New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, can you please call the house to order?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: House will come to order. Good morning, colleagues. In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the pledge of allegiance. Quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Tuesday, May 12.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker I move to dispense with a further reading of the journal of Tuesday, May 12 and at the same stand approved.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Without objection, so ordered.

[Speaker 0]: We have a quote today by Ernest Hemingway and the quote says, never confuse movement with action. That's it. That's the quote. Madam speaker, may I have the members attention so I can announce this schedule for today. Members have on their desk a main calendar and a debate list. Before any housekeeping and or resolutions, we will call for the following committees to meet in the speaker's conference room. Science and technology and that's it. We will begin our floor our floor works today by taking up the following bills on consent. Calendar three eighty seven by Ms. Glick, a calendar four seventeen by Ms. Lapardo, and calendar four nineteen by Ms. Lee. After consent we will take up the following bills from the debate list. Calendar two twenty by Ms. Simon, calendar 75 by Mr. Anderson, calendar two thirteen by Ms. Cruz, and calendar three thirteen by Ms. Kellis. In addition, we will also be calling for the following committees to meet, small business, veterans affairs, and codes. I will announce any further floor activity as we proceed. Majority members should be aware that there will be a need for conference once we conclude our work on the floor today. And I will also consult with the minority if they have any conference needs. So with that as a general outline, Madam Speaker, let us begin by calling for the Science and Technology Committee to meet in the Speakers Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Science and tech committee members, please make your way to the Speakers Conference Room. Science and tech committee members Speakers Conference Room. We have no housekeeping this morning. We're gonna start with some introductions with Mr. Zaccaro for the purpose of an introduction.

[Assemblymember John Zaccaro Jr.]: Thank you so much, madam speaker. Today, I rise and I stand before you in this chamber as a representative of one of the largest Yemeni communities in New York City known as Little Yemen in the Bronx. Little Yemen has grown to be a beacon of hope for those who come to this country in search of a better future for themselves and for their families. And that is why I profoundly rise proudly rise today to introduce constituents from my community who have traveled to Albany today to join us here in the people's house as we celebrate today and recognize a resolution in this house, recognizing Yemeni heritage day in the state of New York. I have had the profound pleasure of spending meaningful time with this community, whether during cultural celebrations like iftar dinners during Ramadan, or at the opening of small businesses in my district, or at community events where we break bread and we talk amongst family. I continue to be inspired by this community and their generosity, their hospitality, and the strength of their community. And today we welcome this group from the 80th Assembly District, members coming as far as from Syracuse and across the state of New York. And so madam speaker today, would you please join me in welcoming them and extending to them the cordialities of the house?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On behalf of mister Zakaro, the speaker, and all members, welcome our distinguished guests who are celebrating, today for Yemeni American Heritage Day. We welcome you to our assembly chamber, extending to you privileges of the floor. Hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Always wonderful to see people traveling near and far, and especially those traveling from my home in Syracuse. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Ms. Moreno, for the purpose of an introduction. Thank

[Assemblymember Ms. Moreno (first name unconfirmed)]: you, madam speaker. Today, it is my great honor to introduce to the assembly two members of the Ecuadorian National Assembly. Jainera Noriega Donoso and Doctor. Veronica Iniguez Gallardo. Two powerful women fighting to defend Ecuador's democracy and sovereignty and the dignity of Ecuador's working class. Jairen Oriega made history as Ecuador's youngest legislator. When she was elected to the National Assembly in 2022 at only 24 years old. She has been an outspoken and powerful voice for women's reproductive rights, LGBTQIA rights, and the rights and financial future of Ecuador's youth. Doctor. Veronica Inigues Gallardo is a scientist, an academic, an environmental activist. Her belief that academia must actively participate in public policy, guided her path to politics, where she focuses her legislation to protect vulnerable communities from the climate crisis and preserve Ecuador's globally recognized biodiversity. Much like we do in The US, my homeland of Ecuador is facing a crisis of democracy, an increasingly authoritarian executive and rampant violations of human rights. It is more important than ever that we welcome and uplift fellow legislators fighting to protect the rights of their citizens and the democratic principles that bind us all. As the first Ecuadorian woman to serve in the New York State Assembly, it is my privilege to welcome Hayren and Veronica to the People's House. Madam Speaker, please join me in extending all the cordialities of the House. Thank you so much.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. On behalf of Ms. Moreno, the speaker and all members, we welcome our distinguished guests from the members of the National Assembly of Ecuador. Welcome you to our assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hope you enjoy our proceedings today. May seem a little bit like what you are doing in your home country as well. But thank you so very much for traveling to join us today. Mister Lamandis, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: Madam speaker, it is my great honor today to welcome the Marcellus High School girls soccer team to the New York State Assembly chamber in recognition of an extraordinary accomplishment. In November 25, the girls soccer team captured a class b state championship with a two o victory over Livonia, securing back to back state titles following their 2024 season. The team finished with an outstanding twenty one and two record and earned the fifth state championship in program history. What an honor. Winning consecutive state championships is a remarkable achievement and a testament to hard work, dedication, and teamwork displayed by these student athletes, coaches, and supporters throughout the season. They have represented the Marcellus community and the 1 26th Assembly District with pride, sportsmanship, and excellence both on and off the field. Congratulations once again to the Marcellus girls soccer team on your back to back New York State championships. And those players are Araya, Murphy, Neve Murphy, Cece Powell, Molly Moses, Grace Knox, Charlotte Lawrence, Megan Frost, Avery Shoot, Hannah Knox, Hazel Stack, Olivia Benz, Delaney Payne, Lexi Fragneto, Anne Tracy, Sammy Gilmore, Ali Kopp, Leo Wood, Sammy Buff, Emma Rossbrook, Mary L. Kennedy, Aniela Dorin, Jillian Ireland, and Morgan Ossett, Tenley Baker, Sophia Pylon could not make it. And ladies and gentlemen, the coaches that brought all this to reality, Laurie Upty, Candy Hoffman, Mia Montreal, Catherine Bussa, and Steve Bussa. Madam speaker, please welcome these remarkable young ladies, scholar athletes with all the cordialities of the house.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Very good, mister Lamondis. Thank you. On behalf of mister Lamondis, the speaker and all members, we extend congratulations and welcome to the Marcellus High School girls soccer team extending to you the privileges of the floor. Congratulations class b state champions. Great win, coach and team. We extend to you the best wishes for your continued athletic and academic success. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today, and thank you so very much for joining us. Page 32, calendar number 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.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one eighteen. Nays, two.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Page 34, calendar number four seventeen, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ninety three fifty c, calendar four seventeen, miss Lopardo, an act to amend the labor law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Voorhees, Ms. Voorhees.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 121. Nays, zero.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Page 34, calendar number four nineteen, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9570 c, calendar four nineteen, miss Lee, an act to amend the real property tax law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty one. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, can you please call on the small business committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Small business committee members, please make your way to the Speakers Conference Room. Small business committee members, Speakers Conference Room. Members, we're going on debate. If you could take your seats. Page 23, calendar number two twenty. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1202 a, calendar two twenty, miss Simon. An act to amend the civil service law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation's been requested, miss Simon.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Thank you. This bill allows state employees to use accrued sick time, compensation time, personal time, or vacation time to continue getting paid while serving the required waiting period for their workers compensation claim. And if it's determined that an employer should be entitled to the benefits during the waiting period, they would be entitled to a full restoration of time charged. Currently, they would only get two thirds.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mister Sempolinsky.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Certainly.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: And I apologize in advance to my colleague for having my back to you.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: It's okay. Alright.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: I won't take it personally.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Thank you. I appreciate that. So, you mentioned you're talking about public employees to be covered. Just to clarify for the record, this does not affect private employers.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: No. Just public employees.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: And, the major category which we'll get into a little bit of public employees that might not be covered will be those under a collective bargaining agreement. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: They might not. It depends on the collective bargaining agreement. Right. Some of them would be.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Alright. Are there other because the list of public employees that is enumerated in the bill is pretty extensive. Are there any public employees other than those under some particular collective bargaining agreements? Are there categories that are not covered?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Not to my knowledge.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Okay. So, the intention would be all public employees not under collective bargaining and some under certain circumstances that are would be covered by this benefit?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Okay. And so, would apply in a time when you have you're you're in sort of the waiting queue to be under workman's comp coverage but you haven't received that definitively yet. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Right. As you may know, it could take six months before you know whether or not your workplace injury will be covered by workers' comp.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Okay. And that was going be my

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Sometimes people are working for out of work for a few weeks or a few months and they could use this time as they would Gotcha.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: So, those were my next question is how long typically are people waiting? But if I'm correct from your answer, that may vary from employee to employee and situation to situation?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: It varies. Would employees to employee, but also probably type of workplace injury, the type of issues that are raised, and the workers compensation board doing its investigation and and making a ruling.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: And and so, if there is a determination that they they were entitled, they get their time back?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Okay. Would that normally be because of an error or would be because the injury was determined not to be workplace related or what would cause somebody to either be determined not be not to have to have used their time or that they might have to use their time.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: The real issue is whether or not the workers compensation board finds that the person was a, injured on the job and has a disability, a percent of disability. If they have a lesser percentage of disability, then that's going to affect their benefits. If somebody is found to have 100% disability, then for workers' comp purposes, which is a different set of circumstances, Then right now, one of the issues is because they are using their time, they are not able to get it all back after a determination is made. The determination may be made that they were entitled to benefits during their waiting period or it may be that they are not. And it depends also on what kind of disability they are found to have. So this would allow them to choose whether they use what type of leave, right? But also permit them to recover fully instead of having to essentially because of their workplace injury end up with a third fewer benefits.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: So basically sort of the default is we're going to give you your time, we're gonna act as if you're gonna be covered and if you end up not being, then you used your time and it comes out of your time bank. If it turns out that you were covered, you get what you should have gotten from the first place anyway.

