature began to commemorate Yellow Ribbon Day on April 9 of each year, following the advocacy of Half Moon resident Carol Hotelling, also known as the Yellow Ribbon Lady. Every year, countless people devote their time to distribute yellow ribbons throughout the state of New York to heighten awareness and show support for our service men and women who are serving our country, and to promote unity and respect for those brave individuals and and those who protect our freedom every day. But we need to also honor our active duty service men and women and their families every day. Yellow Ribbon Day serves as a reminder of that goal. I want to also thank and honor the families of the active duty service members who although not always recognized, sacrificed just as much for the betterment of our country. Thank you to my colleagues who have signed on to this resolution. Thank you to all of the active duty men and women service members, including a member of this body who sacrificed so much every day to keep us safe. Please join me in requesting Kathy Hochul proclaim 04/09/2026 as Yellow Ribbon Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twelve fifteen, Ms. Bashat Hermelin, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 04/28/2026 as w MWBE Advocacy Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twelve sixteen, Ms. McMahon, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Esophageal Cancer Awareness Month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twelve seventeen, Mr. Tenosis, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month in the State of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mr. Tanousas on the resolution.

[Michael Tannousis]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Parkinson's disease is a disorder that affects approximately one point two million Americans and about thirteen million people worldwide. There is no known cure. My uncle George passed away, was dealing with Parkinson's disease for years, passed away in November 2020. And I bring this resolution forth today to bring awareness to this disease and to bring support to those that suffer from this. I am privileged to have the American Parkinson's Disease Association, the headquarters in my district, which is an organization that supports people with Parkinson's disease to help them ensure that they have a long lasting and normal life as best as possible. So with that being said, it's very important for us to recognize this disease and make a big push to hopefully one day find a cure. Thank you so much.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twelve eighteen, Ms. Buttonshun. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Small Business Week in the State of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Ms. Buttonchown on the resolution.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: Today, I rise as we acknowledge this resolution of the vital importance of small business in New York State, employing over three and a half million hardworking New Yorkers close to 45% of our workforce. Our state's over 400,000 small businesses represent 98% of the business in New York State and generates $1,000,000,000,000 in sales, shipment, and revenues annually. These businesses are built over generations by many family owned, founded by individuals, veterans, women, minorities, and new residents of our great state. They all have taken on the American dream and are successful. The number is a telling story. It is very, very powerful. In the district I represent, just a few, Utica Coffee, Mountain Ice, Clearly Friends Bakery, Twin Ponds, and so many more that I could talk about the importance of what they've provided in the economy of the Mohawk Valley. So as we proclaim small business week in New York State, I challenge each and every one of you to visit at least five small businesses during that week and be sure to remind ourselves of these individuals are hardworking and the foundation of our economy. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1219, Ms. Raj Kumar. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/26/2026 as Guyanese Independence Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Thank you. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number twelve twenty, miss Lunsford. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as banned books week in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twelve twenty one, count, mister Levine, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as pro bono and access to justice month in the state of New York and recognizing the state's pioneer role in expanding access to legal services.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twelve twenty two, mister Tague. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim February 2026 as Career and Technical Education Month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mr. Tague on the resolution.

[Chris Tague]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today as a former BOCES student and someone who has always appreciated a hands on approach to learning. It is my honor to join you all in declaring this as Career and Technical Education Month here in New York State. Vocational learning opportunities present a whole new world to countless students in our educational system, with many of them finding a passion for learning outside of the traditional classroom, setting and struggling to succeed in a traditionally academic sense. Perhaps most importantly, career and technological education provides young people with a direct on ramp to lucrative professions directly out of high school, while also giving them a jump start on degrees and certifications should they pursue further education or training. It must be said as well that vocational training has come to represent not just traditional trades, but the industries of the future as well. Through programs such as our BOCES, young people now have the chance to learn about coding, robotics, networking, and other cutting edge fields by working hands on to learn about the tools and techniques that these jobs require. Career and technical education is the future and the vocational opportunities we are able to offer to students must be sustained and expanded if we hope to equip our young people with the marketable skills that they need to compete in tomorrow's economy. I hope each and every one of you will join me this year and in the years to come in working to provide as many hands on learning opportunities as possible to New Yorkers from all walks of life so that our children have the greatest opportunity we can give them to find their calling and develop a love for learning, whether in or out of the classroom. Thank you all, and please join me in supporting this great resolution. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twelve twenty three, mister DeStefano, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 10/14/2026 as emergency nurses day nurses day and October 11 through the seventeenth two thousand twenty six as emergency nurses week in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mr. DeStefano, on the resolution.

[Joseph DeStefano]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this resolution. Emergency Nurses Day will be observed October 14 of this year. It's a time to recognize the extraordinary dedication, skill and compassion of emergency nurses. That healthcare professionals serve on the front lines of medicine, providing life saving care in some of the most critical and stressful situations. Whether treating accident victims, responding to heart attacks, or comforting frightened families, emergency nurses are often the first to make a difference when every second counts. Emergency nurses work long hours in fast paced environments, with quick thinking and calm decision making are essential. They must balance medical expertise with empathy, offering reassurance to patients during the most difficult times of their lives. Their ability to remain strong under pressure is truly remarkable. On this day, we honor emergency nurses for their tireless commitment to public health and safety. Their service saves countless lives and strengthens our communities each and every day. We owe them our gratitude, respect and appreciation not only on emergency nurses day, but throughout the entire year. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Miss speaker, can you please call on the energy committee to meet in the Speaker's conference room?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Energy committee members, please make your way quietly to the speaker's conference room. Energy committee members, To the Speakers Conference Room, Ms. Srashta for the purpose of an introduction.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Today I would like to introduce an amazing group of young people from the legislative Gazette, which is SUNY New Paltz's Public Affairs Reporting Internship focusing on the State House. So we are joined by Darren Johnson, Patrick Kelly, Nancy McInnis, Keira Higbee, Zandra Doring, Maria Tusako, Mawazi Matende, Zamia Akpara, Emily Salazar. They are the student editors, reporters, multimedia specialists and their advisor who help keep this non partisan news organization running in its forty eighth year. Multiple Gazette reporters have gone on to win Pulitzer Prizes, and I look forward to seeing what critical stories these journalists uncover.

[Sarahana Shrestha]: I ask you to extend them the privilege privileges and cordialities of the floor and welcome them to the New York State Capitol.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On behalf of miss Resta, the speaker, and all members, welcome our young leaders to our assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Thank you for the important work that you do every single day, doing the thorough investigation, timely information for our community. Make sure you keep that in mind as you move forward. Obviously, we always want to make sure journalism free, independent. And so thank you so very much for the hard work that you're doing now and in the future and for joining us today. Thank you very much. Miss Solaj for the purpose of an introduction.

[Michaelle C. Solages]: Thank you madam speaker. Today I rise to introduce the members of the Links Incorporated. Established in 1946, the LINX Incorporated is one of the nation's oldest and largest volunteer service organizations. Comprised of more than 17,000 professional women in 300 chapters globally, the links are committed to ensuring that the cultural and economic survival of African Americans and people of African ancestry. In New York State, they have 15 chapters serving Greater New York Metro Area and Upstate Region, including the wonderful place of Long Island. I wanna thank them for really advocating on voter education, health equity, black maternal health, economic empowerment, the list goes on. And a fun tip, assembly member Deus' mother is a member of this prestigious organization. So madam speaker, if you will, extend them a productive day on the capital and as well as extend them the cordialities of the house.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On behalf of miss Salaz, the speaker, and all members, we welcome the members of LINX Incorporated to our assembly chamber. The people's house extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for the outstanding volunteer service work that you do in our communities every single day. The far range of issues that you put forward really speaks to the knowledge and commitment you have to our communities, very long standing commitment to our communities. So we thank you for very much for that, and thank you so very much for joining us today. Enjoy your day here in Albany. Thank you. On consent, page 39, calendar number 371, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9355 a, calendar 371, miss Pollan, an act to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ninety four zero four a, calendar three seventy two, mister Santa Barbara, an act to amend the banking law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the 100.

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

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty three. Nays, zero.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9588 b, calendar three seventy three, miss Torres, An act to amend the banking law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10032, calendar three seventy four, mister Eckis. An act to amend chapter two eighty three of the laws of 2023.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one fourteen. Noes, 19.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10163, calendar three seventy five, miss Delveen, an act to amend the veterans services law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Mister Levine explained his vote. Can we have quiet in the chamber, please? Thank you.

[Charles D. Lavine]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am a big fan and always have been of one of America's greatest presidents, if not our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. And this bill is written with Lincoln's philosophy in mind. We know New York State has one of the largest veteran populations of any of the states in the nation. And Lincoln believed that it is, as Americans, our solemn obligation to care for our veterans. This bill accomplishes precisely that per that purpose by guaranteeing to the extent we can guarantee that veterans who are about to be released, who have been incarcerated, will be able to receive the benefits that they not only deserve, but the benefits to which we want them to be entitled. So I thank you for letting me speak on this particular piece of legislation, And I, of course, am voting in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mister Levine in affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: It's one thirty three. No. Zero.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10207, rule calendar three seventy six, miss Kaye, an act to amend the real property tax law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Miss Kay, to explain her vote.

[Unidentified member ('Ms. Kay/Kaye', likely Anna Kelles)]: Sorry. I had to do this. Yesterday, I felt that I was a little shortchanged when my colleague took all the penny jokes, but thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Miss Kayne, the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1000243, calendar three seventy seven, Ms. Pollan, an act to amend the social services law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

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

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

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The vote is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1027 nine a, calendar three seventy eight, mister Wepron, an act to amend the insurance law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect January 1.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Mister Weapon to explain his vote.

[David I. Weprin]: Thank you, madam speaker. This legislation would prevent an insurer from refusing, to ensure, cancel a policy, or declining to renew a policy, limiting coverage available, increasing a policyholder's premium rate, or imposing less favorable terms or conditions upon renewal solely because the policyholder has lost a spouse, and their marital status has changed. This legislation ensures the surviving spouse have equitable access to insurance coverage, hereby protecting vulnerable households from financial hardship and promoting fairness in the insurance market. I vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mister Wepprin in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10307, calendar three seventy nine, miss Pollan, an act to amend the executive law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 100 three-12A, calendar three eighty, Ms. Pollan. Enact to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 100 three-fifty two, calendar three eighty one, Ms. Glick. Enact to amend the environmental conservation law and the agriculture and markets law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10,419, calendar three eighty two, Ms. Selaj. Enact to amend chapter five eighty one of the laws of 2005.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Well, miss speaker, can you please call the health committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Health committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. Health committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. On consent, page 41, calendar number 383, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10633, calendar 383, miss Hunter, an act to amend the environmental conservation

[Angelo Morinello]: law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Clerk will record the vote. Mr. Simpson, to explain his vote.

[Matthew Simpson]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have concerns about this bill. I like I'm, supportive of the intent of the bill, but, I have heard from many organizations made up of sportsmen within my district that there' been no communication between the sportsmen and d e c on this issue. I think it' really important to keep the people that are affected by policy like this engaged, informed and support and ultimately their support behind something like this this has been done in the past there' been some bad experiences and there hasn' been enough scientific data to at this point for me to support this. So I will be voting no. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, Mr. Simpson and the negative.

[Charles D. Fall]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 124, nos, 11.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10,653, calendar three eighty four, Ms. Pollan, an act to amend the arts and cultural affairs law.

[Charles D. Fall]: Read the last section.

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

[Andrew Hevesi]: The

[Charles D. Fall]: clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 135. Nose, zero.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10692, calendar 385, mister Skivone, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Charles D. Fall]: Read the last section.

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

[Charles D. Fall]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty four. Noes, one.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Charles D. Fall]: Mister Fawl for an announcement. Mister speaker, can you please call the judiciary committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room? Judiciary committee to the Conference Room. Judiciary committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: On consent, page 42, calendar number 386, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10851, calendar three eighty six, mister Sturpey, An act to amend the economic development law.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Mister Gandolfo for the purposes of an introduction.

[Jarett Gandolfo]: Thank you, mister speaker. On behalf of minority leader Ed Ra and the entire Republican conference here, it is my honor to welcome some members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to our chamber today. Joining us, we have Deputy Majority Leader and House Finance Committee member Joe Sweeney, Assistant Majority Leader and Small Business Coalition Chair Brian LaBrie and with them some House Republican staff from New Hampshire Chris Maidment, Caleb Krueger, Sean Conner and Chuck McGee. The New Hampshire House of Representatives consists of 400 members representing 203 legislative districts across the state. They are created from divisions of the state's counties and on average each legislator represents about 3,300 residents. The smallest state legislative population to representative ratio in the country. New Hampshire has by far the largest lower house of any American state. The second largest being the Pennsylvania House of Representatives with 203 members. Mister speaker, would you please extend all the cordialities of the house to these elected officials from New Hampshire, our guests here today, and offer them all the privileges of the floor.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Thank you, mister Gandolfo. On behalf of mister Gandolfo, the minority conference, the speaker, and all the members, we welcome you to the chamber, extend the privileges of the floor, and hope you enjoy the proceedings. Thank you so much for joining us. On consent, page 42, calendar three eighty seven, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number one zero nine three six, calendar three eighty seven, miss Glick, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Jarett Gandolfo]: Lay aside. The

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10995, calendar three eighty eight, mister Della Santos, an act to amend the alcoholic beverage control law.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number one one zero zero eight, calendar three eighty nine, miss Hunter, an act to amend the county law.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Page 35, calendar number three eighteen. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 5850, calendar three eighteen, miss Glick, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect 12/31/2026.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Mister Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo]: Thank you, mister speaker. The Republican conference will generally be opposed to this bill. However, any member who wishes to vote differently may do so at their desk.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: You, mister speaker. The majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they can do so at their desk.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Miss Glick to explain her vote.

[Deborah J. Glick]: Thank you, mister speaker. Briefly, I wanna just, clarify that this is limited to traveling acts with the animals that would be prohibited are large cats, bears, non human primates, kangaroos and wallabies. This in no way limits the ability of domesticated farm animals to be brought to county fairs or to other events. This is simply to protect the public. There have been terrible incidents in various places, including in New York State, where some of the animals have gotten out and have injured people in the community. So this is very much a very limited targeted message. 4H is important and taking animals to county fairs is a great deal of fun, enjoyment and education for a lot of people. And a lot of people should be exposed to animals that are safe to be shown and displayed appropriately. So I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Ms. Glick in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: It's 99, nays 37.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall, for the purposes of an announcement.

[Charles D. Fall]: Mister speaker, can you please call the labor committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Labor committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. Labor committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. Mister Gandolfo, for the purposes of an introduction.

[Jarett Gandolfo]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of our colleague, Ms. Giglio, please welcome one of our honored guests in the chamber here today, Sharon Savoca Mahan, founder and CEO of Savoca Enterprises Inc. Savoka Enterprises is a certified MWBE since 2002. Sharon is the VP of the Board of Directors of Women Construction Owners and Executives. She's a board member for the National Women's Business Enterprise Council and she's the chair of the steering committee for the Women's Business Council. Mr. Speaker, would you please welcome our honored guest here today and offer all the cordialities of the floor.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Thank you. On behalf of mister Gandolfo, miss Giglio, the speaker, and all the members, we welcome you to the chamber and extend the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy the proceedings. Thank you so much for joining us. Mister Fall, for the purposes of an introduction.

[Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, mister speaker. On behalf of member Barrett, we have a special guest from her district who's actually standing right next to her and the special guest is Columbia County Sheriff Jackie Salvatore. Sheriff Salvatore is a proud graduate of Hudson High School. She went on to attend Columbian Green Community College and earned an associate's degree in biblical studies from vision Christian bible college and seminary. She was elected Columbia County sheriff last fall and has been leading the sheriff's office and department with a commitment to public safety and justice. Mister speaker, can you kindly welcome our wonderful sheriff to the people's house?

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Absolutely. Thank you. On behalf of mister Fall, miss Barrett, the speaker, and all the members, we welcome you sheriff to the chamber, extend the privileges of the floor, and hope you enjoy the proceedings today. Thank you so much for joining us. On debate, page five, rules report 98. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3two 54 a calendar rules report 98, mister Dinowitz, an act to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Dinowitz.

[Joseph Angelino]: Alright. Please, ladies and gentlemen, please.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: This bill protecting children would require those children who go to a regulated summer camp to be vaccinated potentially saving lives.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Mister Johnson.

[Josh Jensen]: Thank you, mister speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? I will. Sponsor yields.

[Josh Jensen]: Thank you to my my friend from The Bronx. Would this in your explanation, you mentioned that this is exclusive to regulated summer camps. Would it only apply to summer camps or would it apply to any camps that are offered by a regulated entity like camps during school break periods?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: It takes in overnight, day or traveling camps. I believe the time of the year is indicated here. Camps that operate between June 1 and June 15 in the case of traveling, the case of regular camps and then traveling summer camps between May 15 and September 15.

[Josh Jensen]: Okay, so between those time periods is when this legislation would be mandated for?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yes.

[Josh Jensen]: Okay. Would it apply to, obviously you said all regulated camps. Would it apply to both public and private entities? I'll use examples. If a municipality offers a summer camp period, would they be mandated to require these vaccinations as well?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: It applies to all regulated camps.

[Josh Jensen]: Are there any exceptions in the legislation not for who would be exempted from receiving the vaccines or having to have the vaccines, but are any camps able to have an exemption or an opt out mechanism?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: The camps won't. There are certain cases where the child could be exempt if they have a legitimate medical exemption. But in terms of the camps, it's not a factor as to whether they're public or private.