[Assemblymember Ms. Moreno (first name unconfirmed)]: Exactly.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. And then, my final line of questions will be regarding those who are under collective bargaining. Why is that treated differently?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Because their basic terms and conditions are different.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: And that's gonna be subject to the collective bargaining agreement itself.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: And if I'm reading the statute right, there's pretty good flexibility there for whatever is negotiated between the bargaining unit and the state as to how they want to benefit their workers vis a vis this issue. They could go buy this, they could do something more lucrative, they could do something less. Am I reading that there's flexibility between the unions and the state as to how they're going to adjudicate for their membership?

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Well, think that flexibility is something that goes into the creation of the collective bargaining agreement. Once you have the agreement, you have the wiggle room you have in the agreement or not.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Correct. So, it's whatever that particular public employee union in the state of New York agreed to as a fair deal, they go those workers go by that deal and those not under collective bargaining, this would become the default for them.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Yes. This is for everybody except those with collective bargaining agreements.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Right.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: And those collective bargaining agreements that would take one out of this are it's a smaller percentage of workers. Most workers are not in that category.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Correct. Okay. Wonderful. Well, I appreciate you walking through it with me. I'm gonna go on the bill very briefly.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: I appreciate the the sponsor answering my questions. I plan on voting yes. This seems like a, you know, a fair deal for workers. If you're in a situation where you may be filing a workman's comp claim, that's that's something that happened to you and and we want our workforce to be protected. And, know, as as somebody who I'm I'm a former assembly employee. So, I had a time bank. I had time. I had to you know, if it's sick leave or is it personal leave or or what have you. So, I think this is a flexibility that would be very fair for our workforce. I plan on voting yes.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Simon to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill would allow state employees the choice of what type of time, whether it's vacation time or personal time or sick leave, to use if they are injured in a workplace accident. We want to make sure that our employees are able to use the time that they have accrued most appropriately for them while they are during a waiting period. And then also that if they suffer a loss during that waiting period and they are entitled to workers' compensation benefits, that they are able to recoup that time subsequently and add that back to their time bank fully so that they are not losing time by having been injured on the job. And so for that reason, I want to thank my colleagues for their support, and I will be voting in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, miss Simon in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: bill is passed. Page 11, calendar number 75, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number nineteen sixty two b, calendar 75, mister Anderson, an act to amend the penal law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Anderson.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Thank you, madam speaker. Good morning and good afternoon to all of my colleagues this morning. This is the same piece of legislation that we passed last year that would address the issues of safe storage with regard to the ownership of a firearm. This bill would amend safe storage to make it a violation for anyone who fails to safely store a rifle shotgun firearm and establish a class a misdemeanor for failure to store when accessible by a minor or prohibited person. Madam Speaker, it would also require individuals receive safe storage materials when in violation of penal code 265.45 and failure to safely store in the first degree among other things. And it's also a mechanism Madam Speaker that would put us at the gold standard along with several other states as it relates to the storage and safe storage of firearms. I have a number of different data points I'm excited to share about with my colleagues throughout today's debate with regard to this. Thank you madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Mr. Angelino.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Thank you madam speaker. Would you ask the sponsor to yield please?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Well, he didn't fix my tie this year so I don't know. Yes, I'll yield.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Thank you. I read last year's transcript also. So, we're doing this again and so nothing has changed since last year? No. What happened? Why are we doing this again?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Well, as you know, when the bill doesn't pass in the other house, we are in successive legislative session so we have to pass it again because it died in the senate.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Okay. So the senate this never got out of the committee in the senate? I don't recall if it

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: got out of the committee or didn't make it to third reading but it got stalled died in the senate.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Alright. And also, as I know I know the topic and that you chose to name this after a particular individual. So anything I say today is has no bearing on the tragedy that happened. It's the details of the bill. Certainly. And I don't want anybody inferring that that life is being debated. So thank you for that. So we're gonna be amending penal law section two sixty five forty five safe storage of firearms. Is that that's what we're doing here today? That's correct, mister Angelino. Okay. So that right now was the gold standard and was a big change

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: in how No. Mister Angelino, if I may because I I know where you're going here. It amends it to ensure that it's clear. There were loopholes into six five and this makes it clear that the storage of a firearm is pertinent especially because we want to make sure that children don't get access to firearms.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Okay, so there were loopholes.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: So what is something that can happen right now today in somebody's home that they're legally doing that this is gonna prevent? What are some of the loopholes?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Well, in terms of I'm sorry. Can you can you rephrase that question, Angelino?

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: You said there were loopholes in the current law and I asked what is something that is happening right now in somebody's home that this bill is going to change?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: So, it's the thing around residency requirements. So, under Francesco's law, secure storage is it requires everyone at all times to make sure that a firearm which is not under your direct control, which is presently, you know that's a present law in itself but what we do when we change it is we have it as a civil violation with a fine not a criminal penalty. So you should know if you know that there's someone, a minor under the age of 18 or person prohibited from possessing a firearm is likely to gain access, this just adds that additional level of security and protection in that regard in terms of holding folks accountable for lack of safe storage.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: So that includes everybody in the home under the age 18, not just the owner or custodian?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: No, I'm sorry, say that again Mr. Angelino?

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: I thought you said everybody in the home is responsible. No, so what I'm saying to

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: you is if you have someone over the age of 18 who's a legal donor, right? Okay. And you have someone who's under the age of 18, 16 or 17 some odd number, This just says whether that person is visiting or that person is temporarily staying, it's saying that those laws are still subject in terms of Anybody security and

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: in the home, a visitor.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Correct. Even the kid that goes away to college and comes back and visits for winter break is also

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: subject to these additional I was thinking the other way. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. No problem. So right now, there is some conduct that that you call the loophole and that is other does the current law say it has to be a resident of the home under the age 18? Is that what we're correcting?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Well, no. I'm not saying so what I'm I wanna be clear what we're doing here. I'm not saying no to your question, I just want to be very clear. The focus here is making sure that the owner is responsible for their firearm and how that firearm interacts with those who are visiting, those who are in the home, those same protections are extended. So, not necessarily saying no to your question, I just want you to understand that level of protection

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: and security. So, that's not already covered by 02/6545?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: So what what we add in addition is to make sure that there's a civil violation which serves as a deterrent and also what I do in my law is that we educate people through the mechanisms of DCJS to ensure that people are aware of this statute as well. So we have the two pieces there.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Thank you. And also I know last year we talked a lot about unlawful entry and I think we were on two different tacks trying to get to that. I think we talked about burglary, and then you mentioned, no, it was more unlawful entry into a device. So that did not change. Right?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: No. We have not made any changes to this legislation.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Okay. So it's the unlawful if I've done everything right according to your proposed law and somebody still gains access So

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: I I think I think, miss Angelilio, you may be concerned about self defense and I'm just saying any statutes that protect self defense are not impacted by this law. I just want to be very clear with that. I don't want to

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: get off track. That was further questions. I I wasn't. So this is talking if somebody has is doing everything correctly to your proposed law Mhmm. And it is in a secured, safe vault, whatever it is, it's separate from the ammo. The unlawful entry in your bill is somebody acting and entering the safe device, that person, the owner of the weapon then is not in trouble because there was an unlawful entry into the device. Because last year we did talk about burglary and self defense.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Yeah, so to answer your question, Angelino, could apply to both whether it's unlawful entry into the property or unlawful access to to the firearm. Okay.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: But the question was, the gun owner, if he does everything right and somebody still gets access, the gun owner is not going to be held responsible. Correct. Thank you. That's a big one. And I I don't know if I asked this last year, but can the can the the weapon be stored with ammunition in a loaded condition?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: No. It cannot.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: And I think we did some hypotheticals last year, I'm not gonna do them over, but I have new hypotheticals. Alright. The situation, regarding owner and custodian, both are used. I'm pretty sure I know what owner of a firearm is. What is custodian?