[Josh Jensen]: Is the medical exemption that you just raised, is it consistent with the medical exemption that is applied for the vaccine requirements for school admission?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yes.

[Josh Jensen]: Okay. There any has there been any comment or feedback from the entities, whether public or private, who operate these camps? I'll use for an example, I know there's a very prominent camp organization on Long Island, TLC family of camps or the Timberlake Camp which I know has a very influential owner operator. Has there been any feedback from them on this mandate that could potentially limit the amount of campers they have?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I've not received feedback. I'm familiar with some of those camps as you can imagine. And in terms of limiting the number of people they could have, I don't know that there would be a significant, the vaccination rates for young children are like for MMR are probably ninety five percent or more, so the potential limitations would be very limited. But regardless of that, I know if one of my grandchildren was attending a summer camp, I would not want kids who are unvaccinated and who could be vaccinated to be there, they should get vaccinated. Now of course some children for one medical reason or another can't be and that's why it's so important to have a high vaccination rate so we do have herd immunity protecting all the kids.

[Josh Jensen]: Yeah, so in the school example, if a family chooses not to vaccinate their child, they can't access public, private, parochial, religious education opportunities, but they still have the ability to receive an education through homeschooling mechanisms. There is still an option for them to get that required education. Is there a concern that by barring children whose families choose not to vaccinate their children from access to any summer camp without an alternative option, there is a concern that you could effectively punish families for exercising their medical right on the care of their child.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well what I really would hate to do is punish the child who for medical reasons can't be vaccinated thereby potentially jeopardizing their health or safety. Now if you've been reading the papers, and I'm sure you have in the past year, you've noticed that measles, is the most communicable disease on the planet, which was declared extinct basically twenty five years ago has made a comeback. And not surprisingly the locations where it's made a comeback are the places where the vaccination rates are lower such as those communities in Texas or Oklahoma or New Mexico or South Carolina. Not going to talk about their politics, not really relevant although actually it is. But the fact is that in places like New York in part thanks to the bill that I passed that we all passed, well many of us passed in 2019, our vaccination rates are higher providing safety to kids. But if a parent doesn't want to vaccinate their child and no one can force them to, they do have the right to home school them. But in terms of a camp, we still don't want any other kid jeopardized because that parent decides that they don't want to vaccinate their child who has no say in whether to get vaccinated.

[Josh Jensen]: So you just listed a whole bunch of states where there has been higher cases of these sort of communicable illnesses. You didn't mention New York State as one of them. And because you said the reason because we've we've already done legislation for this. So when there has been measles outbreaks in New York State, how many of them are happening happening at summer camps?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I don't have data on that to give you.

[Josh Jensen]: So if we don't have the data to say that this law is necessary to prevent the spread of illness in summer camps because in your opinion we have a strong enough piece of legislation already on the books through law for schools. And we don't have any evidence or data to say that we're seeing these illnesses spread in summer camps. Why are we enacting potentially a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist in New York State?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, didn't say it doesn't exist. What I said is I don't have any data on it. But the fact is the more children that are vaccinated, not only does that provide high degree of safety for them, but also for other children, particularly those who are vulnerable because they are not capable of being vaccinated. Perhaps they are cancer patients or for whatever So

[Josh Jensen]: couldn't an immunocompromised camper spread an illness to another immunocompromised camper?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: It's certainly possible.

[Josh Jensen]: So why aren't you banning them from camps?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: But the higher the vaccination rate, the less likely it is. If the vaccination rate is ninety five percent, and this is according to scientists, not some wacko on the internet, this is according to scientists, if the vaccination rates are ninety five percent or greater, it's extremely unlikely that measles or some of these other diseases would spread even if somebody did have it.

[Josh Jensen]: And I understand science and I believe in science. Excellent. But what I'm concerned about is that unlike in an education setting where there is an alternative option, there is no alternative option for campers who make the choice to get compromised other than in your opinion just don't go to camp. Am I correct in that?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: You are actually incorrect.

[Josh Jensen]: Are Wouldn't be the first time.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: This bill very clearly talks about regulated camps. There are some camps that are not regulated and if if the parent or parents want to send their child to such a camp, an unregulated camp, they could do that if they want to exercise that option.

[Josh Jensen]: Do you, and I'm not familiar with the difference between, I'm familiar with regulated camps. Do you have an example of an unregulated camp that may be in the community whether in Upstate, on Long Island, in New York City?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, the bill here covers day camps, overnight, sleep away and traveling camps. There might be other potential types of camps. I doubt that I would want to see anybody related to me go to an unregulated camp because I want make sure that they're in a place where they're safe. But if the parents think it's safe for the child not to be vaccinated, I'm pretty sure the parent is gonna be okay with this unregulated campaign. Just because it's not regulated doesn't mean it's unsafe necessarily.

[Josh Jensen]: So regulated camps have a higher mandated burden of safety precautions even taking this bill out of the part of the conversation. So you're okay with this if a child isn't vaccinated, you're okay with a child going to potentially unsafer camp if it's unregulated just because they the family chose not to vaccinate their child for whatever reason they choose just because of that choice?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: If the parent wants to make the choice to send their child to an unregulated camp, and again, I'm not saying they're unsafe, but if the parent wants to make that choice because I know some people are off the choice in this regard, they could do that. But to me, the overriding concern is making sure that the children as a whole are safe. And that means not spreading any disease that shouldn't be spread. It's really very straightforward.

[Josh Jensen]: Do you have I know you mentioned you don't have any data on how many of the vaccinated illnesses are currently being spread in summer camps. Do we have any data on the amount of campers in New York at regulated camps who are currently unvaccinated?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I do not. Many camps would require the child to be vaccinated anyway Okay. Regardless of whether we pass this legislation.

[Josh Jensen]: So because we already have that in statute that camps can always put in place a higher burden and mandate that all campers have to be vaccinated, what is the problem with allowing these camps to make the determination on their own and allowing the parents who choose to send their child to a camp to be aware of what the camp procedures are and if they have an immunocompromised child or they just don't want their child to be in a camp with somebody who is unvaccinated, to allow that personal choice to say, well, I don't want to send my child to this camp. I'll send them to this other camp. Why we want we want to respect choice in one respect, but we don't want to allow choice on the other side.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, first, the fact that probably most regulated camps do require vaccinations, that's good, but it's not a legal requirement. Some of them may not do that. And in terms of choice, I believe people should be able to make choices. But when their choices impact other people, especially little kids, that's where we have to take a stand on preventing them from doing something that could be bad for other children. If a parent doesn't want to vaccinate their kid, that is their business. They can decide that but then they can't decide to jeopardize somebody else's kid.

[Josh Jensen]: So because a child, a parent chooses not to vaccinate their child, they shouldn't have full access to society is what you're saying?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well you're putting words in my mouth. A little bit. I am saying that if the parent choose okay. I'll give you an example of it wasn't too long ago that somebody on the street saw me and it's very unusual for this to happen in my district because most of the people like that aren't in my district. But a person accused me of throwing her kid out of school. And I said to her, I didn't throw your kid out of school. You chose to take your kid out of school. You know that's a little bit different. If a parent makes a choice because of their own political beliefs, is what it comes down to in choosing not to vaccinate, you know fine, be my guest. Just don't let it impact other children. The potential exists for certain, first of all the vaccine isn't 100% foolproof, but it's a very high percentage, ninety seven, whatever the number is, it's not perfect. And then of course there are the immunocompromised kids. They could choose, a parent can choose to not vaccinate their child but I don't want them and I don't think most of us want them doing something that's going to negatively impact somebody else's child because they have rights also.

[Josh Jensen]: Okay, so you mentioned that the choice to not vaccinate is a political choice. But I am aware of also a lot of folks across the state of varying faith beliefs that choose not to vaccinate on religious grounds. And if a religious institution, no matter that faith, operates a regulated summer camp, but members of that faith choose not to vaccinate for a certain purpose, would the state be mandating that religious institutions force adherence to their faith to vaccinate to have access to a camp that's in the person's faith group?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well first of all, I'm certainly not a religious scholar. But to my knowledge there are virtually no religions that say don't vaccinate. That's just

[Josh Jensen]: not a I'm not saying the religions

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: are That's just not a thing and in terms of whether it's against somebody's religious beliefs, we debated that already. We resolved it on this floor. We passed a law. There is no non medical exemption to vaccine requirements for schools in New York State.

[Josh Jensen]: I I wasn't a member of the the assembly when that bill came up.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I'm That that may be true.

[Michael Reilly]: Nonetheless, Well,

[Michael Durso]: just just saying

[Josh Jensen]: I wasn't able to debate that bill or to to be a part of that debate. So this is this is the first time I'm debating this legislation or any type of legislation to do with this. But I'm just concerned. Thank you mister Denowitz for answering my questions. Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Josh Jensen]: Thank you, madam speaker. I certainly understand science. I believe in science. I vaccinate myself, my children, and and I choose to do that, my wife and I. However, when we talk about access to summer camps, what this legislation is doing is taking out all available choice and creating no opportunities for families who for whatever reason, whether it's religious, whether it's medical, whether it's political, whatever the reason is, to not have access to a part of our society that they currently have access to now. The sponsor brings up the vaccine mandate that's in schools but there is already an option that is accredited, that is regulated through a homeschool curriculum if parents choose to pursue that. Simply saying that well if they don't want to get a vaccine, then they can go to an unregulated camp where there may be lower standards of safety for well-being and safety of all campers, I believe to a degree is a red herring. We don't have any data on how many incidents of spread of vaccinated illnesses are happening at summer camps. We haven't heard from the entities that operate camps, like TLC family of camps, the YMCA, towns, villages, counties, cities that operate camps for their constituents and our mutual constituents. And we're creating a two tier system. When we already have a system in place that is protecting children, that is allowing camps to have a higher burden of entrance and may mandate that all campers have vaccines, and allowing parents to make an educated choice on whether or not they want to send their children to these camps knowing that there may be other children, whether immunocompromised or actively choosing not to vaccinate, in close proximity to them. Certainly understanding one of the reasons why we passed, even though I wasn't a member of this chamber for this debate, the school vaccine requirement is because school happens indoors and all illnesses are more transferable in a confined space. When you have a day camp or a summer camp that's predominantly taking place outside, you do not have children or anybody else in that same situation where illness can spread as easily. So certainly, I believe in keeping kids safe. I believe in science. I believe in vaccines. However, I don't believe that this legislation, without stakeholder buy in, without stakeholder involvement, or any clear data to know if we're actually solving a problem that is happening in this state, I believe it is a step too far. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, mister Ari Brown.

[Ari Brown]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. I will. Sponsor yields.

[Ari Brown]: Thank you, mister sponsor. Just one real question. I do appreciate the sentiment what you're trying to bring forward. Father of seven, grandfather of six. We certainly, as grandfathers, look to protect our kids. Just a point of clarification. You had mentioned a parent or a child shouldn't be sent to a school or a camp or whatever it is. They can make their own determination but it shouldn't impact other children. A decision of the parent shouldn't impose their will on other kids who may or may not be vaccinated but they can be independent. Did I understand that correctly?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I said parents can decide whether to have their children vaccinated, and that's their choice. But when they expose an unvaccinated child to another child who maybe is vaccinated, maybe is not, maybe is immunocompromised, then they're taking away the choice from other parents and children.

[Ari Brown]: That that that was exactly my point, mister Sponsor. I thought that's what you said. It's the it's that choice taking away the ability for that parents to, hey, I don't want them near this particular kid. What is your opinion about a two hundred pound male that identifies as a woman playing in girl sports? What's you know, the parents

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: don't My opinion is that the chair is undoubtedly, let me rule that not your name to this discussion.

[Ari Brown]: Let me finish. We're

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: gonna wait and ask an answer.

[Ari Brown]: Correct. I was in the middle speaking, madam speaker. My point was, as grandparents, we're looking out for our kids as you had said. We want a parent hey. If another kid doesn't wanna be vaccinated, why are imposing their will? Why is it any different when a person who is much stronger than a girl a boy who's much stronger in a in a than a young girl to be allowed to play in a sport putting those kids in danger is one group of children more important than another?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: My opinion regardless of what I think of that is that a child who is two hundred pounds being near a child who is less than two hundred pounds has nothing to do with whether they're going to spread a disease. There may be other issues which you feel strongly about, but it has nothing to do with spreading a disease. And that's what this bill is about, and that's what this discussion is about.

[Ari Brown]: Thank you, mister Spencer. So you're saying we are only gonna protect children under certain circumstances in New York, but not look after children in all circumstances. Is is that what you're saying?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Weren't Did you hear me say that?

[Ari Brown]: Yeah. Actually, did because you

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: You did?

[Ari Brown]: Mister Spatz, you had said

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: What what's the what's the sound equivalent of an optical illusion? I'm not sure, but that's how I would say.

[Ari Brown]: You had said that we should it's not fair that one child should not be protected based on another child or parent's decision. I I don't have to extrapolate out that far to agree with you and say, why don't we protect all children, mister Sponsor? Why is that so different in any way? We're looking to protect children. I mean, are so many vaccinations and so many diseases and so many children of different makeup. Why is the protection of children not important to you, mister sponsor, in that regard?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: So what you're actually saying since I'm gonna extrapolate from what you said is that you're equating a child who's unvaccinated and potentially is carrying a disease with a trans child. That's pretty much what you said and frankly it's offensive.

[Ari Brown]: To defend children in any regard no matter what walk of life, I don't think should be offensive Mr. Sponsor. I I just want to remind you, you had said it's not fair that one parent or child should make a decision that will affect others. Thank you, mister Sponsor. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect October 1.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are yes votes, they may be cast now at the member seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this legislation. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they could do so at their desk.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Eyes, 91. Nose, 45.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall?

[Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, can you call on the mental health committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mental health committee, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Mental health committee members, make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Page five, rules report 99, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9140, rules report 99, miss Rosenthal, an act to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: An explanation has been requested, miss Rosenthal.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: This bill would extend existing liability protection for health care providers who issue vaccines in accordance with state or local guidelines.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mister Johnson.

[Josh Jensen]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Josh Jensen]: I thank our colleague from Manhattan for yielding for some questions. You mentioned this would extend existing protections. What are the current legal protections providers have in terms of administering immunizations or vaccines?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Well, as long as vaccines are administered in accordance with the advisory committee on immunization practices, vaccine providers are fully protected from liability.

[Josh Jensen]: And how would this legislation change any of the protections?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: They would So, be the

[Josh Jensen]: if providers already have the protection in state statute?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Well, if they adhere to federal recommendations.

[Josh Jensen]: In existing statute, is it federal, state and local? Or is it federal, state or local?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Right now, we adhere to federal standards.

[Josh Jensen]: So there's no language in the existing statute about state or local law? Or state or local standards?

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Right now it reflects the federal standard because we are shifting to the

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: state standards. So what we have reflects the federal standards, however, in the event that the federal standards change, the state could establish its own. So this would confer liability if the provider adheres to state standards.

[Josh Jensen]: So in the situation right now, or that we're seeking to fix, if a New York based provider administers a vaccination, they have to they are governed by federal regulations in terms of liability upon any incident of vaccine injury, correct?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Correct.

[Josh Jensen]: So if they're a patient wanted to have a right of action against that provider, would they have the action in federal court or in state court?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: So, right now, that would go to federal

[Josh Jensen]: kind

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: of claims. Would expect if they're adhering to state, I would go to a state court.

[Josh Jensen]: So if Right?

[Catalina Cruz]: Don't forget.

[Josh Jensen]: If this legislation were to be enacted into law Yes. And we allow we create a state or local standard for liability

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Well, This only concerns

[Josh Jensen]: No, the legislation says local as well.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Okay, well I guess cause we're a state, I'm talking about state.

[Josh Jensen]: Yeah, But the legislation says a state or local standard.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Yes, yes, yes.

[Josh Jensen]: It wouldn't remove the existence of a federal standard. So wouldn't a New Yorker still be able to bring a right of action for violation of federal law even though we have a state standard? Because doesn't federal law have preeminence over state law? Yes. Okay. So wouldn't it would all be about the jurisdiction that the injured individual brings the right of action against. So even though we're saying that we're granting them state protection or exclusion from liability, somebody could still make the claim in federal court.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: It depends if if these are recommendations that let's say the state still adheres to.

[Josh Jensen]: Yes, but if federal law still provides a certain guidance nationwide. Because and I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding of the law is that the states may enact a higher burden of law. But that the federal law still exists. So, if the federal guidance is still in place Yes. Even though New York State chooses to not abide by it, it doesn't erase the fact that the federal law still exists. And it would all be about where the person claiming the injury would file a claim, not necessarily where the provider chooses to defend themselves against the claim. Am I correct in my understanding of the law?

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Is not about excluding

[Josh Jensen]: Am I right? Am I understanding that? Liability under Okay.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Is not changing obviously the federal law or where one can sue. This is about establishing state standards.

[Josh Jensen]: Okay. Okay. Thank you to the sponsor for answering Thank my you. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Josh Jensen]: So hearing from former members of the bar of the bench in the bar that the state can have a higher standard, but yet the federal guidelines are still in existence. My belief is this is a simply this legislation may not have the intended result because it's not the provider who would choose where the claim of injury happens. It would be taking place where the person files claim. And the injured individual would still be able to file a federal lawsuit alleging malpractice or whatever the terminology in vaccine injury would be, already existing that we already have medical malpractice standards. And as we've heard time and time again that the administering of immunizations or vaccines is a medical procedure, which it is, wouldn't these providers still be under protection of their medical malpractice coverage. So certainly, I think this is a reaction to a movement that happened four to five years ago, and is unnecessary to protect providers in this state. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, mister Ari Brown.

[Ari Brown]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Charles D. Fall]: Will the

[Ari Brown]: sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.

[Ari Brown]: Thank you so much. I try to break it down in different sections. I'm certainly not an attorney so just for my own edification. First section I call equal protection. So under the equal protection clause of The US constitution and the parallel guarantees in the New York constitution, why is it lawful to carve out a special liability shield for this class of defendants while leaving similarly situated defendants subject to ordinary negligent rules? Like in my industry, we have that scaffold or it's like the reverse universe of this bill.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Physicians have liability protections throughout all sections of law.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I apologize.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Couldn't hear You said physicians have liability protections under all different sections of law.

[Ari Brown]: I couldn't hear So what you are saying is one class of worker employee has certain protections and precludes them from liabilities over others? That Was what you're saying?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Well, we're we're talking about I

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: can hear.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: We're talking about health care providers who administer vaccines in

[Josh Jensen]: this case.

[Ari Brown]: Thank you. So the next section I'll call due process. Under the New York constitution and also the fourteenth amendment under the United States constitution, which by the way, are you familiar with the fourteenth amendment of the US constitution, specifically the due process section?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Are you?

[Ari Brown]: I I actually am. So the the states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, property without due process. And that's what I'd like to get to with with this particular situation. So what's the legal basis for this immunity I I apologize. I don't have a better word, scheme. If it deprives injured New Yorkers of meaningful opportunity to pursue claims that would otherwise exist under normal ordinary tort law.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Yes, so perhaps you don't know that under this bill and under federal guidelines, someone who claims they are harmed through a vaccine can still go for gross negligence and willful misconduct. So the avenue to sue is not closed off.

[Ari Brown]: Thank you. The next section, again, I'm not an attorney just from what I read for the bill. We'll call this section access to courts. So under the New York constitution and the federal constitutional framework protects protecting access to judicial redress, which, like you said, there's certain sections that they can go, but not in every aspect of this particular law. How does this bill avoid the argument that it places an unconstitutional barrier between injured people and the courts? In other words, do you think it's legal and correct to take away the practical rights to go to court effectively bringing you know, barring injured New Yorkers from getting their day in court, which some aspects of this bill seems to do?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Well, as I said in the previous question, it doesn't bar a path to court if the person is suing on the basis of willful misconduct or gross negligence. Which is the standard currently under federal law?

[Ari Brown]: Okay. Thank you, Madam Sponsor. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Ari Brown]: On the bill this bill, assembly bill ninety one forty, it seems to expand the liability protections in ways that raises serious constitutional concerns under the New York constitution and the fourteenth amendment. It appears to favor one class of actors and restrict a meaningful legal recourse for injured New Yorkers and invite challenges based on due process, equal protection, access to courts, retroactivity, and separation of powers. The legislature should not be creating broad immunity without clear constitutional footing and compelling public justification. Look. I look at this thing because in my industry, we have that blanket responsibility for one and total exoneration for the other under the scaffold law. I don't know. Maybe because one guy swings a hammer and another guy's a doctor, we think we can do it. But for whatever reason and for that reason, I'll be voting in the negative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are exceptions, they may be cast now at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, mister Foll.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, can you call the committee on social services to the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Social services committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Social service committee members, please make your way to the Speakers' Conference Room. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Eyes 91, noes 45.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, can we now take up the following bills? Calendar number two on page six by Mr. Hevesy. Calendar number 30 on page nine by Ms. Paulin. Calendar number 53 on page 10 by Ms. Cruz. And calendar number 54 on page 11 by mister Dinowitz. Mister Fall? Madam speaker, can you call on the Transportation Committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Transportation committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Transportation committee members, make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Page six, calendar number two, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 65 b, calendar two, mister Hevesy, an act to amend the social services law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Mr. Havissey.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Thank you, madam speaker. Good afternoon, colleagues. This bill will establish a statewide supervised visitation initiative to support safe and structured parenting time in New York State.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Ms. Walsh.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Andrew Hevesi]: It's my pleasure.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Sponsor yield. Thank you very much. So, we debated this bill last year but then it didn't get over the finish line in the Senate. So here we are again.

[Matthew Simpson]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: First of all, has the bill changed at all from last year?

[Andrew Hevesi]: Substantively, the bill has not changed, but the amount of money it's going to require is going to increase because we are now last we spoke, I believe we were at 28 counties that didn't have supervised visitation, we're now up to 32.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: So what is the price tag estimated for this?

[Andrew Hevesi]: OCA has it at 25,000,000.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: So you said 25,000,000 last year though.

[Andrew Hevesi]: I thought it was, I apologize, there may be a discrepancy, we'll check. Did I say 25,000,000 last year?

[Mary Beth Walsh]: You did. You said 25,000,000 last year

[Michael Reilly]: I I'm see that won't be

[Andrew Hevesi]: going to stick with the OCA estimated 25 with room for growth because of the extra counties.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Certainly with room for growth, yep. So one of the things that I remember talking about with you last year was the idea that the goal would be to get some money placed in the budget, it would need to be placed in the budget to support Office of Victim Services that's going to be tasked with developing this program you know funding this program at the state level. What progress has been made in terms of getting this as a budget line? Was it in the Governor's proposed budget or was it in either of the one house budgets?

[Andrew Hevesi]: It was in the Assembly one house. Okay. But I don't believe we're going to achieve success in this budget.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, and why is that?

[Andrew Hevesi]: Well, first we haven't started the numbers game, but considering the number of priorities that we have as a house that are in front of this one, I don't believe this is going to make the cut when we start crunching numbers.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, well that's refreshingly transparent and honest and I appreciate that

[Michael Reilly]: I'm very sorry if I threw you off,

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: but okay.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: No, no, no. It's just, you know, a lot of times on our side of the aisle, we have absolutely no idea what numbers are being considered or anything until we get handed a memo that's warm and we have to get briefed and immediately

[Andrew Hevesi]: vote By on the way, me too.

[Michael Reilly]: Me too. So

[Mary Beth Walsh]: But you have intel on this one, so I'm appreciative for that. That's great. So my question then is, let's say that this bill is passed from here and according to the legislation, it states that this act shall take effect on the January after it shall become law. So what happens if it gets passed and there is no funding in this year's budget?

[Andrew Hevesi]: So I would be surprised if it passed without funding. So if the Governor is going to sign this into law, it would have to be with funding. Otherwise, you're creating a structure without any real teeth to it. So I'd be stunned if the Governor didn't put money in it if she was going to sign it or say no, come back next year in the budget.

[Catalina Cruz]: Well,

[Mary Beth Walsh]: apologize because I guess I don't understand this part. So let's say that we eventually someday soon pass this year's budget, right? And it doesn't have any provision in it because you're saying that it's likely that it's not going to be in this year's budget. We passed this bill this year though and in this legislation it has an effective date of June. You're saying that if the governor signs it, she would be funding it.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Otherwise In

[Mary Beth Walsh]: what mechanism? How is she going to fund it if the budget's already been passed for this year?

[Andrew Hevesi]: Oh no, no. We've been around a long time. We've seen where governors are to put in money post budget if they have the wherewithal to do it. I'm assuming that this will be the same case.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: So, I mean, I didn't know that. How no. Would Where would she go find that money after the fact?

[Andrew Hevesi]: So, hopefully with the Office of Victim Services or in the OCFS budget for now and then she'll come back more for next year's budget.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: To make up the difference. In other words, just take the take the money out and earmark it from the existing budget line and then next year put more money in to cover what she already took?

[Andrew Hevesi]: Yeah and that's one reasonable way to do it. It's just if the Governor is so inclined to get this up and running, there's ways to do it.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Okay. Had there been any conversations that you've had that you could share that that could be a likely scenario?

[Andrew Hevesi]: I've been in touch with the executive. They're intergovernmental staff. Like all of our staff here, they are trained never to promise anything, I give them credit. But my sense is, considering we have office of court administration support, you and I both understand the the need for families and kids and how this is creating a backlog in the court system. I'm pretty sure that this will be looked on favorably at some point. I'm frustrated that it wasn't in this budget, but we'll, you know, we're relentless. We'll keep coming back.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: No, I do admire the persistence and I do completely acknowledge and will say now and say later that I think that there definitely is a need to provide supervised visitation having worked in family court for a number I of recognize the need.

[William Colton]: Thank you.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: It's really it's that kind of maybe chicken and egg kind of situation where you want to get it done but you've got to somehow line the program up with an accurate estimate. I think part of the fear that I have, which I'd like to just make as part of the legislative record, is that in no event do I want these costs to be shifted upon localities

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Me too.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: For developing the program.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Me too. And just to give you some comfort on that, look, I've been around for a long time now. I'm not of the Governor Cuomo wing of the party where we're sticking at the counties every chance we got. I do not believe that. I hated when he did it. It was stupid. The state can generate the money for this and they should.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Because in the bill itself, the bill language, it states that it is the intent of this section to provide state support for the establishment of at least one program in each county, etcetera. But providing support and picking up the complete tab for the whole program. It doesn't say that in

[Michael Reilly]: the legislation.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Doesn't, but I will go on the record and tell you my intent is to have this completely state funded without a match or anything from the counties. The counties don't have enough money to cover this.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Now one of the things I did notice is that it listed in the bill language itself the kinds of cases that would be eligible for a determination in the court's discretion to allow visitation, the supervised visitation. One of the things it mentioned was child protective proceedings. And that was interesting to me because those would be Article 10 cases. Those Article 10 cases right now, at least upstate, the area that I practice, maybe it's different in the city, I don't know. But where I practice, supervised visitation in an Article 10 case would be provided currently through the case workers that work for the Department of Social Services.

[Michael Reilly]: Oh that's interesting.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Which would be counting money. So our it would be counting the county is supporting that. So in a way, by creating this program, would we be taking something off the plate and off the financial plate of the counties?

[Andrew Hevesi]: That's a great question. So the answer is, since it's the first time I've heard of it, I don't know, but it sounds like a great thing. We're putting in state monies that takes some of the burden off of the counties, that would terrific.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: It would take, if this is the case, it would take money or responsibility too off the county because those case workers in addition to investigating hotlines of abuse or neglect, educational neglect, etcetera, they also additionally the case workers have the responsibility to act as supervisors and that would be a significant time commitment that they have each week that they would not no longer have to do. They could divert their attention to other tasks

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: that they have within

[Mary Beth Walsh]: the office, which would be a positive.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Yeah. So look, I think what you're indicating is the lack of supervised visitation that's caused your caseworkers to adjust It's not a waste of their time, but to spend their time supervising visitation when they could be doing all manner of other things to help these kids and families. I agree.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Alright. That's wonderful. So let's see. Let me get back to my notes here. So talking about one of the things about the bill that I will be very honest, I don't particularly care for about the bill is that it essentially tasks Office of Victim Services in consultation with the Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence to establish this statewide supervised visitation initiative. But it doesn't really put any meat on the bones about what that's going to look like. I know that you mentioned at the beginning that there are a number of counties that no longer have supervised visitation programs available for non Article 10 cases.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: And

[Mary Beth Walsh]: so, it doesn't really go into much detail about who's going to get it. I know it's in the discretion of the court, but whether parents are going to get it who have the means, whether it's going to be available on a sliding scale, what you know, if you for example, if you qualify for a public defender, will that be sufficient to be receiving free supervised visitation? It's you know, that kind of thing. So it just seems lacking in that way. Are we just giving them the task and then we're just saying go for it, go develop Yes this

[Andrew Hevesi]: and no. So the yes is we picked the Office of Victim Services and we covered this last time because the vast majority unfortunately of these cases are domestic violence cases. So we thought that was the appropriate agency. With regard to know what? Ask me that again. I went in another direction. Apologize.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: No, no, that's fine. I was just talking about the lack of specificity.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Of course, I'm so sorry. Guidelines that we used to put this together came from the Office of Violence Against Women from the Federal Government. And they have a number of parameters that each of the localities will have to subscribe to security protocols, mandatory reports, that kind of thing. But we are leaving the bones to be put on by OBS and the counties. The counties are going to come back and provide a couple pieces of information. Think it's about five or six. And once we get a sense of what they're looking for, I'm comfortable that our State Department will be able to deal with that.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. What about in terms of payment? Is there a desire to do this on a sliding scale? Because I appreciate that you're saying and I do think that in cases involving allegations of domestic violence that that would be a very appropriate situation to have supervised visitation. But there are also an awful lot of just regular family court cases with parents that are not getting along that will want supervised visits. And if the court orders them, they're going to be out there too. Are we going to look to see like who is going to be able to get it other than whoever the court orders, in terms of their financial capability to pay. Will it be on a sliding scale?

[Andrew Hevesi]: Yeah, we hope so. So here's what we're looking to do. There's a couple of things that we built into the legislation. Starting with the programs must comply with the court orders and then for low income families we're going to offer fee waivers. Now we haven't outlined a sliding scale yet. Leaving that to OVS. So we're to keep an eye on what regulations they put into place. And we think it's appropriate, great. If not, we can adjust.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. All right. Now also therapeutic visitation is a whole different animal.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Correct.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: And a lot of times that's necessary if you have parents who have particularly have mental health issues or addiction issues or in any way would be less likely to be able to have a good visit with their child without the help of a qualified therapist of some kind. So that also is more expensive.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Right.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: And that's and as we've talked about so many times in this chamber, there is a dearth of mental health professionals that are available to even provide this service. And so how do we, you know, the bill really is kind of silent about We that as

[Andrew Hevesi]: don't set the scale. Just for general supervised visitation, what we found is for an hour visitation one time a week, the numbers range from $50 to we've gotten up to $300 which is a little crazy. For therapeutic which is what you're talking about, the cost will be even more because you have a professional. But we didn't want to put in a number that would either be too high or too low for getting that professional in there.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Now I noticed that some of the places that currently do have supervised visitation program very often have long wait lists.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: So how does this legislation envision that that will be handled? For example, you mentioned as a general standard the idea that it would be one visit per week. But if you've got a long list of people waiting to see their child even once a week, would the idea be that you would have a family be able to fully take advantage of that once a week visit or that you're going to parcel it out so that maybe a family might only be able to see their child once a month but more families could be take advantage of a visit?

[Andrew Hevesi]: So my instinct is it's judicial discretion. So whatever the judge thinks is appropriate for the family. What we're trying to do is make sure that the non custodial parent still has an active part of the child's life and we're really trying to avoid childhood trauma family separation, right? But I would leave it up to the judge's discretion for how much they want. I do want to touch on the point that you raised. You are absolutely correct. So I have a list here of most counties and what they have. And what we're finding is that there are 21 supervised visitation sites throughout the state that recently closed and they need 200,000 to do their startup and get back up and running. Then we have 23 that

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: as

[Andrew Hevesi]: you mentioned are on the six month to one year wait list. And they will need less money but they will need money to start providing and know that supervised visitation so we can get rid of those wait list. But and there's one other group which is brand new startups. We're looking for brand new startups and I will tell you that one other thing I found interesting I learned today.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: If you could just give me one moment please before Ms. Walsh does her second. Mr. Fall?

[Charles D. Fall]: Madam Speaker, can

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: you call on

[Charles D. Fall]: the Veterans Affairs Committee to meet in the Speakers Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: And Veterans Affairs Committee members please make your way to the Speakers Conference Room. Veterans Affairs Committee members Speakers Conference Room. Ms. Walsh.

[Andrew Hevesi]: If I could just continue, yeah. So it's my understanding that in Nassau, Suffolk, Jefferson and Orange Counties there are community dispute resolution centers which may have the space to accommodate an expanded growth into supervised visitation.

[William Colton]: Thank you, my counsel. Wanted to give you a moment to

[Andrew Hevesi]: I do appreciate it.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: To have that conversation.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: By the way, if you

[Andrew Hevesi]: get a judge to counsel, you can't interrupt.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Alright. The bill appears to be silent so I wanted to ask you about whether it's envisioned that these visits will all take place in a building versus I know that sometimes when there are visits that are being done in Article 10 situations, case workers might over time, the goal being to have them in as natural a setting as is safe, they could be held out in a park or they could be held in a variety of places, not brick and mortar location. But is that is the brick and mortar location kind of what's being envisioned here?

[Andrew Hevesi]: It is. And I think the brick and mortar is really important because there are security protocols that we need in particular. So part of what I hope the regulations become will be staggering of visits so certain people don't come at the same times and don't see each other. There are also different entrances that are required according to the OVW regulations to to make sure that you can get out without seeing an abuser, that kind of thing. So I would argue that the brick and mortar is the core of this. The other supervised visitation, well, that you mentioned, while necessary, is not what you want. It's the equivalent of having somebody watch a kid and hope it works out well without training, without sometimes they have their family members they're in a fight with. It's really not the best circumstances. So short answer to the question is, yeah, we want the brick and mortar.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Well I think there's a real, it's a balancing act really. I mean there are some cases like I would argue domestic violence cases where security would be at a premium. That's primary consideration. In others where the parents are appear to be fairly competent parents, they don't appear to have mental health or addiction problems that are documented, they just don't get along. But each parent could do a visit safely on their own, but they're going go in and ask the judge anyway to get supervised visits because they don't like that person. They do not like them and they want to have it supervised, either because they want to throw a wrench into the other person's life or whatever. And if a judge buys it and orders it and says okay, I think that the when I served as an attorney for the child, I mean my goal is always to try to have the most natural, normal kind of visit that you could possibly have with a parent. That makes sense. But I can appreciate that if this is and it sounds to me from your answers that the needs of families with who have allegations of domestic violence and their safety and security is primary and I would agree with you that in those cases you would want it to have

[Andrew Hevesi]: Yeah.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Be happening in a place where you could provide for the safety of everybody involved.