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Well, what is it?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Yeah, thank you for that question Mr. Angelino. So, we're not changing any current law that exists with owner or custodian. So, can appreciate you inserting that into this conversation. But the current protections that exist right now for owner versus custodian and what those statutes are, those are staying in place and won't be impacted in that regard.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Okay. So you're saying that's not germane today?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: It's a nicer way of

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: saying it. Alright.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinski]: Thank

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: you. Earlier this year, I debated one of our colleagues on the smart firearm issue, a colleague to my left. And I asked him, I said, if the smart firearm technology is proven, that was he had a study bill that said, if we have these biometric firearms, do they still need to be stored? I I and he said, they don't. And I said, doesn't that gonna lead to people leaving a handgun on a coffee table? So I think the two laws, if his was passed, would these be

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: in conflict? Well, you know, I can appreciate your wondering about where that law is going. And while I'm not trying to dismiss your concern by saying it's not germane even though it's not germane, there are pieces that already deal with the issue of safe storage in terms of biometrical safe. If you want to get a lock, however you want to lock it up, the law outlines what that looks like and so we're not making any changes to that. But I can appreciate my colleague He trying to tackle this issue as

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: said it wouldn't need to be locked up because no one could use it except the owner or custodian.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: I think so I want to just be very clear with you miss Angelino because I'm not familiar with the specific statutes of my colleagues bill and I want to stay on here. What I'm trying to focus on with this piece of legislation is make sure that we save the lives of children, of veterans who are apt to possibly commit suicide when there's access to a firearm that's unsafe and of course making sure that we protect homes. So I again I have an appreciation for what you're saying but it's just not germane.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Okay. So when you said protect people in the homes Mhmm. And last year I did ask you about what about historically significant firearms that are on display in museums,

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: are those exempt? So again the statutes that govern safe storage presently still apply. I think it was your colleague Mr. Mantalo who had asked that question about the State Museum in Saratoga and I think that just as I had mentioned last year, those are all protected so long as it's meeting the requirements of being locked up and safely stored. So, if you want to be behind a glass case, as long as you got a lock on it, you're good to go.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Okay. And so this is this law to be enforced is going to be post incident. It's not like we're gonna have cops patrolling looking for this like we do on the highways. This is gonna be something happens that authorities are then become aware and start asking questions. So, this is a post action law.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: You know, I don't look at it as that in the sense of for every ounce of prevention we're able to protect individuals and so just like you're required to put on your seat belt in the car and there's not a cop in your car looking actively searching, let me meet you at State And Swan on Tuesday to see if you have a seat belt on or not. This is of course we're hoping folks will follow the statute and it's actually creating a culture change just like we now know, put on your seat belt, buckle up when you get in the car, we're saying buckle up your gun, keep it safe, keep it safely stored. And so that's what we're aiming to do here, Ms. Angelino.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: So the but this can't be enforced until after the act of something happening? If something happens, these statutes kick in.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: And of course, there's prosecutorial discretion, there's judicial discretion, all of that stuff exists. But it changes the culture.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: And we're very thankful for discretion in these cases because I'm I'm worried that something is going to happen even though all the preventions are there, and this is gonna get enforced and somebody is gonna be victimized twice. Maybe a tragedy has happened, and then they're also going to be fined or could be arrested for a misdemeanor.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Ms. Angelino, let me just insert into this conversation the safe storage section of the law that may actually sort of help you and answer your question with regard to that. So, if you look at page three, sections one through 18 of the law, it reads, a person is guilty of failure to safely store rifles, shotguns, and firearms accessible to a minor or a prohibited persons when a) such person stores or otherwise leaves a rifle shotgun or firearm in violation of 265.45 of this article and any location where the owner or custodian of the rifle shotgun or firearm knows or has reason to know that a minor or prohibited person is likely to gain access to such. So again, this is and I just read a short expert of that section and then go down to the rest of it, but again it protects those individuals in that regard in terms of safe storage. So I just want

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: to be clear. Okay. And in there it mentioned other states that already have this. Is Massachusetts one of those states?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: So Massachusetts is one of those states.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Okay. Thank you.

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: Yes, sir.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Last year, when I went on the bill, I mentioned, you know, practical uses of firearms when they can't be stored, and everybody immediately goes to the self defense burglar in the night. But there are plenty of people in my area that have long arms with them and mainly farmers who are protecting very valuable livestock from predators. We have packs of coy dogs, coyotes that can take down a very valuable piece of livestock. I know many farmers have them scabbard on their tractors. Others always have a rifle in their barn because they need it to get quickly to, stop what's happening. That is what I said last year. This year, I'll say, just a matter of a couple of days ago in Massachusetts, one of the

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Can I interject just very quickly, sir? Yes. You may. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, can you call on the veterans committee to meet in the Speakers Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: And veterans committee members, please make your way to the Speakers Conference Room. Veterans Committee members Speakers Conference Room. Mister Angeline, are you gonna take your second

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: to finish? Yes. And it

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: won't be much at all

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: because I'm on veterans committee and I'm gonna scamper out of here.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: So this year, just a couple just a couple of days ago, in Massachusetts, one of the states that is known for strict gun regulations did have a self defense issue with a person who was in public shooting people and killing them, and a person who stopped it had to go to the trunk of his car and get his weapon out of there because he wasn't allowed to carry it. And after getting it out, he had to go to a separate location to get the ammunition, and then he stopped somebody in the act. And that was just a matter of hours ago in a state that adjoins us. And with that, I will close and leave it to my colleagues and I am going to the Veterans Committee. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Mister Moranello?

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: Thank you. I just have a question for clarification. Will the sponsor yield

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: For the judge, madam speaker

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: It's not controversial. I just is there two different sections that this is referring to? Because on on page two, line 44, it reduces it from a class a misdemeanor to a violation, then it repeals two sixty five forty six, adds two sixty five fifty one, and then in two sixty five fifty one refers to an a misdemeanor. So all I'm trying to establish for clarification is there are two classes of violations that can occur. Correct. There's two classes of violations. You have your civil and then you have a criminal. You have your Civil and your criminal. Alright. But they both refer to criminal penalties. That's where my confusion is. Okay? This the violation is in a ninety day, and then in the second part of the call, it refers to a class a misdemeanor.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Yeah, so remember when we talked about people who are visiting, right, there are a bevy of different options that a prosecutor who wants to prosecute this can look at. And so I just wanna make sure you know which is the civil penalty, is referred into the first section, and the criminal penalty under certain circumstances.

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: So if go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm still confused because a violation is a crime. It's a it's a penal law violation or that that's where so that the very first page two, just refers to the the safe storage. So I'm trying to, simulate the violation from it would reduce from an a misdemeanor to a violation which is a penal law. And then the second section refers to the penal

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: law. So

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: thank you, judge. So if I may if I may say that you see two sections. You see one section that deals with the civil penalty and one section that deals with the misdemeanor a violation. So, I just want to make sure that you understand that there's those two sections there.

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: But but what you did in the first section was it was reduced from an a misdemeanor to a violation. So there's no civil penalty that's an a misdemeanor. All I'm trying to do is clarify it so that it becomes

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: No, but that's what you're saying is correct. Yes. It's correct.

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: So they can charge either it as a violation or if there's more serious damage then they can charge it as the miss the a misdemeanor.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: So, the a misdemeanor is if children are involved or impacted by the access and gain access to the firearm and the violation is for any and everyone. So they're both penal I'm law that

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. They're both penal law violations. It's just different degrees of the penal law.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: And different degrees that trigger those violations.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. That's what

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: I'm saying.

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: I just wanted that clarification. No problem. Because the way it read, okay, there's not no civil penalty other than when you go down to the bottom where you give the materials. So but I thank you. I wasn't controverting it, just trying to get it clear.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: So

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: It's a great question. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Miss Seawright? Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: I yield although I

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: cannot Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Have my back to you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. We hear a lot of misinformation about legislation like safe storage and Francesco's law and how it infringes upon New Yorkers second amendment rights. Does this bill do anything to seize firearms from legally compliant responsible gun owners?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Thank you for that question. So no, this this bill does not look to seize any legally held firearms in state of New York and nor does it infringe upon our second amendment rights to have the ability to bear firearms.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Have other states enacted similar legislation and if so, do you know how many?

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Yes, so there are several other states across The United States that have enacted similar legislation. We have this in California which actually has higher penalties than what we're doing here. Connecticut, Hawaii and a few others.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: And Massachusetts, sorry. And Oregon.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Party vote has been requested. Mister Gandolfo.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Clerk will record the vote. Mister Anderson Tup. Mister Anderson to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Thank you madam speaker. Francesco didn't have an opportunity to live to the age of 18 and as it's so painful that we even have to be here to pass this particular piece of legislation just as we did last year in this memory, I'm reminded that more than half of gun owners do not practice safe storage. And it's important that states that we know that states with strong safe storage laws saw a twelve percent reduction in youth firearm suicides. And gun suicides rates have been increasing among young people. And so this particular piece of legislation helps to ensure that we can bring New York to the gold standard and I think that this piece of legislation accomplishes that end in regard to supporting those efforts. So I commend the family who's here with us today for sharing their trauma and their pain and their struggles, the weeks and months they spent up here in Albany this year and even last year and all of the varieties of opinions that my colleagues and advocates in this space have shared. This is such an important issue I'm thankful to all of my colleagues. I withdraw my request and proudly vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, mister Anderson and the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the result.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 90. Nays, 44.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Page 22, calendar number two thirteen, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 8482 a, calendar two thirteen, miss Cruz. Enact to amend the workers compensation law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Cruz.

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: The purpose of Thank you madam speaker. The purpose of this bill is to establish that any claimant who is classified by the workers compensation board as having a disability and receives benefits for said disability cannot have those benefits denied on the basis of whether they have demonstrated their ongoing attachment to the labor market. Miss Walsh?

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: That's great. Thanks. And so we're gonna be talking about workers' compensation law and this attachment to the workforce or the job job market or whatever the phrase was. We're gonna be talking about that again this year. So first of all, so and I will admit, I'm going to just admit upfront that I have a little struggled I struggled a little bit with this bill trying to figure out exactly what it's doing. So under the current law, under subsection w, it already says, quote, compensation under this paragraph shall be payable to during the continuance of such permanent partial disability without the necessity for the claimant who is entitled to benefits at the time of classification to demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market. So it it confused me I guess when I first saw the bill text and I saw that part of that is being struck now from the current law. I'm looking at page one lines 10 through 12, but then at the end of the bill, page three lines eight through 11, it's adding the language benefits or compensation otherwise due under this section shall not be withheld, diminished or conditioned upon an injured worker's demonstration of attachment to the labor market. And so it looked like it it took something out and then it put the same, like, similar language back in. So what exactly are we doing here? That's a very long way of asking. Are we Thank doing

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: you for the question. So in 2017, we passed legislation that basically said permanent total disability and permanent partial disability workers who fell under that category would not have their benefits interrupted or ended if they could not demonstrate attachment to the labor market. That means looking for work, earning a higher education. There's actually a list of categories and ways in which workers can demonstrate to the workers compensation board and therefore insurance companies how they've tried to maintain attachment to the labor market. What that law did in 2017 is say, for people who have permanent partial or permanent total disability, we're not gonna require that. We're now saying let's ensure that that is also the same for temporary total disability and temporary partial disability workers who are under that category now.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Alright. I wasn't sure if the other part of it was that the first language that I read that's in the existing law only took the onus off of the claimant from affirmatively having to show attachment to the new added language at the end of the bill which basically says we are no longer looking at attachment to the labor markets. In other words, saying to the carriers like you can't come forward and show a lack of attachment to the labor market?

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: Well, want to make sure that I'm understanding your question correctly. I think the answer is you are correct in that we are saying

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: for

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: both temporary partial and temporary permanent as well as for permanent partial and permanent total disabilities, we will no longer be asking for that information and and therefore the insurance companies don't have that requirement or that need. Or that ability. Or that ability. Yeah. That argument. Clarify, if at any point in the insurance company feels that there is some sort of fraud being committed, because I know that that was part of the questions that we discussed last year, this bill doesn't take away their ability to go to the IG or even the workers compensation board and say, we believe that this person doesn't have x y z injury and therefore they should not receive the benefits or should be investigated, etcetera etcetera. So the but that fraud then will be more will be only having to do with a

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: medical medical documentation that's there or isn't there or something medical rather than attempts to find other work or that attachment issue?

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: That would be correct because they're well, yes and

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: no. Okay.

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: Yes, because there will no longer be a requirement that if they are in fact temporary or or permanently partial or fully disabled that they demonstrate that they're working. But in an instance where they are, let's say, committing fraud by saying that they're disabled and therefore should have been looking for work, then yes, the answer would be they could still bring that forward to the workers compensation board or to the IG. So, yes. So there's there's connection between those two things.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Alright. Saw in the memorandum of support with this bill that it said that that it's necessary to eliminate this defense altogether. That that even though those changes were made in 2017 to limit the application of this defense, it said, quote, have not been successful to limit the application.

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: I don't have the memo of support in front of me. I suspect you're talking about the one from the AFL?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: No. No. I'm talking about the one that that you submitted as

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: your sponsor's An outside memo of support. Yes. No. Nope. So repeat the question to me, please.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah. So I'll just read it. Under justification for the bill Mhmm. You said, quote, this defense evolved as a matter of decisional law. Statutory amendments enacted in 2017 to limit the application of this defense have not been successful. It goes on further allowing carriers to assert this defense creates a windfall for the carriers because employers experience rating and premiums are routinely negatively impacted by the claim regardless of whether indemnity benefits are withheld. For these reasons, it is necessary to eliminate this defense altogether,

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: close quote.

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: Yeah. So what what we found is that there's more or less a a loophole that was left open and it allows insurers to deny wage replacement benefits to workers with temporary disabilities even when they're still recovering and attending physical therapy or waiting for surgery. And you know denying what we believe is on the technicality from the insurance companies has allowed the insurance companies to for example raise the premium from employers when they might have too many claimants if you will, while also denying workers while they're still recuperating from those benefits simply because they cannot demonstrate an attachment to the labor market for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's, you know, they might be on the older side and not have the skills necessary. They might still be recuperating and need to go to the doctor or may need to have surgery, etcetera. And so what folks like the AFL, I will mention them again, have found is that many of these workers are getting denials on technicalities while the insurance company is able to continue to make money off the premiums they are increasing for employers. So that's interesting.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So are you suggesting that that there will be a cost savings by the passage of this bill? Because one of the big reasons why the business council, for example, has come out in opposition to the legislation is they feel it's going to increase costs on on employers.

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: So there will definitely be a savings to the state because there has been an increase in litigation and conceivably there could be, we believe, in a savings to the employer because if we don't have insurance companies increasing the premiums to employers in the same way while also denying the the actual business could save money.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I see. Okay. Well, without labor attachment requirements, what incentive remains for employees to seek reemployment or alternative employment?

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: You know, I think questions like that make an assumption that workers want to be out of work when they're injured. The majority of them, I think I I would argue many of our constituents when they get hurt, if they, become healthy again, they're gonna wanna go back to work and they're not gonna wanna just sit around and wait for their benefits to lapse or their benefits to come under question because they might be Excuse me. Sorry allergy season. So let me go back to that, you know the majority of our constituents I would argue if they are hurt, they're going to want to go back to work after their treatment is completed, after the benefits are no longer needed. And I think statements like that make an assumption that people just are going to sit around, get their workers compensation benefits and not go back to work.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't paint with such a broad brush. I mean, I know better than to lump all people, all injured people, all employees into any one category at all. I I just I and I don't intend if my question was taken that way, I don't mean it in that way at all. Well, I'm just saying that in the world

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: There's also if I may say there's a financial incentive, you know, workers' comp doesn't give you the full amount of money that you would get when you're working. And if it's someone that has perhaps a high earning job, they're going to get a lot less while they're on workers' comp. And so I I would say, you know, if we have to look for an incentive, it's a financial one. They want to get their full pay.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Right. And and just to finish, I would say that, you know, in this world, we have people that are good, hardworking, you know, legitimately injured people who need this system in order to receive the support they need while they're recovering. We want to do everything we can to help support those individuals. We also, in the world, have people that, you know, wanna take any advantage that they can of the system that's there for them. And and a lot of people in between, you know. So that's my questions are just really geared to In a view, that's why yeah.

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: And that's why this bill doesn't touch the ability of the insurance company or even the employer if they notice that there's possible fraud being competitive going to the IG or the workers compensation board and for lack of a better word, blowing the whistle and saying this person should not be getting the benefits because of, you know, whatever reason they have.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: But the whatever reason, just to finish your thought, that whatever reason now will no longer have the attachment to the labor market argument in there that has been developed over a number of years with a lot of decisional case law that we're really wiping out with this legislation. Right?

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: There's a lot of historical things that should not exist anymore and this should probably be one of them.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. I I understand your point. How would insurers distinguish between medically disabled workers and individuals who are just voluntarily withdrawing from employment? I don't think that question has any bearing on this bill. Okay. Alright. What financial impact do you think that this bill will have on local governments, school districts, and small businesses?