[Michael Reilly]: Exactly. Unfortunately,

[Andrew Hevesi]: yeah, I agree. And unfortunately, those are the overwhelming majority of the cases. And since we are essentially building up a structure from, you know, with bare bones from before that wasn't really working since we're building it up, we're going to focus on making sure it's as safe as possible. And then if the judge, by the way, after a certain period of time gets the report back from the person delivering the supervised visitation that hey, they just don't like each other, there's no safety issue, I'm sure the judge can amend his order.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. But it doesn't say in the bill I mean, states as a goal that we want safe visitation, but it's not in any way limiting supervised visitation to cases involving domestic violence. It's really anybody that's coming in in supreme court or in family court with a matrimonial or family court issue.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Yeah or an abuse case or a divorce case, but yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah, yeah in any of those cases, okay. And will there be any, will there be guidance given to the judges as to what how there's what they're to consider when figuring out or exercising their discretion? Or No. Just going to leave it to

[Andrew Hevesi]: I think the judges have been doing it for years. Just are now trying to do it in a system that doesn't exist. So hard it's to do. But once we get this up and running, I'm sure the judges will be ready to get back into the game and start issuing orders for supervisor visitation.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. I think that you have very completely answered the questions that I've got. I thank you. Thank you. Madam speaker on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: So I really want to say upfront again that there are definitely, there is definitely a need all around the state to be able to have more and better supervised visitation. Back in the old days, back when I started to practice in this area, there were still, in the counties that I served, there were volunteer organizations either through churches or just that popped up that had a pretty low price point per visit that were out there as a business model. Some were staffed by volunteers, some were paid individuals and in the area that I represent, they have all folded. They are done. It is not a business model that has worked. And just as we have seen just generally in our world right now, there's a lot of animosity out there. And there are people if you're in family court and you're fighting with your ex or your soon to be ex, you are not a happy person. And you are very often wanting supervised visits even though you might have family members or friends or neighbors or you might be able to pay for supervised visitation on your own. But if it's going to be provided free by the state, you could be darn sure that everyone's going to be asking for it. So I find it the price tag I think is a huge question mark to me. We've all seen what's happened with child care slots, right? We've seen counties that when they run out of money, they have to close it up and they have to say I'm sorry we can't service any more children in the county with child care slots. I could see the same thing happening here if they grossly underestimate how much this is going to cost. I think that, you know, some counties that are small that don't have a big population, maybe it won't cost that much. But just imagine, you're essentially starting a business county by county and that business is going to need to be staffed, staffed not only by people maybe getting minimum wage, but people that are going to have to be trained to do this, to provide supervision. And then you're also going to need to have trained therapists to be able to do therapeutic visitation, whether that would be a master's in social work, whether that's going to be a psychologist. You're going need somebody there. And there sometimes, they were some of the people that had started their own businesses and those businesses have folded. So whether they really would contract now with the state and start their own is questionable. While I don't dispute the need to have supervised visitation, more of it in our state to allow kids to be able to see their parents as they try to get through their matrimonial matter or their family court matter, I really think that this is an extremely expensive proposition and for me personally, I think that this bill just has a lot of holes in it. I think this is a good example where we are indicating our desire and intent as a legislature, but then we are completely, I think, abdicating any role and we're just putting it all on Office of Victim Services to develop this program. It's going to be a big program that will have a big impact on the state, on our state, on our litigants, on our kids. And I just think that when the price tag is very questionable, when the need is great, and when we just don't have a lot of details in the program itself the way it's laid out right now, I think that the sponsor and the people who support this bill have every good intention and I applaud it. I just think that this bill needs work. I think that we need not for nothing, but this is not the first time that we've taken up this bill and we continue to not have support from the 2nd Floor for this bill. We don't have money in the budget right now for this initiative and I think it's going to be a lot more money than what is currently being budgeted. Last year the sponsor indicated $25,000,000 This year he indicated $25,000,000 but he also said that there are more counties who have had their programs full and will need them. So I just think until we have more detail, I'm going to continue to vote no on this piece of legislation. I would encourage my colleagues to think hard about it and perhaps join me in voting no, not because I don't think that there is a need for this service, but just because I think that the bill is not ready and the financial support is not there. Madam Speaker, that's it. I'm going to be no on this, but I do appreciate the sponsors' persistence and I do hope that someday a program like this gets over the finish line, I think that the bill needs more work. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Miss Pollan to explain her vote.

[Amy Paulin]: Thank you, miss you, miss speaker. My beginnings in advocacy life were way before I got this job. And way before I was the executive director of an agency that serves battered women. It was to advocate for a supervised visitation program in Westchester County. And that need came from not only the domestic violence community, but from the judges who didn't have a place to put cases where they really needed to separate the parents because of the danger to one of the parents. So this program

[Mary Beth Walsh]: will

[Amy Paulin]: benefit those situations where they're really hard core. Where you need two entrances in order to have the parent who is being victimized separated from the parent who is doing the victimization. So I applaud the sponsor for putting forward a bill that will begin to address this statewide. We're very fortunate in Westchester that the county has picked up that burden of cost. And that they continue to fund those two places that we put in place so many, many years ago, but the rest of the state is not as fortunate. So I understand the need to balance cost with the program. I just believe that this could help a lot of families maintain those relationships with those children. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, Ms. Pollan, affirmative. Ms. Walsh, to explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah, just very briefly, and I want to thank the previous speaker. I just want to make it very clear that when there are supervised visits involving in a domestic violence case, or a case involving domestic violence, you are not going to have the mother and the father having a visit at the same time or in the same building or anywhere near at the same time with that child. There is going to be separation anyway. So the idea of them crossing in the hallway or something is just not a thing. It's not that's not that's not what's going to happen. I think one of the things that's really absent from the bill though, and I might be more supportive of the bill, if it was specifically designed only for those types of cases, that would be a much lower price tag. They are the most needy cases absolutely and agree with that. This bill though doesn't say that. This bill says that anybody in a family court or matrimonial case in state supreme or in family court can ask and be granted supervised visitation. That's a much bigger universe that we're talking about here. That's ergo the bigger price tag. So I just wanted to point that out. Completely agree that those DV cases are some of the very toughest ones. Those and just parents that have big addiction or mental health issues, those the hardest ones. But they are also the most expensive ones to properly staff and and have the visits. But I would rather put the eggs in that basket and do pilot programs around the state to address that issue before we take on something as big as this bill. So thank you. I'll continue to be in the negative.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Miss Walsh in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty five. Noes, two.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Page nine, calendar number 30. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number seven fifty five b, calendar 30, miss Pollan, enact to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: An explanation has been requested, Ms. Pollan.

[Amy Paulin]: The bill would require the Department of Health to examine heat related deaths in the state and publish an annual report of heat vulnerability and heat related deaths in the state.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mister Jensen.

[Catalina Cruz]: Thank

[Josh Jensen]: you, madam speaker. Would the chair from Westchester County yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? I will. Sponsor yields.

[Josh Jensen]: Thank you very much, madam chair. Into the terms of this legislation, who would be responsible for getting the information on these deaths to the state DOH?

[Amy Paulin]: Well, in the case of the city that already does this work, the city would forward the information that they've gathered. We've modeled the bill exactly like the city so there shouldn't be any inconsistency. In the case of the other counties, because they have that data, you know, through because that's where deaths are usually reported, they would be forwarding the information to the state.

[Josh Jensen]: So in my understanding, the existing New York City code has it that hospitals must be the ones to convey the information on deaths to the city. Is that correct?

[Amy Paulin]: I don't know how the city collects We just make the obligation on the city. And honestly, how the counties collect it was less relevant also. You know, if the counties get the information from the hospitals, that's great. You know, but whatever system is being used currently to get that information would be the same.

[Josh Jensen]: So for being able to classify something as a heat related death, would the counties and the city of New York, would they have to provide all deaths within that jurisdiction over a certain period of time and all the other underlying issues that are happening at that time so that DOH could make the determination whether or not it is a death that was exacerbated by heat? Or would the counties and the city have to make a determination that a certain death may have been a heat related death and only forward certain incidences to the Department of Health?

[Amy Paulin]: I think it's the latter because I'm not sure that the county would be able to make a determination like that. But it's a good question. The thing is the city already does something. So I would say we need to find out exactly how they do this and probably just advise counties that they should do it similarly because they don't seem to have any problem.

[Josh Jensen]: So if it is the latter of question I asked, would be that only a certain subset of deaths within that certain time period would be passed along. But certainly, and I guess I don't know what the mechanism is now, but my understanding is that not every death is reviewed by the county medical or the county medical examiner to determine the cause of death. That somebody may die at home, somebody may die in a hospital setting or a healthcare setting, Somebody may die in someplace else. And so there may not be always a clear determination of death. And so if somebody dies and they don't have an autopsy, what would be the mechanism for a county to determine whether or not that incident of death would be something that would have to be reported to the Department of Health?

[Amy Paulin]: I would just say that, you know, the city is very large. Don't think everyone there's no autopsy requirement for those deaths So as they have found the system that works for them. They've been doing these reports and it's showing you know, vulnerabilities around the city itself and, you know, and populations that are vulnerable. So it may not be perfect, but it's better than having no data. And so if we could copy what the city is doing and make that statewide, we would have a cumulative amount of data really to understand where this is more problematic.

[Josh Jensen]: So with the current and neither of us representing the City Of New York, in our constituencies, since 2020 when the city code began requiring hospitals submit this data, has New York City Council or the city department of health, have they done anything whether regulations or statute to respond to the data that they were given?

[Amy Paulin]: I don't know but I have a report.

[Josh Jensen]: No props Beth.

[Amy Paulin]: Oh no props. Sorry, sorry. I have a report that I can share where they've been able to give that information maybe back to the health department for them to take an administrative action that might help address it. But it's you know, but I have their 2025 health data report which does indicate certain areas and certain populations that are more susceptible to this issue. So, you know, so I do think that it's useful for the department, at least in the city it has that information, but statewide we could have it. And it would lend itself to perhaps certain areas need support for air conditioning in certain places, you know, like libraries or some, you know, so it's I think it's very important always to collect data because then programs that you set up are more useful. You know, otherwise we're just setting up a bunch of programs without any information and I think that could be problematic.

[Josh Jensen]: I mean, feel like we do that a lot in the state, set up a program

[Amy Paulin]: Here's a way for us not to do that and for this.

[Josh Jensen]: Was so, you used the example of, you know, libraries having air conditioning. But do we really need to have reports and all this data given to the Department of Health for information to know like, hey, the summers are warmer, this is a building that's been un renovated since 1963, and the temperature is in the 90s, maybe we should put fans or air conditioning in it. Do we really need data collection and raising administrative burdens on counties and the city and DOH to make a recommendation that I would say is somewhat common sense, especially when it may only be an advisory opinion from DOH to the governor and the legislature saying, hey, take these issues seriously?

[Amy Paulin]: So I'll just point out to the last debate that we just had with unsupervised visitation. And that, you know, my honored colleague was talking about putting in too much money for a program that maybe needed to be narrower. Here we're identifying the narrower examples to know maybe it's in three libraries, maybe there are pockets of the community that don't have access to a public facility. You know, maybe we're talking about in the city, I'm making this up, but you know, The Bronx, you know, where we need to put resources. So it'll it'll enable us to put resources and tailor those resources to very specific areas so it'll be less costly to have a bigger impact.

[Josh Jensen]: Is there an appropriation attached to this piece of legislation?

[Amy Paulin]: Until we collect the data, which is easy because it's just a bunch of numbers that are going to get fed to the county, from the county to the state. We don't know whether we need additional resources yet because we don't know if there's a pattern to talk about.

[Josh Jensen]: So I know in I've seen press reports of New York City and I know in Monroe County and I'm sure in Westchester County as well that when the temperature does rise, local government or the county government is saying, hey, you know, temperatures are going to be dangerously high, we're setting up cooling centers. They're doing that already without having this data. So why would we need to submit all the data to DOH when counties may already be taking steps on their own to address some of these concerns?

[Amy Paulin]: Well, I would argue that not all counties are doing that and maybe we'd find the heat related deaths in the counties that aren't. You know, so it just gives us more information to be able to help more people. You know, older people are particularly susceptible. You know, they're finding, you know, poorer people, obviously. Minorities are obviously more impacted because they may not have but to know where and to know exactly what those populations are in those specific counties could just be helpful. Just, you know, it's just eye opening sometimes to have the information.

[Josh Jensen]: Do we know what or do we know whether or not the State Department of Health has the staff available or an office that would be able to effectively process this data, have the development of recommendations to send back to legislature and work with the governor or the legislature to determine potential legislation? Does DOH have the ability to actually do something with this data?

[Amy Paulin]: I think that DOH is very creative and could easily, you know, under the leadership of our great commissioner of health, figure it out if they had the information.

[Josh Jensen]: Entities that may be in need of capital investment like colleges where heat may be hotter than it is in other places be part of the recommendations for

[Amy Paulin]: It's hard to know until we start collecting the data of heat deaths caused by specifically heat.

[Josh Jensen]: So is it exclusively deaths because isn't there, you know because this is focused solely on heat related deaths. But doesn't other heat related incidents, dehydration, heat stroke, sunburn, don't those heat related afflictions or solar related afflictions also have an impact on overall public health? So why are we exclusively limiting the data to just heat related deaths when we know that it could be enhancing comorbidities that lead to

[Amy Paulin]: You have to start somewhere.

[Josh Jensen]: Okay, fair enough. Like how I was advocating against the bill, and I was like, let's make it bigger.

[Amy Paulin]: I doubt

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: it may

[Josh Jensen]: have been. Just try to throw a curveball in there, madam chair. Thank you very much to the health chairwoman for answering my questions. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you.

[Charles D. Fall]: Mister Fall? Madam speaker, can you call on the codes committee to meet in the Speakers'

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Conference Room? Codes committee members, please make your way to the Speakers' Conference Room. Codes committee to the Speakers' Conference Room.

[Amy Paulin]: Oh, maybe you're right. I take this so Shelby can participate. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Okay. So do so do we need I guess we need to.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but if there are affirmative votes, they may be cast now at member seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, Mr. Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they can do so at their desk.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mister DPH Rowe to explain his vote.

[David DiPietro]: Thank you, madam speaker. I think just my opinion, I'm I hope I'm wrong, but I think there's gonna be a an increase in fatalities from heat this summer if it's, a, if it the climate, if the heat that they're predicting this summer stands true, but also because most people it's happening around the state. They can't afford their electric bills, which means there's gonna be a lot of people that aren't gonna put on their air conditioners because they can't afford their electric bills from what has happened with the climate act. So I'll be voting no, and I'll be hope I'm wrong on my prediction, and we'll find out in the fall. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister DiPietro in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 92. Nays, 44. The bill is passed. Mister Efal, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, madam speaker. On behalf of member McMahon, I mean as part of the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, we are joined today by students from the SUNY Buffalo School of Law, Family Violence and Woman's Right Clinic and their professors Kelly Omel and Judith Olin. The students are Sandy Sparks, Allison Colengio, Lenin Greco, Gabby Slawinski, Lily Leffer, Kaylyn Lane, Skyler, Rayvine, Gabby Baker and Sarah Trichloof. These students provide free legal representation to survivors of family violence and divorce and child support proceedings as part of their legal education. On behalf of member McMahon, I'd like to thank them for the important work that they do and if you could be so kind to welcome them to the people's house.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On behalf of Ms. McMahon and Mr. Foll, the speaker, and all members, we welcome the students from the UB Family Violence and Women's Women's Rights Clinic. We appreciate you being here today, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. We thank you for all of the work, the committed work that you are doing. You could have chose any profession in any area in law, and you chose something very important and much needed. So, we appreciate that very much. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Page 10, calendar number 53. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1422. Calendar number 53. Miss Cruz, an act to amend the criminal procedure law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Miss Cruz.

[Catalina Cruz]: Thank you, madam speaker. New York is a linguistically diverse state and so New Yorkers are not fully proficient in the English language. In the criminal justice context, this becomes an issue when a New Yorker who is not fully proficient in English seeks to report a crime. How can a person who is not sufficient and proficient in English relay facts of an evidentiary character to law enforcement officials if he, she or they cannot speak or write English? The solution is rather simple, require that law enforcement officials use qualified translators who can translate the deponent's accusations into English and then require that these individuals submit affidavits affirming what they did as well as their qualifications. The proposed legislation would ensure that the opponents have their allegations accurately translated by someone who is qualified to translate them while also putting defendant on sufficient notice of the facts given giving rise to factual allegations levied against them.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mister Morenollo.

[Angelo Morinello]: Will the sponsor yield for a few questions?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Catalina Cruz]: I will.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Angelo Morinello]: I reviewed the transcript of last year's debate and I'm not embarrassed to admit that we missed the point. Okay? On our side. At least I did. So what I'd like to do is state that, as a retired judge, I truly understand the intention and the need for this particular piece of legislation. My questioning will focus more on the implementation and the financial aspects, okay? And as to the degree that we can go forward. Would it be a fair statement to say the bill seems to address prior to engaging the court system but ultimately those documents will form the basis of what the court and the judges have to look at when they go forward?

[Catalina Cruz]: That's correct.

[Angelo Morinello]: Okay. Do you envision the office of court administration being involved on implementation?

[Catalina Cruz]: No. The time when the court administration is involved is at the time when the case would actually go to court and there is already a process for all of that to happen. This is prior to.