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: We hope that it will save them money. You hope that That's the hope. Yes.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Well, we always hope that we can save money as a state. Right? But we

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: Well and and I will say, know, having had informal conversations with some of the folks on the workers compensation board, there was an increase in litigation that ties them up from looking at other cases. So when many of these cases that should have never been in front of them go away because people should be recuperating and not being forced to go back to work before they're ready, there's definitely gonna be a cost savings to savings to the state.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Well, would this legislation apply retroactively to existing claims? No. Okay. Alright. So any cost savings would be just Future. Perspective only? That's right. Yeah. Because the flip side of that argument and I hear what you're saying, but some would say that anticipated additional costs would be expected to the state since the bill would allow more injured workers to be considered for certain compensation and benefits regardless of whether he or she is attached to the labor market. So there that's the other side of the coin. So I appreciate I am hopeful always, but we would have to probably see. I think that the reason why we have both supporters and detractors of this legislation is that we have different ways of looking at what the potential impacts might be. Okay. Let me just double check to see if I have any other questions. Just a moment. Nope. Alright. I think I think you've basically answered the questions that I've had. I appreciate that. And, madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So we debated this bill last year. I I honestly do feel like I have a better understanding of what the bill does this year than I did last year which is good. It means I'm evolving as a human being and hopefully as a lawyer and I figured out some of it with the help of our great counsel staff. But I mean the bottom line, the reason why NIAH, the the New York Insurance Association I think and also the Business Council are opposed is that if you have an individual that has that they want to have this ability to make sure that claimants who can work are going to be seeking work and are going to actually, you know, reenter the workforce. And and I think that they're concerned about the possibility for an enticement anyway for fraud whereby a person who's separated from their employment would now be authorized to potentially bring an unjustified or unverifiable workers' compensation claim under its provisions. So I think that there are two sides to every story. We certainly want people who have been injured and who are doing all the right things to receive compensation that they should be receiving until they can work again and reenter the workforce. I think that you know the thing about and I appreciate what the sponsor said, sometimes old law is not always the best law, but we've had this in effect for a large number of years. We already did a series of reforms through the budget process, a policy put in the 2017 budget that made some changes to this workers compensation law, this portion of the law. Now the sponsor wants us to go even further and essentially remove the argument, and I'll just finish, thank you, remove the argument of attachment to the workforce entirely. So I am going to continue to vote no on this bill because I think that the law in its current form is better than what the sponsor is proposing. I think that it strikes more of an appropriate balance I think between what the what workers need and the system as it's defined, whether it's state and also the carriers and employers need in terms of assurances that the right people are receiving the right compensation. So I would prefer to keep the law as it currently stands and for that reason I'll be in the negative. I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The clerk will record the vote. Miss Cruz to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna thank the folks who brought this legislation forward, the AFL CIO for their support. The workers who need this, many of them are in my district. Folks wanna get back to work. Folks don't wanna be hurt. They don't wanna be at home. They don't wanna be injured. Now, there is a financial incentive to make sure that they go back to work and requiring them to show this labor attachment, to look for work, to look for education, etcetera before they're ready can actually be detrimental to their recuperation. And it costs the state and employers and even insurance companies let me scratch on that insurance companies more money while the insurance companies keep making the money. So I do wanna say for folks who may be in opposition, this isn't just about this bill, to legislation. It's always beneficial when you send it to the sponsor. It was actually a surprise to me to hear some of the folks who may have concerns in opposition because we never received those memos in opposition. And so that's, you know, more of advice to the folks out in the world. And I the last thing I will say is, you know, the assumption that many of these programs that require people to work before they get a benefit is has the basis that many of the folks receiving these benefits are just lazy and don't want to do the work and don't want to show the progress. But that's incorrect. These people are genuinely hurt. We just need to give them an opportunity to get better and that's what this bill seeks to do. Thank you so much and I'll be voting in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Miss Cruz in the affirmative, mister Burrows to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Mr. Burrows (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you madam. I think providing insurance carriers and employers from withholding insurance payouts is something that's actually very detrimental to individuals who may be hurt. Workers compensation is not an opportunity for individual to grow or enhance their position in life. I think you know most people would rather work a full hard day, a full hard day's work. And so I have to commend the speaker I'm sorry, I have to commend the sponsor for this but also commend AFL and the other organizations for putting forth this measure to protect workers. Protecting workers is I think is one of our vital responsibilities and what we should do. And taking care of individuals who may be hurt so they can get back to work is something that I think is very important and is why I also will be voting in affirmative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you Mr. Burrows and the affirmative Mr. Jacobsen to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Jonathan Jacobson]: Thank you Madam Speaker. To explain my vote, want to thank the sponsor for having this bill. I practiced workers' comp for more than twenty years, and the whole fiction of attachment to the to the labor force is just ridiculous because a lot of these people are also receiving Social Security disability. There is an offset because they are getting comp, so they decide instead of further litigation just to settle for whatever they could get as far as having a permanent partial disability. And what had happened is people would have to go through a dance and go to VESIT and they knew and get a letter that they weren't able to be retrained or, go through a list of of employers that were not gonna hire them anyway just to show they were looking. And so I think that this is so important that the change in the law so that people, when they're injured and they can't go back to work, they shouldn't have to have this extra burden. And, for all my clients, most I I would say 99.9% want to get off comp. They would love to get off comp. And comp is not the bargain that it used to be in the sense that you don't get a permanent partial disability for the rest of your life. Depending on what percentage you are disabled, you get it for a certain number of weeks. So I want to thank the sponsor for having this bill and I vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mr. Jacobsen in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one twenty eight. Nays, seven.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Page 28, calendar number three thirteen. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2,000 06/2001, calendar three thirteen, Ms. Callis. An act to amend the criminal procedure law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On a motion by Ms. Callis, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Kellis.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Thank you so much. In 2021, we had a decriminalization of the possession of syringes and hypodermic needles. At the time, we did not expunge the existing possessions and this bill simply adds that one component, which is the expungement of prior convictions for the possession of syringes and hypodermic needles.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mr. Molotore.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Of course.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The sponsor yields. Thank you.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: So as you said or as you previously stated, the prior crime of possessing a hypodermic instrument is no longer a crime in New York? Correct. And that's been the case since when?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: 2021.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay. And so prior to 2021, if you had been convicted of possessing a a hypodermic instrument, the aim of this bill would be to expunge that conviction?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Those that were prior to 2021.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: And, would that be the case not only for the misdemeanor crime, but also the felony crime as well?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: It is exclusively for the possession of the syringe.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay. But if the

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I was trying to say

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: there were drugs in the needle.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: I don't know if you know where I'm going with this, so I'll just be straight forward with you. There was an escalator crime, so if you possessed a hypodermic instrument, you were convicted of it, and then you did it again and you were convicted of that, you could be convicted of a felony crime. So this would also expunge the felony crime because

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: It's irrelevant.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: It's an escalator crime as well, right?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So, this is specifically for and only related to syringe possession. So, any crimes that they have that they've been convicted of and sentenced for related exclusively to the possession of a syringe or hypodermic needle, that would be expunged.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay. And what is expungement? What does that mean?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Expungement is not sealing. Expungement is the removal of that record. I can read you the definition. Would you like that?

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Please. Alright.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: The legal definition of expungement. It means where an arrest and any enforcement activity connected with that arrest including prosecution and any disposition in any New York State court is deemed a nullity and the accused is restored in contemplation of the law to the status such individual occupied before the arrest, prosecution and or disposition that records of such arrest, prosecution and or disposition shall be marked as expunged or shall be destroyed as set forth in Section 160.5 of this chapter Neither the arrest nor prosecution and or disposition, if any, of a matter deemed annulity shall operate as a disqualification of any person so accused to pursue or engage in any lawful activity, occupation, profession or calling, except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of a superior court, no such person shall be required to divulge information pertaining to the arrest, prosecution and or disposition of such a matter.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay, so those agencies whether we're talking about the police, district attorney's offices, courts, they would not be required to destroy the records. They could simply label them expunged and prevent them from being disclosed to the general public. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So I want to make it very clear, it is not the same as sealing.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Right.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Sealing is where they would still have access to use them in cases where, let's say, a future interaction with that individual, those records can be unsealed and used in a criminal case. In an expungement, they cannot. We are saying in perpetuity, they are not an offense.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Right. But under the definition you just read for expungement, it seems to offer an alternative, either they can destroy those records or they can mark them as expunged and never use them and never disclose them.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay. And that's a big difference, right? Because if all of these agencies had to go out and seek those records and destroy them, that could create a lot of unnecessary work, right?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Correct. And this does not require that.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Do you know how many prior convictions of this this offense before 2021 occurred in New York State?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Yes. There it is over 25,000.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay. And would you expect the division of criminal justice services who produces the criminal histories in New York to go through proactively and remove those from remove those convictions from every criminal history? Or do you see more of a scenario where if someone who had been convicted of that offense, know, realized that the conviction hadn't been removed, they could contact the division of criminal justice services and they would remove it?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So it's OCA, not DCJS, and yes, they would proactively expunge these records. I will make a note that they do know where they are, they know how many, they have very clear records because they gave us these records when we asked for them.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: And I just want to be perfectly

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: This clear account.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: The OCA's office of court administration Correct. They don't produce or disclose criminal histories. That's the division of criminal justice services?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Correct. But they have the records.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: So would you expect the division of criminal justice services, once this bill becomes law to just automatically go through for those 25,000 prior convictions and eliminate them from the system?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Yeah. Yeah. So once OCA expunges these records, these records would not be available for access through DCJS when evaluating any records for an individual.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay. But OCA so are you expecting the office of court administration to notify DCGS?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: No. You have to access the records.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: I guess I'm I'm trying to work through how exactly this is going to work here.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Right. Of course in marijuana. Yeah, exactly. Yep, I'm sorry. We I just want to be very clear. It we we do have precedent for this. This is the exact same process that would occur with marijuana when this expungement happened with prior records related to marijuana. So they do have this process already in place. They know how to do it with each other. They do communicate with each other. This is a standard protocol and this would follow the standard protocol already in place for marijuana.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So I just wanna make sure that there's not the expectation that this is something new they don't know how to do.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Well, I will tell you from personal experience that even though marijuana convictions were to be expunged when I was a prosecutor, I would get criminal histories with those convictions still present.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Because

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: it Well, we are human. I can, you know, there there might be some human error.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: That's what we're

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: But I think that again, as a scientist, I I think our personal experience is not necessarily representative of the entire breadth of the system entire. So that may have been a unique individual experience but I can't say that that is standard.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Well, as a legislator, what I want to make sure of is that this bill will do what you intend it to do.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Which is why

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: I'm asking these questions.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Well, absolutely. But we can't account always for the human error component which would have potential outlier cases such as that and it's unfortunate you had that experience. I hope that you were able to rectify that. But I would not necessarily assume that that would be the standard protocol that people would experience as a result of this law.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Well I don't wanna assume anything which is why I wanna make sure Absolutely. I want which is why I'm asking questions about how this process is actually going to occur, right? Absolutely. Okay. So let's go back to that process then. It's your understanding that the office of court administration is going to notify DCGS of all 25,000 convictions or more essentially when this bill goes into effect so that DCGS can remove them from criminal histories Yes. Okay.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: That is the protocol.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Okay. Thank you. And in the situation where that doesn't occur, let's say the off chance that someone makes a human error, what should the individual who's been previously convicted of this offense do? Should they contact the division of criminal justice services or the office of court administration to make sure that that gets rectified?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So they should could and should in their own defense contact both of them. They could contact DCJS and request that they communicate to OCA. I think that there's a whole series of steps that they could take. They wanted to be very thorough. I would recommend contacting them both. The attorney in that case so I'm hoping in your personal case, you did contact DCJS and say I cannot use these records in any case. I shouldn't be seeing them. I'm notifying you that these records should have been expunged and hopefully that will be rectified. That would be the appropriate action or you can make that recommendation to a client.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Thank you very much. On the bill?

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Thank you. So, you know, I understand that, you know, regardless of how you feel about whether we should have decriminalized possessing a hypodermic instrument in New York, that is the law, and this bill will go back and retroactively remove every conviction that was previously a lawful conviction. And I understand why some people might support this law out of a sense of fairness. But I think we need to give fairness to history as well. At one time, this this legislature, this body deemed possessing a hypodermic instrument illegal. And while it was illegal, people were prosecuted for it for good reason. And you know I can tell you in both representing people who were convicted of this offense and prosecuting them that there was a good reason for it. But expungement you know wipes away history and I don't think that's really a good idea. I don't think it's really necessary. We do have ceiling provisions in New York which would prevent a prior conviction like this from being used against somebody out of a general sense of fairness. And so if you're against expungement, generally speaking, then you might wanna be against this particular bill. And I will be in a thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Miss Bailey.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a couple questions?

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Absolutely. I'm sure this is what we were going to talk about.

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: The sponsor yield.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: It was not, actually. This I had no idea I was gonna ask you questions on this bill but you just raised some great points. Fantastic. You indicated that OCA, you know, and we have precedence with with the expungement of marijuana offenses. And I would who maintains criminal records?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: In this case, we're talking about OCA. Office of court administration. We also have DCJS. They communicate together, they all they both have records. And where do county clerks come into play when it comes to maintaining these records? Clerks. For cases that happen with them, they happen locally. My understanding is that the county clerks would be responsible as part of helping to seal those records. Okay. So how are I'm the county sorry, this case expunged.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: How are the county clerks notified of these cases that will be expunged?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: That is communication. They are in regular communication throughout their part of the entire system. They are in regular communication with OCA. That would be in partnership with OCA and of course then DCJS. So we have to think of this and I suspect a sense of where you're going with this, but as someone who came from county government and worked very closely with the county clerks still to this day, They are in regular communication and they are pretty well aware that their records do influence each other. So they do work in concert as teams.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: I completely agree. Being a former county clerk, I know very well So what is let's go to what you had indicated with the marijuana expungement. Did the county clerks receive orders to expunge those records?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: That is not germane to this bill. That is a prior bill and a different law. This is specific. If you have questions about the expungement of syringe convictions, I'm happy to talk about it.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: No, I was bringing it up as you mentioned that we had precedents you mentioned that specifically. Therefore, I was looking at it from the germane piece to from a a system process or a procedure process to see how those records would be expunged at that level. So let's look at this case. So how will OCA be communicating what cases will be expunged? Do we know? Can you repeat that? So let's look at this specifically with the syringes. How will all indicate all parties that need to know be notified by OCA that those cases need to be expunged?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: When you're talking about expungement, they are expunged at the location. So if you're talking about your con just so that I understand the question, DCJS and OCA do communicate with each other. If you're asking about specifically county clerks, I'm sure since you're a prior county clerk you're aware that they would communicate with the county clerk as

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: well. I would hope so but on the thank you very much. The bill.

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: The bill.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: I I am just here to say there's true concern with this and if we go back to clean slate that came out a few years ago, it was the County Clerk's Association that had to advocate and lobby this group, right here, our legislators, to ensure that they were identified in the process to get those records sealed when it comes time. There is a disconnect. Records cannot be expunged at the county level for those that maintain those records without a court order. That court order should be coming down from OCA. That is not the case necessarily. We believe that all of these cases, these marijuana cases that was utilized or said as the precedent were expunged. I'm here to tell you that there were not orders that came down for every case that is on record in our counties today. Back to what my colleagues said, therefore, there are areas that are error could take place. So I would just, you know, say we probably need to look at this a little bit more and make sure that all the loopholes are closed if this truly is what we wanna do, but to go back in history to cases and sifting through boxes, if that's how they're maintained, is all and knowing exactly which one you're pulling out, without that court order, it cannot be done. And therefore, I'll be voting negative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Miss Kellis?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Thank you so much. Just want to add that I'm

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bill?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: On the Thank you, Ms. Speaker. I just wanted to add, I think it's very important that we are careful, that we aren't deliberating about legislation. In the context of saying when existing laws don't a 100% work all the time exactly as they were intended to work because of the fact that we are humans, we should therefore not consider laws that are the right thing to do. And in this case, we in 2021 decriminalized the possession of syringes and hyperdermic needles in a context of very important context of public health. First, specifically that we recognized as a state that one of the main ways that people were contracting hepatitis c and AIDS or HIV was through the sharing of needles. And one of the best interventions, public health interventions, was to provide syringes to significantly reduce the sharing of needles. We also recognized that the law as it was, we are human, we identify sometimes that we do need to modify our laws. We recognized that it was too broad and that it is not, of course, a guarantee that if someone has a syringe that they are going to use it for illegal reasons. And so we adjusted this law, recognizing that that assumption could not be made. Lastly, we had specific programs and have programs in place through our government that do allow for providing syringes for sale through pharmacies, certified pharmacies and through healthcare programs. Specifically because we recognize the public health significance of reducing the transmission of these diseases that I mentioned. So for all of those reasons, it was the right thing to do at the time and therefore it is significantly unfair and that is the foundation of this piece of legislation to say that everyone from that point forward, it was not considered illegal. But for anyone prior to 2021, it still was. And the reason it's so important that we do this is because the existence of these convictions or records have prevented people from seeking and getting obtaining housing, jobs, and stabilizing their families. So this is extremely important for over 25,000 people. I'm very glad that everyone is here today to have this conversation, to witness this, I think, important correction in our state history. I stand in support. Obviously, I will be voting in support of this piece of legislation. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Party vote's been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this bill, but if there are any yes votes, now would be the time to have members cast them at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Clerk will record the vote. Miss Walsh to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. So I listened with great interest to the debate. I just think the one phrase that, kept coming into my mind was that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So, you know, that's why we're talking about how other another expungement process worked or how in this case how it didn't work. I think that we, you know, we have to acknowledge. I mean, we all work within state government. We know that although we would love this to be an incredibly well oiled machine, we also know that it's not. And we have to account for that when we legislate. And I think that the points that were raised in opposition to doing this are I think are very valid and I'll be voting no. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, Ms. Walsh and the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 93. Nays, 43.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, would you be so kind to call on a codes committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Codes committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Codes to Speaker's Conference Room, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, we'd like to take up more bills on the debate list. In this order, if we could turn our attention to calendar three eighty on page 31 by miss Paulin followed by calendar three ninety eight on page 33 by mister Wepprin, and calendar four twenty two on page 35 by miss Glick.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Page 31, calendar number three eighty, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number one zero three one two a, calendar three eighty, Ms. Pollan. An act to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Pollan.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Yes, of course. Thank you. The bill requires residential healthcare facilities nursing homes to give additional information to residents and their families.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: It's a

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: transparency bill.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mr. Jensen?