[Angelo Morinello]: Okay. Have they been consulted on this though? No. No. Do you envision any ability for them or need for them to be in involved only because there is a process now where there are centralized interpreters that the courts can utilize telephonically. And this would seem to be something that could be dovetailed into and resolve the issue for the those that are not proficient in the English language? Well,

[Catalina Cruz]: mean there so a couple of things. There's already a system not just with the courts but with other agencies and even localities to use a centralized interpreting system. But judging from past times that we've debated this bill, there are counties where those two may be one in the same. So there might be a need to have those conversations, but generally there's already a system in place in both the court system as well as outside of it. The difference is that in the court system, you are already whether it's in front of a judge or signing, you're certifying that you are an interpreter qualified to interpret whatever conversation is happening. Outside of it, it's just providing the interpretation but there is no requirement that you as an interpreter certify that what you're interpreting is accurate or that you're qualified to do so.

[Angelo Morinello]: Are you saying that there's no rule or that these interpreters would have to be certified? I'm I'm trying to which degree and at what point?

[Catalina Cruz]: That's correct. So right now, a state agency, there is under the law and before that it used to be an executive order, state agencies are required to provide interpretation up to I believe it's 12 languages and an additional four if they so chose depending on the language need of their area. And so for example, in Ithaca for the Ithaca Police Department and in Tom's Tomkins County government, there's already policies in placing, we are going to contract with these two particular entities to provide translation when someone comes in and needs it. The difference is that in those instances, there is no requirement that those interpreters sign or attest in any way that they're a, qualified or and and b, that what they're interpreting is exactly what was relayed to them.

[Angelo Morinello]: So if there's no, need or rule or or legislation in place, then you could almost have anybody do this interpretation. So my question would be, would it not be more prudent? Because one of the issues we always have is where is the money gonna come from? And that's one of the issues why we're still here without a budget. Where is the money gonna come from? So my focus is more, would there be any merit in at least looking to merit, merit the two different systems so that we have a uniform interpretation system so that this would be utilized and the with the accuracy so that we do not have misinterpretation at the initial stages of involvement of the police and therefore the courts.

[Catalina Cruz]: So there is the best way I can explain it is there is a centralized requirement, it comes via the language access plan that the state has. But there is not necessarily a centralized system because one is used by the courts, They might use the same interpretation company that is used by local county government or state agencies. I understand what you're saying. This bill has nothing to do with that, so I'm gonna leave that perhaps for a side conversation that you and I can have about efficiency. I'll leave it at that.

[Angelo Morinello]: But it would just seem that moving in this direction, if we're going to protect the rights of both victims and defendants or the accused dealing with those that are not proficient that maybe the discussion could lead to that. For example, a centralized interpretation center that could be utilized both rural and courts within the city limits that they can go they can call up on or do it visual so that there's uniformity in the interpretations. Because isn't it my understanding that this whole purpose is to administer justice in a fair manner to all parties doing it in the most efficient.

[Catalina Cruz]: So you are correct, that this is about ensuring justice and ensuring that whatever the deponent is saying to the police officer or where they're making the complaint that it is translated so that they can at the end of this get justice. The conversation about efficiency, it's not contemplated by this bill. I understand what you're saying but what this bill contemplates is the legal requirements so that whatever is being interpreted can then later be used in court.

[Angelo Morinello]: So let me ask you this as a hypothetical. You have a non certified interpreter do at the initial stages of an information which then moves to an accusation or dep deposition. K? And at the court at once the court becomes involved, what if there's a difference between the interpretation of the court interpreter and the the the initial information which led to the allegation? How does that get resolved? Now you've got you're you're you're not serving justice it would seem.

[Catalina Cruz]: In your example, would it be before this bill passes or after the bill passes?

[Angelo Morinello]: Pardon?

[Catalina Cruz]: In your example After bill passes. So in an instance like that, an individual, you know perhaps a friend or the sister or brother of the deponent who came with them would be allowed to serve as an interpreter if it's an obscure language. For example, in many Upstate counties you might not have access to an interpretation system right away. There may be an issue getting access to someone. That person who's making the interpretation would still have to sign an affidavit saying that what they're interpreting is accurate and that they have knowledge of that particular language.

[Angelo Morinello]: Does your bill take into consideration dialect differences from different areas of a particular country or a region because dialect differences can have different meanings So that that that is where a centralized sorry. Would possibly avoid that.

[Catalina Cruz]: So the bill takes into account the qualifications and certifying or self certification by the interpreter that they are qualified to interpret that particular language. I would assume that they're if they're going to sign an affidavit that says that they are knowledgeable and they're doing so accurately, it would take that into account.

[Angelo Morinello]: Okay. But I don't think that addressed the issue of dialect differences within the same language. So the person who's interpreting it at the initial stages certifies that yes, they are doing it, accurately. But they also are not versed in all dialects. So there's there there could be

[Catalina Cruz]: We will have no way to know that.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Yeah.

[Catalina Cruz]: Well, I think that's why the bill prefers that it be certified interpreters because generally those those type of individuals are trained on the dialect and the different interpretations of a particular word. The only way you would be able to use a family member is if it's an obscure language that there's no access to for an interpreter. But generally, that's why the bill opts to use a certified interpreter. Okay.

[Angelo Morinello]: And I apologize, I did ask this and you may have answered it. Has there been any consideration of a centralized interpretation center that can be accessed twenty four hours a day. Let's take rural counties. I have a very rural county and I have a number of h two a workers in the summer. Okay? And if should they have a problem either as a complainant or as an accused, they they're brought to a local criminal court, sometimes to the judge's house because the distance from the courthouse. So to facilitate that, there's no way they're gonna have an interpreter at that point. That's why I asked, was there ever any consideration? It's not a trick question. It's like to have a centralized twenty four hour accessible so that all of these rural courts can dispense justice for those that aren't proficient in the English language.

[Catalina Cruz]: The state language access plan already contemplates that and creates a hotline or a sort of central

[Angelo Morinello]: That would be a perfect way of assessing it, a hotline. It it it I'm not even sure if it

[Catalina Cruz]: pardon? It already exists.

[Angelo Morinello]: Yes. Has there been any disc just discussion when the bill was coming together?

[Catalina Cruz]: There was no need to do that because it already exists.

[Angelo Morinello]: Well, where does it exist? You said the court system is different than what you're doing here. It exists in the court system.

[Catalina Cruz]: Yes.

[Angelo Morinello]: But this is different than that.

[Catalina Cruz]: This this so this has nothing to do with the actual system to access the interpreters because the New York State language access plan already takes care of that. So there is a plan that's been that began as an executive order and it's now law and already ensures that agencies have access to an interpretation system. Generally, it's two to three vendors per agency that they're given and they can whether it's the police department, the department of labor, they can call those hotlines and are able to access those interpreters. In this bill, the only thing this bill does, it contemplates the qualifications that an interpreter is putting forth in an affidavit so that that affidavit can then be used as part of a accusatory instrument.

[Angelo Morinello]: Okay. Thank you.

[Catalina Cruz]: Oh yes and requiring each law enforcement agency to do it because right now it's a main situation we want to say will or shall.

[Angelo Morinello]: Thank you.

[Catalina Cruz]: Thank you.

[Angelo Morinello]: On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Angelo Morinello]: As I stated initially, initially, I think the debate prior focused on a need, which I think was misguided and we missed some of the points that could have been accomplished over the last year. It's not the need or the concept. What it is is the implementation. And I still fear that because of dialect differences, timing, justice courts in rural areas, that it should be focused more on adapting or opting into the state system and put together a system that has centralized access to it. Because the other side is going to be the economics to this. And as we stated, New York State right now is struggling to find ways to fund their budget. And this has been one of the reasons why there's no budget at this time. So I would suggest that yes, we need this. Yes, it's good. Yes, it's different than the court system. But if we're going to start worrying more about those that do not have proficiency in the English language that maybe we start looking to how do we accomplish it statewide with only one system that accomplishes all the needs. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mr. Angelino.

[Joseph Angelino]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor please yield?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Joseph Angelino]: Good afternoon. Luckily, did this same debate last year, same people, and I read through that. But I was only going to speak on the bill until you said something that was a little different because while my colleague from Niagara Falls mentioned mostly court proceedings and in court, I think last year you and I talked mostly about law enforcement out in field. And you said, I remember last year I said, can't a trusted family member be the interpreter or translator? Last year, I don't think you said they could.

[Catalina Cruz]: I don't remember. It's last year.

[Joseph Angelino]: Okay. So that was a concern, and that's the only reason I'm asking questions now is because you said that a when I asked, know, in a rural area, it's hard to find somebody. Generally, a police officer is talking to a victim and there's usually family members there. Would one of those family members suffice?

[Catalina Cruz]: So what the bill intends to do is that in an instance like that, the only time an officer should be using a family member is if the language if if they attempted to access interpretation, they couldn't because of a number of reasons, language is not available, it's obscure, etcetera etcetera, then they should be able to use a family member that's there who will still have to go through the process of attesting to the interpretation, accuracy, and to their skill level in the language.

[Joseph Angelino]: Okay, and was there an incident or several or just one, something that happened or translation was lost and something bad happened to somebody?

[Catalina Cruz]: I mean it happens all the time. I don't have one specific, but I could tell you it happens all the time.

[Joseph Angelino]: Okay. Thank you. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Joseph Angelino]: So last year I think we don' need to rehash everything but without getting into detail because it will dock somebody but this situation happens time and time again. I have a big rural district. English is 99.9% of the people. When we do encounter somebody that does not speak English, it's mostly Spanish, and we get through that pretty well from Spanish speakers, but it's not exact. I mean, my high school's Spanish is terrible. So, we usually rely upon a family member. And we're talking supporting depositions here. And just so you know, at 02:00 in the morning, when two cops are at a bar fight, one is trying to talk to the victim. They don't speak English. Usually, it's going to be Spanish. A family member stands there. These supporting depositions are taken on a cop's lap on a piece of paper using a pen. We're trying to get that supporting deposition done quickly because no victim incident is ever the same. We' trying to apprehend somebody, trying to prevent further damage from happening, we' trying to get a supporting deposition as a basis for probable cause to make an arrest. And if you waited ten minutes, you know, somebody now is 15 miles away. It just makes our job more difficult. I don' know what would really happen if we had to rely upon that supporting deposition to go through court and if that weren' prima facie enough for the court as it is now, a lot of these cases would get thrown out basically on a technicality that it wasn' a certified translator. I was happy to hear that in an urgent situation a family member could do that because we're all trying to get justice here. It's not very often that the actor of a crime that caused damage stole something comes to us first and wants to confess. We have to rely upon victims of these. I'll be voting no just for the cumbersome ness of this and how it's going to impact rural law enforcement and metropolitan law enforcement. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mr. Molotour?

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes, sponsor yields.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Thank you. Just a few questions about or some questions about the implementation of this particular law. What types of accusatory instruments will this law apply to?

[Catalina Cruz]: I'm sorry, can you say that a little bit louder?

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Yeah, what types of accusatory instruments will this law apply to?

[Catalina Cruz]: Any that would be used to ensure give me one second. Oh, you want I could read all of them. Alright. An information, a simplified information. I'm just am I reading? Prosecutors info and misdemeanor can't please. Okay. So it would apply to an indictment, an indictment order to reduce pursuant to subdivision one of section two ten point twenty, a simplified information, a prosecutor's information, a superior court information, a misdemeanor complaint or a felony complaint.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Why would it apply to an indictment?

[Catalina Cruz]: Yeah. Yeah, if there was a deposition that occurred prior to getting to court and there was no certified translation provided as it

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: would in court, then it would apply. But in an indictment, there's a grand jury proceeding and in that grand jury proceeding if someone spoke another language besides English, there would be an interpreter and that interpreter would have to be sworn.

[Catalina Cruz]: That's correct.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Yes. So why would this apply to an indictment?

[Catalina Cruz]: Yeah, it would be for anything that was communicated prior to stepping into court.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So this law would require, let's say misdemeanor information was filed in local court. And the facts that are relevant to this particular scenario occur, you'd have to go through this whole process in order to have a sufficient misdemeanor information, right?

[Catalina Cruz]: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Right? And then you provide notice to the defendant that the case is going to go to grand jury and once there's an indictment, you would have to go through this process again in county court or supreme court?

[Catalina Cruz]: You'd also have to ensure that the indictment is translated to the person's language.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: To the defendant's

[Catalina Cruz]: Both, yeah both.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Where in the language of this bill, maybe I missed it, but where in the language of this bill does it require or does it say that the indictment needs to be converted to the defendant's primary language?

[Catalina Cruz]: Do you have it in front of you because I can I do? Point it? So it would be where it says notwithstanding any provision of the law to the contrary, where the factual allegations of the accusatory instrument and or any supporting deposition filed in connection with the instructions consist of statements made by the deponent to a public servant. So that section right there.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: That says deponent though, not the defendant. You're talking about this this bill is about a witness who maybe speaks a different language.

[David I. Weprin]: Yes.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: It's not about a defendant who speaks a different language.

[Catalina Cruz]: Sorry. Maybe I misheard you and I'm gonna ask that either you speak a little bit louder or get closer because there's like noise around us. So I wanna make sure that I'm hearing you as best possible.

[Michael Reilly]: Okay.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So just to be clear, is that better?

[Catalina Cruz]: Yes.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Just to be clear, this law, this proposed law Yes. Does not apply to an indictment.

[Catalina Cruz]: We said that it does, yes. Yeah, it does.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Well, your your bill is amending section 100.4.

[Catalina Cruz]: Well, no no no. It it applies to making sure that we are interpreting that information in that indictment for the defendant. No, sorry not for the defendant, for the deponent.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Right, but you're amending section 100.4 of the criminal procedure law which doesn't apply to indictments. It applies to local criminal court accusatory instruments. An indictment is not a local criminal court

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: accusatory Hold your

[Catalina Cruz]: thought for one second. Hold that thought. We don't read it. I had to consult with counsel. We don't read it to not include an indictment. We read it to actually include it as it is also an accusatory instrument.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Well, if you look at section 100.4 of the criminal procedure law, it's titled

[Catalina Cruz]: That we're amending in.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Local Criminal Court and Youth Part of the Superior Court Accusatory Instruments, semi colon, sufficiency on face. And it lists the instruments and information, a simplified information, a prosecutor's information, a misdemeanor complaint or a felony complaint. Those are the first four sections of that law. You are seeking to add a fifth section which, and we'll get to how that applies to the other four sections here in a minute, but you're seeking to add a fifth section that does not seek to change the requirements for an indictment because that's under a separate criminal procedure law section.

[Catalina Cruz]: What I'm looking at, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Okay. Alright. So, looking back at the language of the bill, this bill would require basically some extra steps for the filing of the accusatory instruments that are listed in that section. When will this actually be required? Will this

[William Colton]: Well

[Charles D. Fall]: happen let's

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: let's take an example, it will be a lot easier. The police file a misdemeanor alleging an assault, a misdemeanor assault. What are the facts or circumstances that are required under this bill for it to be sufficient on its face?

[Catalina Cruz]: The deponent would be someone whose primary language is not English, requires an interpreter and an interpreter is provided and the information that comes out, and when I mean information, don't mean the document, the facts that come out lead the police to think that a crime has occurred and to then take the next steps. If that's part of of the example that you are putting forward, then in an instance like that you would need the deponent's statement to be accompanied by a certification from the interpreter. And there's two ways that it can be done, it's either a statement provided in the language of the deponent along with a translation that's and a statement that says it's accurately translated or the statement completely in English with a certification that says this has been translated from the deponent's original language and I am a certified interpreter to do so.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So to use my colleague's example just for to make this easy, you have a bar fight, let's say between John and Paul. And the police show up, they take a deposition from Paul who's let's say the victim in this particular circumstance and they file an accusatory instrument charging John with assault. At what point does that accusatory instrument get challenged to if let's say Paul's primary language was not English? What point does that make?

[Catalina Cruz]: So, let's walk the example back. When the police show up, they determine that John or Paul do not speak English or well enough to be able to communicate with them. The majority of police departments have an I speak card, and the majority of police departments already have a system in place to be able or some or or an interpretation system contracted to be able to call. They call, someone picks up, and then they're able to relay the facts, and that factual information is then used by the police to file charges or and I'm not to file charges. I'm sorry. To then arrest someone and that could result in a misdemeanor, etcetera etcetera, at the point where they decide that there's factual information and that could lead them to think that a crime has occurred, that interpreter, I would guess that what should happen is that interpreter is then informed that they need to submit a document showing their qualifications, etcetera etcetera or the two exact the two statements that I gave you, a translated statement or in a statement in English and certification of the qualifications of the interpreter.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So if the police show up in this scenario and Paul says to them, that guy punched me in the face and they take that down, they write it down on a supporting deposition, Paul signs it and they file, the police file an assault third in the local criminal court. Then John's attorney and John finds out, John's attorney finds out that Paul's primary language is not English. John's attorney can move to dismiss the complaint

[Catalina Cruz]: It's what's happening now a lot of the times. There's it's actually one of the basis an accurate interpretation is actually often the basis for appeal. Whether the appeal succeeds or not is a whole different conversation, but it's often now and what we're trying to do is make sure that we are avoiding that basis for appeal by creating a system where it happens basically automatically.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So what if what if that exact same scenario occurs, but the police also get a witness from somebody else whose primary language is English The witness. And they have it on the bar camera that John punched Paul. Can they still can the defense attorney still move to dismiss If for lack of sufficiency?

[Catalina Cruz]: If the police failed if if the police are using this additional witnesses statement as part of the of the facts or the accusatory instrument and they failed to get a certification or an interpreter, then yes. The answer is yes.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Okay.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: And just to be clear, in the language of this bill, there is no definition of interpreter. Is that correct?