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Happy to.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you very kindly. You mentioned in your explanation that it would require nursing homes to post more information. What is that information?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: So, all nursing homes you know have suppliers and have service professionals and it would just post the information as to what they are or who they are.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: Where would this information have to be posted?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: It would be posted on their website.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: They wouldn't have to post it in a conspicuous location within the facility itself?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: We say specifically that each residential health care facility shall post information. I see. Including the current board, including staffing, I'm just reading, shall post such information on the facility's website. The commissioner shall publish information related to the facility. It's on the website.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: So they would only have to post this information on the website. Would they have to provide this information and disclose it to residents and families as part of the intake application when considering or admitting new residents to the nursing home?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I would imagine that since it's on the website, it's readily available. But if asked, it doesn't require them to. But I would imagine they would offer it.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: So this bill doesn't require I just want to make sure I'm correct because my understanding was this legislation would require an explanation of the ownership structure of the facility including the current board of directors and members of any limited liability entity and any contractors involved with major function of a facility to be posted on the website along with provided to through the admissions process?

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: So

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: you know what? You're right in that they would have to give it at intake as well because it's part of the overall package as referenced in Section one, Subdivision 13 of Section 2,803 of the public health law. So since we already require families having getting all this information at intake, they should this would also be included and it would be an explanation of the ownership structure of the facility.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: So why would upon considering for themselves or for a family member, why would the members of a board of directors who in a not for profit facility are volunteers or who holds the contract to provide food services or linen, why would that need to be supplied in a packet for admission, especially when it is the application of those and the use of those contracts and the actual paid staff who are providing care and other associated services within that facility, why would that matter and need to be provided at point of admission?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: You know, these facilities have are mostly Medicaid for the most part, nursing homes. You know, 80% is paid by state dollars. And by giving information out whether or not those state dollars are being used maximally, you know, is very important I think for the public that hence the website. I

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: would agree that it's important especially for us and for taxpayers at large.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I understand. Was going to get to that. Why it's important for because if for example, as you when you have a loved one going into a nursing home, have choices. You know, this nursing home or that nursing home. Sometimes you make the decision based on geography. This gives additional information to those families because perhaps one of the contractors, you know, that the nursing home is using is someone they're familiar with and they know that they're not the best. You know, because these are usually you put a loved one near you, so you could have a lot of familiarity with the different contractors and the different service providers that a nursing home is using. So it gives the families some context based on the information they get. Now obviously, you know, if it's all family members, maybe that's you know, they'll be very happy because it's a family run business. And I know some nursing homes that are family run businesses and they like to employ and have family do most things. But perhaps there's a reason to avoid that. So this way family who's using that facility knows all the information.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: So on the second part of what you mentioned about knowing that maybe you know that you don't like a certain laundry company and if the linens are being washed by a third party contractor who may operate another laundry service and they messed up your clothes so you don't want to go to them, why would they have to have that information supplied at admission if the information is also on the website, accessible on the website or on the Department of Health's website? I guess why do we have to add such a mandated step for these facilities that are already dealing with staffing concerns on information that I have not heard one constituent in my six years ever call and have a negative view shared about a launderer or a food service worker or an environmental service contractor. And when I worked in a nursing home, I never had anybody complain about the launderer or the food service. It's mainly about, if there are complaints, they're normally about the care being provided, which we already have laws in the state to make very clear disclosures of the five star ratings that actually level care and quality outcomes?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: There's every reason to have someone who's using a facility know every bit of information. There's no reason since the information is going to be required to be on a website and you see merit in that. There's no downside to having the families also have that information.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: So with going off that statement that you just said that there's no downside for having families or residents know all the information, would you support a bill that would make every healthcare provider in the state list every employee on a publicly accessible website so they know who could be providing care to themselves or a loved one?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Every employee. There's a lot of employees.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: So, agree there are limits to the amount of public information that people need to know or be aware of in a care setting if they're receiving care for themselves or a loved one.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: But if for example, because complaints are going to be known by going on DOH website, right? So if you see repeated complaints in a certain way and then you see why because the information is disclosed to you at intake, you know, it's there are questions raised you know regarding those complaints and this way it's all very transparent. This is just about transparency.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: But when you go in for admission and you're getting the list of the stack of paperwork that you're getting which also includes by law how you file a complaint and see the status of complaints and talk with the ombudsman, there's already a mechanism to check complaints. It's not going to say whether or not the complaint was over who has the contract to do the laundry in the facility, or who the food service provider is. It's going to be for the act of immediate harm or a complaint or poor quality outcomes for a facility which is already readily accessible via the Department of Health and federal CMS website. So going back to my original line of questioning, why does this information need to be provided in the admissions paperwork including a list of employees or board of directors that you have previously admitted doesn't need to be information that you need to have because some information doesn't, is improper to be disclosed.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I guess I would just turn it around and say why isn't this information that you you wouldn't want to know?

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: I guess my question would be why would it matter who the board of directors member is who's a volunteer of their time at a nursing home when they don't have a direct role in the care process? They're not the one holding the nursing home administrator license, and they're not the one with the ultimate authority of the facility. They are a member of the board of directors.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I go back to, know, these are state dollars, and we want to be very aware of what is being spent. And if there's a nursing home that is using all family members, for example, and we know there's complaints about that nursing home in general, we would also be suspect as to why there is such why all the money essentially being spent in a way that isn't providing the best care.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: All nursing homes are inappropriately spending Medicaid dollars? No. But you just this requires all this is a provision that covers every nursing home in the state, correct?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: It's the the provision isn't that onerous.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: In your opinion. My question is why does it just because something isn't onerous doesn't mean we shouldn't make it law. But I don't see and I understand that this is a in the weeds type of legislation, but it's not just one thing. So we're concerned about how we're gonna spend Medicaid dollars. Well, don't we have a Medicaid inspector general that's investigating these things or should be investigating these things?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: It's a lot easier to find the information if it's posted on the website.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: Okay. Okay. We'll go with it. Then why do I need it Why do they need to supply at the admissions process when it's already on the state's website or it'd be on the facility's website? Why does there have to be a piece of paper handed by someone to a family that's being overwhelmed as they're putting their loved one in a congregate care setting and changing the very nature of that person's life to then get another piece of information to say well here's who does the laundry, here who does the thing. Oh here's how the care is going be provided. How are you going to get all her clothes here? Why is it needed? Why do you have to know at point of admission who the board of directors are?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I think it's very important when someone puts their loved one in a facility to have as much information as possible. It could make it would make that family feel a lot more confident in that placement to have that disclosure or any amount of disclosure, total disclosure. They know who to call if there's a problem. They know who's to blame if there's an issue. They know who to reward if there's a great service.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: But doesn't that already happen now because when you're admitted to a nursing home whether on rehab or as a permanent resident, you are already introduced within the first few hours of being a resident of that facility. You are introduced to the nurse manager. You are introduced to members of the administration. You're introduced to the director of rehab. You're introduced to and I know this because I've worked in a nursing home, which I believe I'm the only member of this chamber who has ever worked in a nursing home. You're introduced to all of these people within the first few hours, if not the first day within a facility. Having the name of the of a member of the board of directors, if there's something going on with my family, you really want New Yorkers randomly calling up boards of directors who are volunteers saying that their loved one had a problem? Wouldn't they be going through the person who's licensed to administer the facility?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I will tell you that I have had many complaints to my office about nursing homes and assisted living facilities. And it's very important to have as much disclosure as you can. I have my own personal story when I put my mother in a nursing home and after two weeks, I took her right out. Because there was no transparency, there was no one to complain to, there was no information given, And it was a very, very difficult familial experience. So I can tell you that maybe you were in a special nursing home, maybe that is where maybe 80% of the nursing homes are great. And I would probably say the percentage is even higher. But if you are a family member that has, God forbid, put your parent or loved one in a facility that's not that great, you need to be able to have the information necessary to make those complaints, to understand the problems, and to take action. I had a situation where a constituent called and the the we had to go to a very high channel, very high level in order to get remedy for that family. And I needed to know who was on the board of directors in order to help that constituent.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: So I'm going go back to your example because you brought it up about your mother. I'm sorry that she had a negative experience. I don't think anybody should have a negative experience. Would Would have knowing who did the laundry at that nursing home made a difference with the situation of admitting your mother to that facility?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Laundry was not the issue.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Was the

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: food service? But if it had been, then yes. You know, when someone puts them, their parent in a nursing home, there's a lot of things that are going on. And one of those things happens to be laundry. And if you know that the you know it doesn't always rise to a level that is going to be remedied, frankly, by the professional there because it could be everybody is having the laundry issue. So by knowing who is doing the laundry, yes, could that help? Absolutely. As could providing any of the information. And again, most nursing homes, most facilities do right by their patients, But in those that don't, this information could be very useful.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you Chairwoman for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bell.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bell.