[Catalina Cruz]: That's correct.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So anyone who sufficiently speaks that language could be used as an interpreter under the language of this bill?

[Catalina Cruz]: That is contemplated by the language access law and plans of the state, that's a completely different section, where who is a certified and not a certified interpreter and is used for the purposes of meeting the requirements of state agencies and city agencies, that's a separate

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: But this doesn't reference those laws?

[Catalina Cruz]: This references someone being able to certify that they're an interpreter. I think the part that is often missed is that a lot of this is already happening. The only piece that's missing is that certification. Because a lot of agencies, a lot of law enforcement agencies are already using many of the phone line systems to call an interpreter when needed.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Oh, thank you. On the bill.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: On the bill? So

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: I I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of this bill. I think that if you are if the police are gonna file charges, you know, they should be accurate in in the allegations. And I you know, when I speak to the police or when I did speak to the police in my former career, I know that many of them, if not all of them wanted to do that. I think that this bill lacks some definitions that would make it a little bit clearer and easier to implement. And I think one of the major problems we have in the criminal justice system right now in the state of New York is a lot of confusing laws that don't actually work. And this I think will be another one of them. I'm a little bit concerned that the sponsor's interpretation of this bill includes indictments when the language of this bill does not include indictments, and the section that's referenced also does not include indictments. An indictment is a completely separate proceeding that has its own safeguards in place, and if it's part of this legislative record that indictments are included, it's going to create a lot of confusion across the state of New York. So for all of these reasons, I would ask all of my colleagues to please vote no on this bill and I will be voting no as well. Thank you.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: Mister Riley.

[Michael Reilly]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a couple of questions?

[Catalina Cruz]: Of course, mister Riley.

[Michael Reilly]: Thank you.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: The sponsor yields.

[Michael Reilly]: Thank you so much. So question I have is, let's put this into a real world context, before it reaches the courts.

[Catalina Cruz]: Yes.

[Michael Reilly]: Say a police officer or another law enforcement officer, respond to a scene, and they're interviewing someone. And this officer speaks Spanish, but English is his primary. And there's a spontaneous utterance by one of the individuals. And the individual, his primary language

[Catalina Cruz]: Utterance.

[Michael Reilly]: Is Spanish. He create creates a spontaneous utterance admitting to a crime in Spanish. The officer now places that individual under arrest. When the accusatory instrument is drawn up by the district attorney's office, will that officer have to be a qualified interpreter under this bill?

[Catalina Cruz]: So in your example, mister Riley, would the excited utterance be used as the basis to arrest the individual?

[Michael Reilly]: It would be included in the accusatory instrument.

[Catalina Cruz]: So in that instance, and I'm gonna use actually an a statement by one of your colleagues. I think it would be in the interest of justice in this bill would wanted to be an independent interpreter that then is able to certify that statement. The reason why, especially in Spanish, he might understand it but as we heard one of your colleagues earlier, there's different dialects. There's in Spanish, one word can mean five different things depending on the country. And so we would want to make sure in the interest of justice that the person has their statement interpreted by someone who is certified. So that, you know, six months later the case isn't thrown out.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Okay.

[Michael Reilly]: So if there's a shooting and the police are involved in the shooting and now they step in, nobody's hit.

[Catalina Cruz]: That's different.

[Michael Reilly]: And they step in and it's the person that was shooting at them and they were shooting at at each other. And the police move in. Nobody got hit. And they move in. They apprehend the suspect. They place him in handcuffs, and he says, I was looking to kill you, and he says it in Spanish. And there's a Spanish speaking officer that's there. Cannot be used in the accusatory instrument.

[Catalina Cruz]: Mister Riley, if I also remember correctly in an instance like that, the arrest is also occurring because the officers themselves viewed the crime in progress. Correct?

[Michael Reilly]: Yes. But I'm gonna but they they are going to use a spontaneous utterance that that individual implicated themselves. According to this legislation, if this is passed and signed into law, defense attorneys would be able to throw that out immediately because of this. The Is that correct?

[Catalina Cruz]: Sorry. Someone's phone went off. This bill would doesn't contemplate allowing that case to be thrown out. I I suspect that there are going to be times when something like that if if I may

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Go ahead.

[Ari Brown]: Finish it.

[Catalina Cruz]: Where something like that could happen and there's other protections in the law to ensure that that is not that that case is not thrown out. Now, I also suspect that after the person says that, you're going to proceed to arrest them, you're going to proceed to question them. The excited utterance piece aside, anything that they say to you after should be through an interpreter that then gets certified, etcetera, etcetera. So we're not contemplating here allowing that excited utter utterance not to be used in court.

[Michael Reilly]: But if it's if it's interpreted by the police officer who speaks Spanish and English, but they're not a certified interpreter, it automatically will be thrown out according to this legislation. Correct? The spontaneous utterance by itself.

[Catalina Cruz]: We are not changing that process.

[Michael Reilly]: You but you are if you're asking for the the initial, right, complaint to be filed. Right? The accusatory instrument. Spontaneous utterances are often used in the initial complaint where it rises to probable cause. So I want if that's the case, this legislation would say that it would allow them to say that the police officer is not a certified interpreter and therefore it would jeopardize that. Correct?

[Catalina Cruz]: So no. No. Not correct. There's two ways to look at this. The first one again I will repeat. We are not contemplating changing the instances where a police officer would be able to use an excited utterance, translated or not, to begin that process of questioning, arresting, etcetera. I suspect that at some point in that interaction with the suspect, the officer would continue to question them about everything else that happened. That continued to question and process would then have to be translated through an interpreter, certified, etcetera. Going to check with counsel for one minute. Okay. So it it also occurs to me that in the same way that a family member with an obscure language in a small town in Upstate New York would be able to certify I understand the language and I actually can interpret them, there's gonna be an opportunity for the officer to be able to do the same thing.

[Michael Reilly]: But if they're not certified, that would that be an issue?

[Catalina Cruz]: So one of the things that I explained earlier to your colleague is that the bill contemplates and prefers that it'd someone who is certified and can attest to their ability to interpret. But we also know that there are thousands of languages spoken in our country, and if it's an obscure language and there's no access to interpretation other than the cousin for example, then that cousin would have to say, I am I am translating this to the best of my ability, I'm capable of translating it, I understand the language and here's what it would say. So I would argue that in an instance like that, an officer could conceivably say, I'm cert not certified, but I am capable of understanding it and be able to sign off on that as well.

[Michael Reilly]: So to so to preserve the legislative record here, so if an officer who speaks that language says that they heard the spontaneous utterance in that person's primary language and they're able to interpret it and it it should be it should be abstain it it should survive any challenge in court.

[Catalina Cruz]: This bill is not changing that process.

[Michael Reilly]: So what would the the clear answer I'm asking for is, would this

[Catalina Cruz]: I I know what you're asking me to do and my answer is this bill is not changing that process.

[Michael Reilly]: Okay. So let's shift gears a little bit. What if there's a dying declaration? Police officer shows up on the scene, someone got shot, they speak Spanish, this officer speaks English and Spanish, and the person dying says, so and so shot me and killed me. They said it in Spanish. Would now you can't you can't get that interpreted because at that time, maybe he succumbs to his injuries and dies. What same scenario goes to court, they use that, they make an arrest, someone's charged with the murder,

[William Colton]: what would happen?

[Catalina Cruz]: This bill is not changing that process.

[Michael Reilly]: So the officers the officer taking in that information, it would be fine. And it would be an accusatory instrument and survive.

[Catalina Cruz]: Again, mister Reilly, I know what you're asking me, and I know what you're trying to get out of me, and I am telling you this bill is not changing that process.

[Michael Reilly]: I'm gonna be honest with you. The only thing I'm trying to get at is to make sure that the way it's written on paper translates to the street the way it should be. Thank you.

[Catalina Cruz]: Thank you.

[Michael Reilly]: Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: On the bill.

[Michael Reilly]: So as you could tell, there's there's a lot of ambiguity here. And just the sheer fact that there's a possibility that the outcome of everyone receiving fair justice, I've just explained how this bill can interfere with from the inception of filing an accusatory instrument. So on its face, prosecutors may not be able to file that accusatory instrument because the police officer or law enforcement officer that responded and speaks that language as well, but is not a certified interpreter, it would be thrown out. It wouldn't even reach the courtroom. That's the concern that I'm trying to raise. And those situations, the dying declaration, the spontaneous utterance, those are realized real life cases. And I say it all the time when we're discussing these bills. The things that are on paper do not trans transition to the streets or to the courtroom the way you think they will. It's time to slow down and actually make sure that what we want to achieve in this body lands the way it's supposed to. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: Miss Cruz?

[Catalina Cruz]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill?

[Marianne Buttenschon]: On the bill.

[Catalina Cruz]: So a lot has been said on this floor today. Wanna make sure that folks understand the only thing that this bill is doing is adding a certification for a process that already exists. There's many state agencies, localities, including, as I mentioned before, the Ithaca Police Department and Tompkins County government, also New York City, and many other police departments, state agencies, city agencies have an interpretation system. They have it because it's the law. The law says you have to provide interpretation in the top 12 languages of your locality. You can choose up to four more. There's already money allocated to it. There's already contracts entered into. And so all of the this bill does is say if you are going to use the factual information you received from a deponent, whether it's in a bar fight, whether it's because they came into the police department or you call them to your home, if whatever information that person is giving you is going to result in a accusatory instrument that could then lead later to an indictment because information is taken from the individual, then that information has to be not only translated by accompanied with a document that says that the person who made the translation slash interpretation not only is capable of doing them, that sometimes can mean that it's someone who is certified and that sometimes can mean that it's someone in a in a small county where they didn't unfortunately have access to an interpreter in that particular language that has the knowledge of it. It would it's ludicrous to argue in a state like ours, the Spanish would be one of those languages. Because I am telling you, if you call a hotline, that is the top language that is available. There should never be an instance where that is what happens when the language is Spanish. If you have a language that unfortunately, sometimes it takes a week to get access to an interpreter, you of course don't want to wait. We don't want law enforcement to wait. And so to stand here and hear arguments that the reason we may not want this bill is because it could lead to injustice. What greater injustice than someone going to the police, making an accusation, and often it takes victims a long time to come forward to go and actually speak to law enforcement, especially now when there's a lot of people who are scared of law enforcement. And that because we failed to get a small piece of paper, a certification, again, through a system that is already in place and being paid for, the case gets thrown out. What kind of justice is that? We don't want that to be the justice that New Yorkers see because like it or not, whether they speak the language or not, these are New Yorkers. These are people that live in our community, that are paying taxes, that are contributing, and that if they are victims of a crime, speaking a different language should not be the reason why they don't see justice. And I would argue for my colleagues in law enforcement on the other side of the aisle, whether they were former prosecutors or former police officers that or judges that they should agree. We should want whatever document leads to an indictment, whatever document leads to somebody being charged, whatever document leads to justice should be as accurate as possible. Because the last thing any of us should want is someone who committed a crime going free. The last thing any of us should want is someone who is a victim not getting justice simply because their language was inconvenient to get in a hotline. A hotline that again I will repeat, it is already in place, it is already being paid for, and it is already functioning and being used by many of your counties. There's no reason why we should be afraid to simply get a little piece of document that leads to ensuring that that person who committed a crime, if they did in fact commit the crime, sees the inside of a courtroom and gets the justice for the victim that they deserve. And so all I'm asking is for us to vote in favor of a law that simply says, if someone doesn't speak the language, they should get the same opportunity as the rest of us when they come forward to seek justice. Thank you.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: Read the last section.

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

[Marianne Buttenschon]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this bill. If there are yes votes, please cast them now at your seats, members. Thank you.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: Mister Fall?

[Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so at your desk.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: The clerk will record the vote. Mister Reilly to explain his vote.

[Michael Reilly]: Thank you, madam speaker, to explain my vote. So the intent, I understand. It's a noble intent. The problem is the practicality. Now what was just mentioned about being able to call up and get an interpretation, And, yes, Spanish is one of those languages that there's always an interpreter on the phone. But the idea that a spontaneous utterance to a police officer could possibly not be included in a document that starts the case off by an accusatory instrument. Just the explanation was expressed that, well, they could call up and get it interpreted. That's the problem. Reality and what we have on this paper. We can fix it. You could put a line in there that excludes that. Hopefully, the governor's listening. And if it comes before her desk and she signs it, we will do a chapter amendment. Otherwise, it's a slippery slope. I will be voting in a negative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: Mister Riley in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 87. Noes, 49.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: The bill is passed. Page 11, calendar number 54. The clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1441 a, calendar 54, mister Dinowitz, enact to amend the public service law.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: An explanation has been requested, mister Dinowitz.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: The bill establishes response requirements to building complaints made by consumers and expands complaint handling procedure requirements to commercial entities.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: Mister Pammasano?

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Yes. Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Marianne Buttenschon]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yes, of course. Thank you.

[Marianne Buttenschon]: The sponsor yields.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Thank you, Mr. Denowitz. Surprised to see me?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yeah, actually.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: It's good to see you though. Quick, a few questions. The governor vetoed this bill a couple years ago. She cited a few different things. One, that it would create a significant increase workload for the commission staff and result in increased expenses to the state. She talked about taking away the discretion from the PSC. Did your bill do anything to address the vetoes that the governor made?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well first, veto message was incorrect in their assertions that it would increase expenses. It was just plain wrong but one thing we did do is we did make some amendments to the bill since since the veto. It now allows the public service commission discretion discretion in determining appeals that will be taken up by the commission.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Okay.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: If the PSC wanted to implement the changes you have in this bill, they believed it was necessary, they can go through a proceeding and implement that, correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Say it again.

[Andrew Hevesi]: Yes, sure.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: If the PSC who has the authority handling complaint matters and things of that nature, if they wanted to take up the language in this bill and implement it on their own because they believed it was necessary to address a problem, they could do that now, correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I would think so, but I haven't I don't think the PSC is known for doing things that they should do but don't necessarily have to do. Okay.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: When we talked about the other area I wanted to talk about, the old bill, if I correctly, had a nine ninety days like a come to a decision within ninety days, but that was removed from this legislation. Is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I have to check. Think that yeah. That that's correct.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: How come we remove that ninety day period of time to look, give them that time to do the investigation and come up with the decision if that was what the PSC used now?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, we we we've tried to bring everybody together here because I know that everybody here wants to do things that help their own constituents with regard to the rates, the bills they pay, whether you are which other side of the aisle you are on, think we all on the same page on this I hope. Sure we are. And we also wanted to address issues that the Governor raised. So I think we have successfully done all of that and this bill, I think will be good for all of our constituents, all of the consumers, and yet it should not result in a veto assuming it passes both houses.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Okay. And just to be clear, this bill would include all utilities, gas, steam, electric, correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yes. Okay.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: And it's my understanding even though this bill focuses on billing complaints, it would also cover any other complaints, even non billing issues. Is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: It could, but I mean virtually every complaint is a billing complaint.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: I agree. I mean, definitely the people we represent are complaining about their bills. No question about This legislation would also broaden the scope to include not just residential, but commercial as well. Is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yes. Because we want to help our small businesses. I understand.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: And from your perspective, this bill is necessary because the PSC has failed to enforce existing complaint procedures, statute and process they have in place now?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, don't like to use words like failed, but I would say that I don't believe they are doing everything they could do to help do the right thing and help our consumers and constituents at the same time.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: So there is a time frame of fifteen days. Walk me through what would be the process? Is this kind of accurate? An individual would file a complaint with the PSC. The PSC takes it. They send it to the utility. The utility would respond to it. Then the utility would do an internal investigation or the PSC does an internal investigation and then sends it back to the PSC. How would that work?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: It would work as follow. I'm just looking at the bill

[Charles D. Fall]: to make

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I get the information correct. Well ultimately I guess the utility would have to address the issues raised because it says here the proceedings, the burden of proof shall be on the utility corporation or municipality. Provision for the investigation and formal review and for the appeal to the commission in its discretion. Yeah. I mean, both have a role in doing that. The point is we have fifteen days. It's fifteen business days, by the way, which is longer than fifteen days.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Sure, I agree. So, even in that context, would have fifteen days, the utility would have fifteen days to complete their internal investigation or they would be fifteen days from the time the utility puts it back to the PSC. PSC. For the PSC to respond to that investigation.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Let me check. I believe that that would be the PSC would have fifteen days. It's fifteen days from

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: The conclusion of the investigation.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: It's fifteen days from the conclusion of the investigation. They would have to inform the complainant, the consumer.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: And the utility would be required to provide, what would the utility, I guess for me, they have to provide documentation and our written interpretation of what the investigation is?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: They would certainly have to provide some documentation or evidence. That's very easy for them. All they have to do is punch a button or two on the computer.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Okay, if you say so.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I do.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: I know you do. If the question is when an investigation takes place, is it fifteen days from the time it was filed or when the investigation is complete? When

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: the investigation is finished.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Okay. Now does that include the appeal process also? The what process? The appeal process. If the utility, I mean I remember you said that PSE has discretion to deal with appeals. I know in the past, when we had this conversation, you had mentioned that the appeal, they would still have to provide the written report, even though it would still be going through the legal process of an appeal process. Does this mean now the appeal process would have to be part of that completion, or does that report have to be filed before the appeal process finishes? Because it's not ultimately finished until the appeal process has worked its way through. Well there

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: won't be an appeal until there's a report. What's there to appeal from?

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: So I understand that, but I'm just saying there'll be a report and then there could be an appeal of that report. So you have to have that report before the appeal takes place.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, yeah. They have fifteen days from the conclusion of the investigation.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: So, if someone wants to save the utility for whatever reason because of things outside their control had to want to appeal that decision, whatever that came up with, that report would have to be filed even though the appeal process hasn't worked its way through. Is that accurate?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I believe that's correct. And keep in mind by the way that either side could always if they wanted to I suppose go to court over these issues but that's not what we're dealing with here in the bill.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: So ultimately any complaint would lead to an investigation, is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: A consumer complaint could lead to an investigation.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Like sometimes right now, a lot of times the PSC, if complaint comes in, the utility would call and communicate with that constituent or that person via phone call and do that. That's not allowed anymore under this case. If they were able to solve it with a phone call by saying, hey, Ms. Walsh, here's your problem. Here's our response back. Now they would have to provide a written communication to whoever that person is. Is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, yes. I don't know about you, but if I was complaining and following a complaint, I would want a written response. I would want evidence basically. I want to see it for myself. I don't just want a phone call from some nameless person who we may not even be able to track down. So a written response I think is a very something which I think all of our constituents would want.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: I can understand that position but I think the most important thing is the constituent wants a resolution and if that can be explained to them in a phone call if they're satisfied with them, that would satisfy it, wouldn't that be enough? But then if they're not happy with that response, there could be the appeal from the appeal, right?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: You could kind of blow off somebody more easily on the phone. Whereas if you have a written explanation

[Charles D. Fall]: Okay.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: One way or the other, then you have it. There is no denying it. There is no going back or anything. I really don't think it's asking too much for a consumer who is questioning a bill to get a written response. What's so hard?

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: No, I'm just asking some questions, Mr. Danowitz. I understand where you're coming from.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: And I'm sure you agree with me.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Some things, Mr. Danowitz, not all of So from reading the bill, it does seem a bit vague on when the investigation that triggers a report to the customer occurs. For example, let's say if a utility is required to provide materials or documentation, is that considered an investigation? Just from my perspective, it seems like you're saying ambiguity between the investigation and documentation. Do you not agree or no?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: What line are you looking at specifically? Because I have the bill right here.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: It would be shall be in writing and provide all supporting documentation. So is the documentation I'm I'm looking at line 16, section 43, line 16, where it asked you Oh, I see. And then it says shall be in writing and provide all supporting documentation.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: That's not vague. Well, I'm just

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: saying is the investigation the documentation or is it both? Do have you to fight the investigation with the documentation.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: It says shall be in writing and provide all supporting documents. I mean, I don't know how else to say that except what it says. Shall be in writing, provide all supporting documentation.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Okay. Does the bill in here clearly outline what the investigation consists of and when it shall be considered over? Investigation is The documentation in fifteen days.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: The consumer is complaining about a bill, then I don't know that this legislation has to specifically say what has to be in the investigation. It's pretty clear to any reasonable person that the investigation would pertain to the bill. So whatever documentation the utility might have, they may say, okay, you used x number of hours at whatever the cost was and you multiply and you get a number. Now if the consumer is saying no, I wasn't home for a month and the only electricity going on in my house was my fridge. So I mean there are many different scenarios we're talking about, but the bottom line is the utility company can produce documentation which would clear up whether or not whether the bill is correct or not. Sure.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Know, is your position that this bill doesn't duplicate some of the process we already have in place, Because obviously you're

[Matthew Simpson]: doing this bill because you think there needs to be changes.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: I think this bill significantly improves the process that's in place. And I also think that First of I think people are entitled as I said to have something in writing. I think that would tend to increase the responsiveness to complaints about you know rates, about bills, about rate increases for that matter. And I think by mandating that they do things in a certain way, ultimately I think it's going to save people money. And I don't think the cost of as I said punching that button and getting a written response is so excessive in any other kind of business. People get written responses. Why should it be any different here?

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: All right. Since obviously this involves a PSC, have you had any consultation with the PSC to discuss this to see if it's necessary or beneficial to the process? Have they been able to communicate on that with you? Have you had any communication with them or just doing the bill?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: No, have not been in communication with them.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Relating to the penalty structure, right now the PSC already has the authority to levy penalties against utilities if they don't file a timely response, Well,

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: but we have a specific penalty structure here toward the bottom of the bill that says failure by the utility or municipality to provide a response as called for here. Penalty is $100 per business day for each business day that exceeds the initial fifteen business day period for utility corporations or $25 per business day for each business that exceeds the initial thirty day business day period for municipality. So it's spelled out very clearly here.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Okay, so in that note, mean we talked about how the PSC, you said the PSC has discretion now to deal with appeals. Do they have will the PSC have discretion in the application of a penalty to account for if there are extenuating circumstances that the utility might have and not answering a timely basis? Will the PSC have discretion in dealing with that penalty or is it basically by the book what it says?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Don't see anything in But this bill says you know what, there are deadlines. We all have to comply with deadlines.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Not in this house obviously with the budget being late.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, maybe not. But we as individuals have to comply with deadlines. If you get a parking ticket, you get thirty days for example to pay it or to contest it. And if you ignore it after thirty days, the penalties are tacked on and there are so many different examples of things like that. You have to deal with deadlines. I believe that. As individuals, that's what we have to do. I wish collectively we would be able to do that a little better.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: I understand that. Deadlines are good for some people, but not good for others. My question is this also applies to this can also apply to municipalities, is that correct?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yes. Okay.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: And is there any concern from your perspective that this really you know, with the having to respond so quickly that they're going to prioritize speed over the legitimacy of the complaints? And keep in mind again because this affects our

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: municipalities. I don't have those concerns. Okay.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Do you think that, and I know your perspective is it's not going to propose more of a burden on utilities or on the PSC, but you know, obviously there's going to be something involved in this. Are you concerned that requiring more written notification on every single complaint for a billing issue or a non billing issue? Because as you said, it could be for non billing issues, but you didn't think it would happen for that, but any complaint could happen. So these are costs that the utility is going to incur, then that's those are costs they're going to try to recoup. So isn't it true that this could obviously be put back on the ratepayer to pay additional utility costs on top of it to pay for this additional requirements even the governor said is not necessary?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Well, I don't pity the utility companies and I don't think most of our constituents do either. To whatever extent the utility company has to do anything, it will be a benefit to the consumer if it means their bill gets adjusted in their favor. So I would think that this whole thing will be a savings to consumers. I hope that I know on a lot of bills there is a party vote and everything, but I would hope on something when it comes to utility rates and utility bills that we would all be together on this and I would hope the governor would as well. We are trying to fight for consumers here for our constituents and the utility, yes, suppose the utility companies are somebody's constituent but they're not my primary concern. Not against them, they're just not my primary concern.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: No, I understand that. And I guess on that point, the more mandates we put on the utility company, the more requirements we put on the utility company, the more we require them to buy green energy. That's mandates that we're putting on the utility company that ultimately is going to be borne by

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Are you diverting from this bill right now?

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: I'm not. Don't think people are complaining. We're about billing complaints. People are complaining about the utility bills, so it's all relevant in germane, would think for this conversation. I'm not diverting at all, don't believe. Sounds like a diversion

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: to me.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Not a diversion at all, Mr. Dinovitz. It just sounds like an issue you really don't want to discuss. That's okay. Relative to this increased responsibilities, liabilities, documentation requirements, can you really explain how this bill will actually lead to energy affordability and reliability goals?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Repeat the last part. Sure.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Given the fact that there's going to be increased responsibilities, documentation requirements, can you say how this bill is actually going to help lead to a broader energy affordability and reliability goals that are required to be met?

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: Yes. I thought I kind of went into that already. If the utility company has to provide documentation as to how they came up with a bill, in some cases that documentation is going to show that the bill is too high and therefore that particular utility consumer will save money. Lower costs.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: All right Mr. Denowitz, I do appreciate your time as always. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: Yes, Madam Speaker, my colleagues, this legislation I think is not necessary. One, two, we know that the governor vetoed this bill, bringing out concerns about cost requirements to the PSC, not discretionary requirements. No changes as sponsor met who addressed the concerns of the governor. It seems to impose new rigid requirements on utilities responding to customer complaints. The existing PSC process really already it provides a structured avenue for complaint resolution including escalation, documentation, and regulatory oversight, as well as mechanisms for customers to access complaint files and seek further review. We talked about the hearing process. It says there's discretion over the PSC, but the hearing process doesn't the process isn't over until the hearing process, the appeal process finishes. So now they're going to have to report there's going be report documentation made before that process takes place. I think we're adding additional inflexible requirements which could create some confusion due to ambiguous language, which we talked about, about when the investigation begins and ends. Could possibly overwhelm even customers with unnecessary documentation when they're just trying to get a simple answer. And posing additional burdens on the utilities certainly will and can can and will be passed on to the rate payer because the more we burden our businesses with regulations, whether it's utilities, that's going get passed on. And it seems like also if we're penalizing utilities, and I know we always say we're not worried about the utilities, but some of these situations are outside their control, and it seems we're worried about removing the discretion from the PSC on extenuating circumstances which I brought up. I'm just concerned this will lead to higher cost to our utilities, which will be passed on to the rate payers who are already overburdened with some of the highest utility rates in the country. You know, obviously the green mandates that this house has passed on them has cost and when we talk about cost, the complaints that we're hearing from our people back at home, I know this is about a complaint bill, is the cost of their utility bill. And the costs are substantial. I mean from the green mandate that we put in there, we're looking at over nearly half $1,000,000,000,000, more than a quarter of $1,000,000,000,000. We look at what the residential electricity rate was years ago. It's now 50% higher than it is then because of policies. A memo from the administration came out several weeks ago saying, if we don't make changes, I know we want to have a complaint process, but if we don't make changes, Those complaints are going to continue to rise substantially if we don't make any delays or changes to the climate plan because it will increase costs for home heating by more than $4,000 annually. It will increase costs for a gallon of gas by more than 2.23 a gallon above and beyond what it is right now. It will increase the price of diesel by more than $2.41 a gallon above and beyond what it is right now. It will increase utility costs for our small and medium sized commercial businesses. Now, businesses are part of this, so they're going to want to be complaining about that. We're already hearing that. It will increase those costs utility costs for those small and medium commercial sized businesses by up to 46% depending on utility and size of the facility. It will also increase delivery truck operations by more than 60%. So what does that mean? Higher food costs, higher housing costs because you have lumber that's being shipped. And remember, 96% of our goods are shipped by truck. When we talk about complaints, our utility bills, the assessments, the taxes, fees assessments, are NYSERDA who put out that memo is sitting on over $2,400,000,000 in rate payer funds right now that they've collected from our rate payers to pay for these green energy mandates. Why aren't we providing direct rate payer relief right now? Just a couple weeks ago, we passed a bill from my colleague that would allow NYSERDA to rebate back to people if they buy an electric or businesses, they buy an electric lawnmower, an electric weed whacker, subsidized by the ratepayer. If you had talked to your rate payers, you ask them,

[Angelo Morinello]: do you want your utility bill to

[Acting Speaker (male presiding officer)]: go up more to pay for someone's electric lawn mower or electric weed whacker? They're going say, no. I want direct rate payer relief right now. That $2,400,000,000 has been sitting there in their coffers. They can relieve and provide that relief right now. Our taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges, which make can make in some cases more than 20% of our utility bill to pay for green programs, we should be suspending that. You know, with this budget debate that we're talking about, I know the climate actions are being talked about. These are things we can do as part of this budget to provide direct ratepay relief right now. Again, those taxes, fees, and assessments add up to more than up to 20% of the bill sometimes. Suspend that for a while. We don't need more taxes, fees, and assessments. Let's give that direct rate payer relief right now. Just seems one thing after another. And then just it's all part of misplaced priorities. I understand what the sponsor is trying to do. I'm delving you're talking about complaints about billing, and then you know we have legislation also that was introduced recently that would allow for individuals who aren't getting paid because of the state budget to get a not have to pay the utility bill, and not have to pay fees, and the only ones who not getting paid is the legislature. So that just seems kind of out of touch with what's going on. Our constituents are facing back at home, why a piece of legislation like that gets introduced to help us out, when the people we're serving back at home are to the brink with these rising utility costs that are hurting them each and every day because of the policies that have been implemented in this house. The governor and others may say we're a lot of all the above approach or affordable energy, but the policies don't match the words. All you have to do is look at the list of policies that have been implemented since the CLCPA. All electric buildings, all electric school bus, cap and invest, act regulation, advanced clean car regulation. One thing after another, this is causing a big problem for our families, our seniors, our veterans, individuals on fixed incomes, and our business community. And when you talk about our business community, I know businesses are now part of this complaint process, when you talk about energy costs, they care about two things, affordable and reliable. And if they can't get affordable and reliable energy here in New York State, they are going to go elsewhere as they are already doing. So based on, you know, the points I've raised and other issues, I will be voting in the negative on this bill. And I urge some of my colleagues to join me in that. Well, thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are yes votes to be cast, you may do so now at your seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they can do so here in a chamber.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 98. Nose, 38.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, can we now take on or take up calendar number 67 on page 12 by miss Rosenthal and calendar 77 on page 14 by mister Colton.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Page 12, calendar number 67. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number seventeen forty eight, calendar 67, miss Rosenthal, enact to amend the public buildings law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: An explanation has been requested, miss Rosenthal.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: The bill requires that free menstrual products be available in all female designated and gender neutral restrooms in state owned or leased public buildings.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yep. Sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you very much. So just a few questions on this one. As always, I'm delighted to talk to you about menstrual products on the floor of the assembly. So am I. Oh, you are too. That's awesome. Okay. So one of my questions has to do I saw that we were in an a print and it looked as though the definition of a covered public building was amended. Could you just run through what the new definition is for covered public building?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Sure. Just one second. Okay. Yeah. We didn't change the definition. We changed the effective date.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Oh, just the effective date was changed? Oh, okay. Okay. Well, let's take a look at what covered public building is talking about because that's really where my question is. So page one, line 19 of the bill, it says, covered public buildings shall meet a public building owned or leased by the State of New York under the supervision and control of the Commissioner of General Services that is determined by such commissioner to be open to the public. So do we have a list yet of what Yes. How many buildings there are and what those buildings are?

[Catalina Cruz]: How many?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: There are 22 facilities.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: There are 22. So that's already been determined which is fantastic, right?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Yes, yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Okay. Now does that list, that of 22, because my question really had to do with let's say a building is an office building but it's technically open so that the public can come in but that the would you still have to comply with this provision even if no public facing tasks or interactions are meant to take place in the building?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: It is it is not meant for buildings that are closed to the public. So it's just limited to these 22.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Just the 22. Yes. Okay. How much do we think that this might cost?

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: I don't know but we don't ask how much toilet paper costs, we don't ask how much soap costs, we don't ask how much towels cost. And know women who have their monthly bleed need pads and tampons and liners and whatever it is that they need to cope with the biological need.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: So in other words, you're basically saying it doesn't matter how much No

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: I'm not saying that, but I'm also saying that we voted some years ago to provide free menstrual products in shelters, correctional settings and in schools grades six through 12 throughout the state. So this is just conforming the 22 public buildings managed by OGS to the rest of the law concerning menstrual products.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Appreciate Thank Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the three hundred and sixty fifth day.

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

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty six. Noes, zero.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Page 14, calendar number 77, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly wonder as assembly number one nine nine four, calendar 77, mister Colton, an act to amend the vehicle and traffic law.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: An explanation has been requested, mister Colton.

[William Colton]: Yes. Of course, madam speaker. This bill amends the vehicle and traffic law to allow certain defenses in parking tickets despite the entry of a default judgment.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Mister Molotov?

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Yes. Sponsor yield. Thank

[Jeffrey Dinowitz]: you.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Why is this bill necessary?

[William Colton]: I think it's necessary for a couple of reasons. One is a due process. Whenever a state agency or someone imposes a fine or a penalty, the person who is being subjected to that needs to know there's going to be due process. That the the complaint, the summons has been prepared carefully and that they have enough information so they could adequately defend it. There's also a matter that when people, particularly our constituents, are given a notice, they sometimes will receive a notice in the mail, They didn't find anything on their car, but they get a notice in the mail saying that they are being fined. $35, a $100, there's various levels of fines because they park somewhere they shouldn't. And they don't remember parking there. They didn't find any notice on their car. And if the notice that they get has incorrect information on it, like as to the date or like as to what car it was that was supposedly ticketed because they didn't find the ticket or the address or location where the ticket was apparently issued. Then it makes it very difficult for them to defend themselves against that particular ticket which was incorrectly incorrectly written. So

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: I just want to unpack some of that. So this bill would allow judges to make the determination by themselves as to whether a ticket was illegible or not.

[William Colton]: It it would be a decision that would be made when they saw certain information was not there or not correct.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: And they could make that right at the very beginning of, the case when the charge is filed.

[William Colton]: It could even be made before a case is brought.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Okay. Aren't you a little bit concerned, maybe in the slightest, that we're giving judges too much power to do what they want without really any you use the words due process, but don't you think it's better the way it is right now where a defendant brings the defense and then the other side gets to maybe bring an opposing argument and then the judge gets to make the decision that with all the information available, the judges can make a better decision and at the same time, we can ensure that those traffic violations that are good are going forward and those that aren't are just getting dismissed.

[William Colton]: Well, I think the law is very clear that if the ticket contains essential wrong information, if the information is omitted or if it's wrong, then the ticket should be dismissed. And you know, why are we forcing someone to go through the anxiety that might be a senior citizen, you know, who gets this ticket and and has to come to my office, which has happened many times. So now we've got to go and put in an answer to the ticket and we don't even know for sure if the date is missing when it happens. So how do you defend a ticket when you don't know when supposedly you are accused of doing this?

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Well, that is I

[William Colton]: think when the law is clear on the point, then we are not asking the judge to make a decision in terms of, you know, is somebody telling the truth or not telling the truth. We're asking a decision to be made when the information that is required to be on that ticket is missing or illegible or it is wrong. But as

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: it stands right now, that defense has to be brought by the defendant, the one charged with the traffic violation.

[William Colton]: That's correct.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: And by changing the law and putting it in the hands of a judge to do with whatever they want to do, you could have one part of your district for example, you could have one judge who throws out all tickets that appear to that judge to be eligible and another judge who doesn't throw out any of them. And so you'll be creating different standards within your own district based upon the judge instead of based upon the body of law that currently exists across all of New York State.

[William Colton]: Well, I will tell you that it is not necessary even for a judge to make this decision if in fact the information is missing. When the agency looks at the ticket and they get ready to send out the notices, if there's no address or location of where the ticket was issued, if there is no description of the car, or if there is if there is no date on it, or if the date and and this has been shown true with many many tickets issued in New York City in previous years. The date was had the wrong year. So you have a ticket issued in the future. Obviously, that cannot go forward. And and you're saving the the consumer, the constituent, the person to have to go through the need of answering that ticket. When it's obvious, you don't have to it will actually save a lot of time for the court.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Well, it's not the court that's making the decision, what agency are you talking about would make that decision?

[William Colton]: It would be it would be whoever makes the decisions now. It would probably be either oath or it would be the the prosecuting agency. Motor vehicles parking violations.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: But the way the way it works right now, an officer who who files a traffic violation would file that with the court. And that's the beginning of a a proceeding. It wouldn't get to a prosecuting agency or to anybody else until it goes to the court first. So the way it would work, the way your law would apply is it would go to the courts and it would be on the courts to dismiss these charges. In fact, I even think in your bill memo, you mentioned giving the judge's discretion to dismiss these tickets. You used the word suisponte, which means alone, without any sort of process at all. So that's I guess where I'm confused. If it's not the courts, who is it?

[William Colton]: When a ticket is written out by a traffic officer, the ticket is the ticket is then submitted to the agency they represent and which would be probably in New York City, the parking violations bureau. And then if they see and then they would then submit the ticket to the the court which should be very often administrative arbitrator or judge wouldn't necessarily be a civil court judge. They would submit it to whoever deals with who adjudicates those tickets. If they see that the ticket is missing information and that it can't possibly go forward, then they would save a lot of time and money by simply dismissing it at that point.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So the parking violations bureau would have this power to sue Esbanti, get rid of tickets?

[William Colton]: It would be if there is an essential piece of information missing. Yes. They know they can't go forward. The law says if it's missing these pieces of information, it must be dismissed. So all you are doing is you are cutting out the need to send notices to the person that they have a court date or they have a certain period of time when they have to answer this ticket and you would save that

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: administrative work. So it actually would be cutting down on the number of cases in many instances. So, and I agree with you, cutting down the number of cases that are deficient would be a good idea. And this seems to be, you mentioned some constituents in your district, this seems to maybe be a local issue. Do you think this, are you aware of this happening in other jurisdictions across the state?

[William Colton]: I think that it certainly happens with constituents. If it happens in my district, it's probably going to happen in others. Now in some jurisdictions, it may happen more than in other jurisdictions. In a congested area where there is a lot of parking problems, where there's a lot of parking regulations, it'll probably happen in those areas more than in other areas. But it really doesn't prejudice anyone with this kind of a law because what it does is it prevents unnecessary litigation going into whoever's gonna have to make the decision. And it's obvious on the face of it, if it's missing a type of card, if it's missing a date then it was issued, If the date issued is in the future, it's obvious you can't go ahead with that. It's going to get dismissed. So why have to go through the administrative burden of having somebody put in an answer or go to court and get aggravated and frustrated, why not nip it right in the bud and say this ticket on its face is defective according to the law? And you would agree,

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: I I'm assuming you would agree that the the parking laws, the vehicle and traffic laws should be enforced as long as the ticket is eligible or legible. Right?

[William Colton]: Yes. Absolutely. I would agree that, you know, parking laws, all laws should be enforced. But if it's on its face defective, then I don't think we should put the constituent through the administrative burden and the time and the anxiety of having to go through a proceeding when it's not necessary. It has to be dismissed. And I think it's unfair, it's a violation of due process, if you have say a senior citizen who doesn't have the time or the ability to answer it, to have to go through further stress and just pays the ticket even though on its face it was defective. I don't think that's due process. I think we should treat everyone equally no matter what disabilities or disadvantages that they may have in simply not wanting to go through the process of having to use a computer to answer it if the locality permits that or having to go down to a parking violations bureau or DMV site if the locality permits that and have to answer it. If it on its face, it's defective. So

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: in in my in my county, all the traffic tickets are done by an electronic ticket printer. And from what I understand now, most police agencies are using those. Parking violation agencies are using those. I don't live in the city, but from what I understand, that maybe is starting to happen now. There's more of these electronic tickets. If everyone just switches to an electronic ticket machine, then this law would be unnecessary. Wouldn't you agree?

[William Colton]: What I have found with computers and electronic machines, they're not totally accurate. Things happen. They malfunction and our constituents should not, you know, be the victim of something that is malfunctioning and that they didn't do and, you know, be made to answer it. Sometimes, you know, the paper gets torn, doesn't come out right. The information is not there. And it and and particularly in this particular kind of situation because very often when the ticket is not accurately printed out, it doesn't end up on the car. I find a large number of constituents

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: How do

[William Colton]: you with prevent that? This problem. The ticket was never on their car.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Oh, that's wouldn't anybody say that that wanted to get out of a traffic ticket? But I never got it. Well That's the best defense, isn't it?

[William Colton]: That that's not the defense. The defense is it wasn't properly filled out and that may be the reason why they never got it. Well, how do you

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: know it's not properly filled out if you never got it?

[William Colton]: That's the point. You can't. That's why if it's not properly filled out, if it's missing a date or a type of car or an address where it happened, that ticket has to be dismissed.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So you're so you're saying that people shouldn't have to respond when they get tickets if it's possible that the ticket is deficient in some way shape or form. Maybe even beyond the intent of this legislation.

[William Colton]: No. I'm saying that if the ticket on its face is defective, then the person it should be dismissed without having the person to raise that defense and go to the court and go to whatever inconvenience it may be to raise such a defense. We're dealing sometimes with senior citizens. We're dealing sometimes with people who don't read the same language. They may have a difficulty. It may be an obstacle in them putting in a defense. So what I'm saying is if the ticket lacks certain required information and that information is stated by the law. Right? This is not arbitrary. It says the law says right now, the current law says, if certain information is missing like the date that the incident occurred or like the type of car or or like the location where the ticket was these are essential things in order to be able to defend against such a charge. If that information is not on there, the constituent should not be required to go through the trouble of putting in a defense. Okay. Let me ask you. And it's very simple. Simply dismiss the ticket to respond to.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So let me ask you this question. Let's say the deficient information was the type of car. Let's say the officer failed to put in the type of car on the ticket, and then they submitted the ticket to, I don't know what you called it, the parking violations bureau. When the parking vile when the park let's say this is a bad example. Let me use a different example. Let's say that the officer put a the make and model of some of of whatever car they thought was that violated the parking laws. Right? And that's deficient because they put the wrong one. And then that ticket goes to the parking violations bureau. How's the parking violations bureau

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Were you taking your second 15?

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: I will, yes. Okay. You. How will the Parking Violations Bureau know that that information is deficient?

[William Colton]: If the information is on the ticket, that ticket is not going to be dismissed. That would end up getting dismissed if the person had to put in a defense and say that's not my car.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: But isn't that but what if they are a senior citizen and they can't get there to put in a defense?

[William Colton]: We are trying to improve the law as best we can. We should not unnecessarily burden constituents if we can avoid doing that. And if the information required to be on there is wrong, then it may have to take a court appearance or an appearance before a an arbitrator to prove it's wrong. It may have to submit your registration of your car, but even that isn't proof that it's wrong because you might have been driving somebody else's car. This law doesn't say this law says tickets must be dismissed when the information is missing or misdescribed. And if it has no date, it has to be dismissed. If it has a future date, the ticket was issued in '26 and they put down '29. Right. Can't predict a violation in the future. It's obviously that has to be dismissed. Wouldn't the wouldn't

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: the best way to avoid the inconvenience of getting the a parking violation is to just avoid breaking the vehicle in traffic law?

[William Colton]: They may be a they may have not violated the law because the date is wrong. When there's when one thing is wrong wait

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: a second. Wait a second. If I'm if I'm parked illegally and the officer writes down the wrong information, it's not that I didn't commit an offense, it's just that the officer screwed up on the ticket. I mean, it's not like it's not like, you know, the officer transposes one number and all of a sudden it's somebody else that committed the parking violation. It's still me.

[William Colton]: The failure to put the correct information usually is an indicator that the ticket was not properly made out and that there is a strong possibility that that person is not the one that the ticket should have been issued to. And and that's all we're saying. It's not, you know, for example, suddenly you get a ticket on August 28. You get a notice. No ticket was ever found on your car. And it says that you parked at a certain location and that location is nowhere near where you've ever been. That ticket, you know, basically if it's in another then you might have to answer that. But if the information is missing, it doesn't have the location. You can't answer it. How can you defend that? If the date is missing, we're not talking about questions of where somebody, you know, was trying to get away because certain information is is just try to dispute it. They're trying to make it up. No. Here is a missing date. No date. You can't defend that. How do you defend it? You don't know what date you were accused of parking there. The location is missing. Yeah. And You don't know what what place you alleged you're being accused of parking. You can't defend that kind of ticket. And therefore justice, due process requires that if the required information is not there, then that ticket should be dismissed and you shouldn't have to go through the problem and the burden of going to a hearing or even if it's on the computer. Many seniors can't use the computers very effectively. So they would more be inclined to say I'm just gonna pay that ticket because I I don't know how to defend it. And and that is wrong and as the people's house here, we want to avoid people suffering that kind of an injustice. It might be a small injustice, but small injustices is what makes people feel that government doesn't care about them and we want to show that we do care about them.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: Thank you Mr. Colton. On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified member (likely Brian Manktelow)]: So I think this is maybe a hyper local issue that we are addressing here for some of the sponsor's constituents who maybe don't want to abide by the vehicle and traffic law. And I don't think we need to change the entire body of state law in order to in order to make this situation better for the sponsor's district or the people in the sponsor's district. First of all, I think it's a non issue. Most places, if they're not already using them, are going to be using them. Electronic tickets, so we won't have illegible tickets anymore, and so technology is catching up. And second of all, I think putting this amount of power in the hands of a regulatory agency or judges who sit on the bench for long terms or for life is going to create a huge problem. You're going to have tickets dismissed pretty much for no reason whatsoever. You won't be able to challenge them at all. And that's not the way our society works. We're a society of laws. And maybe you think it's really not that big of a deal, except when you're in the city and someone's double parked you, you're really gonna wish that the vehicle and traffic law was enforced. But, you know, if the ticket blew away, I guess, it won't be. So, you know, I don't know. I don't really know what to make of this this bill. All those reasons, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this bill and I'll be voting no as well. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Mister Durso.

[Michael Durso]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for two or three quick questions?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[William Colton]: Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Michael Durso]: So, mister Collin, just when you were discussing this bill with my colleague, you said if someone's to receive the ticket but they don't have it on their car, right, would that be grounds for a dismissal of the ticket?

[William Colton]: No. No. That would be an issue of fact. If in fact the the person who got the ticket, you know, was able to somehow find a a witness who in another block in another neighborhood who saw the agent putting a ticket on a different car. But how do you prove that? That's very unlikely. I'm just asking if is not on the car, what happens is you'll get a notice from What? Parking violations that a ticket has been issued to you on this and it has the copy of the ticket which is the date, the location of where the ticket was issued, the kind of the card, the make and model of the car that the ticket was placed on and you'll have that now in your hand. Or it'll have a ticket which has the information missing. If the information is missing, it should never have been Oh. Sent out to you to defend because it's it's missing.

[Michael Durso]: Well, you just mentioned that if they put the ticket on another car, it's probably not my ticket.

[William Colton]: That's correct.

[Michael Durso]: So why would I defend a ticket that's not mine?

[William Colton]: Human beings make mistakes. Computers make mistakes.

[Michael Durso]: So you're saying for the person that received the ticket on their car that may have been mine, they shouldn't get that ticket?

[William Colton]: The person who was

[Michael Durso]: I agree.

[William Colton]: Illegally parked should have gotten the ticket.

[Michael Durso]: Okay.

[William Colton]: But there's if there's no information on it, if the date is missing Right. If the location that the ticket was issued is missing, if the make and model of the car is missing, then there's a good chance, there's a a very strong chance that it might not have been your car that the ticket was put on. And somehow you Well,

[Michael Durso]: if wasn't put on your and car

[William Colton]: the agent was walking by your car, he had his his gizmo out and maybe it registered on your car instead of the card that he was issuing. I don't know why. It can become silly. But the point is, constituents should not suffer the burden of having to answer something where it is no indication of the information that was on there. Wasn't on there. It's not a question of you know, you're looking at it one way or another. You you the traffic agent should not have processed the ticket that was missing a date or missing the location or missing the type

[Charles D. Fall]: of car.

[Michael Durso]: Mister Colton, I just asked, are you gonna get the ticket if it's not on your car? I understand all the other stuff. If it's missing information, if it's on someone else's car, if there's bedbugs on the train, I get all that. That is what I'm saying is if the ticket is not on your car and it goes on the wrong car, the person that got that ticket obviously not gonna pay the ticket. It's not their car.

[William Colton]: My question have to go to court to answer it. They might have

[Michael Durso]: to

[William Colton]: put in an answer. But That's not right. That's not too private.

[Michael Durso]: I agree. No one should pay a ticket that's not theirs. But now part of this, it says illegible.

[Joseph Angelino]: Quiet, please,

[Ari Brown]: ladies

[Josh Jensen]: and gentlemen.

[Michael Durso]: So it says an illegible ticket. Is it illegible on all accounts? So in other words, if that ticket's left on my car and it rains and I it's now illegible, can I now say, this isn't for me? I can't read it.

[William Colton]: The illegible refers to the ticket that is being filed with parking violations or whatever is the agency.

[Michael Durso]: Not the person.

[William Colton]: You can't, for example, take a ticket that you got in your car and and smear it off. No. I understand that. The agency is not gonna dismiss that ticket.

[Michael Durso]: So if the ticket on your car is illegible because of rain, wind, lightning strikes the car, it still counts. Correct?

[William Colton]: It's not the ticket on your car that they go by. Right. It's the ticket that is processed by the

[Michael Durso]: Thank you.

[William Colton]: Parking violation agent.

[Michael Durso]: So in other words, if there's a triplicate, if it's if it's sent into the parking violation, that's what counts. Correct? Yes. Because you did say before, if it blows away, how is there proof that you ever got it? But now you're saying if it's sent in and it's at the traffic violation, it does count. Correct?

[William Colton]: Yes. And it also counts.

[Michael Durso]: As long as it's written out correctly.

[William Colton]: If you didn't get the ticket on your car, but the ticket was properly filled out and processed by the agent, this bill doesn't help you

[Michael Durso]: Okay.

[William Colton]: As long as it has the correct information.

[Jarett Gandolfo]: Got

[Michael Durso]: it. So and I just wanted that on the legislative record because you said before, if you don't receive the ticket, right, you shouldn't have to pay it. If it's not your car so in other words, miss Colton, if you were parked in a handicapped spot and you didn't have a handicapped sticker. Right? And I'm the traffic enforcement agent. I wrote out the ticket for your car, but I put it on my colleague's car. Should you still pay that ticket?

[William Colton]: If it if in fact you were the one that the ticket describes accurately, The ticket has to have certain basic information.

[Michael Durso]: If all the basic information is filled in,

[William Colton]: you should have Then you would be guilty.

[Michael Durso]: But okay. So I just wanted to make that clear. Regardless if you actually received the ticket or not, you're still guilty of that violation as long as the traffic bureau receives it.

[William Colton]: This bill does not deal with whether you received the ticket or not. This bill simply deals with whether the correct information has been filled in, the required information has been filled in on the ticket. Does not deal with whether or not you received it.

[Michael Durso]: So it has to be legible to the traffic enforcement agency. And if you were to go to court to defend it, you have to be able to read it there. It's not about what's on your car or my colleague's car or someone else's car.

[William Colton]: It's it's what's on the ticket.

[Michael Durso]: Okay. And

[William Colton]: that's what the law requires and and that's what this I basically modifies.

[Michael Durso]: Just want to clear that up. Thank you, sir. Thank you, miss madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican Conference will generally be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if anyone wishes to support it, you may do so now certainly at your seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you, Mr. Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they could do so here in the chamber.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Aye. It's 93. No. It's 43.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, do we have further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: We do have a piece of housekeeping on a motion by miss Kellis, page 29, calendar number two two four, bill number a nine zero four seven a. The amendments are received and adopted. We have a number of resolutions before the house. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together on the resolutions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The resolutions are adopted. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, can you call on miss Clark for the purposes of an announcement?

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Miss Clark for the purpose of an announcement.

[Michaelle C. Solages]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am announcing majority conference immediately following session in the Speaker's Conference Room. Majority conference immediately following session.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: Majority conference immediately following session in the Speaker's Conference Room. Mister Fall.

[Linda B. Rosenthal]: Thank you.

[Charles D. Fall]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we will reconvene at 10:30AM, Wednesday, April 29, tomorrow being a session day.

[Acting Speaker (female presiding officer)]: 10:30 tomorrow. Thank you. On mister Fall's motion, the house stands adjourned.