[Assemblymember Mr. Jensen (full name unconfirmed)]: I appreciate the sponsor's desire and the desire of a lot of the members in this chamber to ensure that whether it's nursing homes, whether it's other healthcare facilities or other businesses or not for profits that people, especially New Yorkers, an understanding about, at the end of the day, who is responsible for the things that happen. However, we have a commissioner of health. We have a state Medicaid director. We have a Medicaid inspector general. We have nursing homes ombudsman. We require that every nursing home in this state be administered by a licensed nursing home administrator. We have tremendous oversight by New York State of the individuals who operate nursing homes, whether they're public, private, for profit, not for profit. We have passed numerous laws in the state to mandate even more disclosure on ensuring that nursing homes post the things that actually matter in a nursing home, like quality of care, level of complaints, quality ratings, and a five star rating that is often out of date due to DOH's failure to adequately follow the law in the inspecting of nursing homes. Now, I do concede and admit that having as much information as possible about a nursing home or any health care facility is critically important. And if this bill were just saying that the information had to be disclosed on a website, either the facility's own website or the Department of Health website, that would be one thing. But with this legislation mandating that every nursing home upon giving an admissions packet to any potential family or resident who's being admitted will have no discernible outcome or provide any information that would change the fact whether or not somebody is going to be admitted or want to be admitted to a nursing home. Knowing who a volunteer board of director member, who is responsible for laundering or for environmental services. Because at the end of the day, any contract that is signed with a nursing home facility is under the oversight of the licensed nursing home administrator, who's ultimately responsible, under license, to the Department of Health to ensure that all services, all care, are provided to the best of the ability. And if they are not, they are hopefully investigated by the State Department of Health. I believe this is an unneeded, unnecessary measure. I understand the need for transparency. I understand the need for sharing information. But if we were really concerned about the use of Medicaid dollars and being spent more efficiently and effectively, disclosing who does the laundry is not information that is germane to that fact. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will be a no on this bill, but if there are yes votes, now would be the time to cast them at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, mister Paul.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this legislation or this bill. If, those would like to vote in a different direction, they could do so at in the chamber.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 95. Nays, 41.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed, mister Fall, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. On behalf of our colleague representing the 24th Assembly District, mister Wepprin, we have Michael Kidd Gilgrist who is a former NBA player for the Charlotte Hornets and Dallas Mavericks as well as doctor Peggy Connor who's a speech language therapist and co chapter for the National Stuttering Association. They are here to raise raise awareness during stuttering awareness week. You could be so kind to welcome the distinguished guest of Mr. Weppard.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On behalf of Mr. Weppard, the speaker, and all members, we welcome you back, Mr. Gilchrist, to the assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hoping you enjoy our proceedings and doctor as well and your group. It's amazing the work that you have been able to do on and off the court and bringing awareness to stuttering issues. So, having a face like yours, some people may think seeing someone like you, they can relate to and understand the issues. So, thank you for bringing that forward and for your advocacy. And thank you for joining us again today. Pleasure to see you. Page 33, calendar number three ninety eight. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 1719, calendar three ninety eight, mister Wepprin. Enact to amend the public health law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Wepprin.

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill amends section forty one seventy four of the public health law to prohibit charging a fee to obtain a certified copy or certified transcript of birth when the Department of Corrections and Supervision or a local correctional facility requests such an individual under community supervision. Individuals often need state issued identification to access social services, secure housing, and apply for employment. These are all key factors that contribute to the individual successfully reintegrating into the community after serving an incarceratory sentence. Many people returning from incarceration do not have a state issued identification and obtaining such identification frequently requires providing a copy of a birth certificate, access to which can be costly. In 2010, legislation was enacted to provide birth certificates from the state health department and the New York City Bureau of Vital Statistics at no charge to state and local correctional facilities, as well as to New York City DOC when requested for the purpose of providing such certificate to an inmate, to an incarcerated individual in anticipation of such. Inmates released from custody. This bill modifies existing law to expand those provisions to include requests made on behalf of individuals under community supervision to promote successful reentry of those individuals.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mister Molotore.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: I'd be happy to.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Thank you. Mr. Weppard, it's my understanding that under the public health law there are already a number of exceptions in which the fee is waived for certain documents. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: There are there are certain circumstances, but, this would, codify, it for all individuals in that situation.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: And the individuals that you're you're speaking of are parolees. Right?

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: Not necessarily. We're talking about formerly incarcerated individuals that are no longer, you know, incarcerated.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Yes. The the bill language the bill text adds this would be line sixteen and seventeen. It says well, reading it sorry, 14, certified transcript of birth to an incarcerated individual in anticipation of such incarcerated individuals release from custody or to an individual and this is your language or to an individual under community supervision in connection with such individuals ongoing supervision in the community. That's parolees.

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: That's what I'm sorry? Parolees. I guess it doesn't have to be. It's someone that's under community supervision.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Well that's what community supervision is. It's parole supervision.

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: Okay. I'll grant you that.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Okay. And

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: there's already an exception in the law for individuals seeking birth certificates for employment purposes, right? Yes. And for individuals who are trying to gain admission to school entrance, right? I believe so. And for public assistance?

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: Yes. Right?

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: And the law currently also has an exception for those incarcerated individuals who are in DOCS facilities. So if you're sentenced to a state prison sentence while you're in prison, if you need to get a birth certificate in anticipation of getting some document, you can get it and the fee is already waived. So the question I have is why do we need to extend this waiver to parolees?

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: Because they are similarly situated and the the expense can be, you know, mean something to certain individuals especially if they're not currently employed.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Let's talk about the expense. So it's my understanding if you need to get a birth certificate and you were born outside New York City, you're looking at somewhere between $30 and $53 Okay. And if you were born in New York City, cost of a birth certificate is about $15 these are not astronomically large numbers. It's not like that's a lot of money. I did some quick math here. If you're in prison on a minimum sentence, let's say sixteen months, that's about fifty eight weeks, and you work in prison for about ten hours a week, would granted if you were getting the minimum pay which is 10¢ per hour, you'd make $58. You'd be able to cover the cost of a birth certificate.

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: Well, first of all, that does not sound like a lot of money to me. Well, you're in prison. I understand but it's still way below minimum wage by by in any jurisdiction by any standards and it can be costly. People use that money for their to get extra food or to get commissary items while you're incarcerated. So it's not you know, the fee you just mentioned for the birth certificate can be substantial for those individuals.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: I understand. Thank you, Mr. Weppard. On the bill.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: So as I laid out, as we debated this bill, there's already a number of exceptions. You know, if someone is a parolee and they need a birth certificate for employment purposes, the fee's waived. If they're a parolee and they need a birth certificate for educational purposes, the fee's waived. If they need it for public assistance, the fee's waived, just like anyone else. So what's the problem here? Well, the problem is that if you're a parolee who's lost your birth certificate or it was accidentally destroyed or it was stolen, you get an exception under the law that law abiding citizens don't get. A law abiding citizen who has misplaced their birth certificate, they don't get the fee waived, they have to pay it. And I just think that's fundamentally unfair that we're giving a benefit to somebody who violated the law. And so I'll be voting in the negative, and I'd encourage all my colleagues to vote that way as well. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Ayes, one eleven. Nays, 25.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Page 35, calendar number four twenty two, clerk will read.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Assembly number ninety five ninety eight, calendar number four twenty two, miss Glick, An act to amend the state finance law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Glick. Well

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: let me start by saying what the bill does and a little bit of what the bill doesn't do so maybe we can address some of the questions that will come up. There is an existing part of our finance law that already limits the procurement of tropical hardwoods. This bill updates and expands that and it also updates and expands the definition of tropical forest. It does, as a result, cover more products and mixed content products. And it creates some narrow temporary exemptions for certain uses for the MTA, for bridges, for ferry service where there is a period of time that they can continue and gets reviewed and could be the end date for that exemption could be delayed by a review that alternatives are still not available. What it doesn't do is create a new section of law. It's updating a previous one. And it doesn't ban every hardwood product. It's focused on tropical hardwoods with the exception of for secondary materials. And it does not immediately phase out those things, as I mentioned, that are crucial to transit, ferry and bridge applications, which is a primary concern. And this is under the review of the Department of Environmental Conservation.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mr. Durso?

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I will though I thought I

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: had covered You it mister

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: you you did miss Glick. I apologize. I just wanted to get some clarity on a couple of things. So thank you for allowing me to ask you some questions. So when you as you explained, tropical hardwoods, there's already a prohibition on certain ones?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Yes. There's a there's a fairly extensive list, but this adds some additional species.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. And then I I I believe I saw a list that had a numerous hardwoods on there that are already not allowed to be used within New York State. Correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. And this is how many hardwoods is this adding? I

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I would have to go back to the bill and count, but it's probably dozen, two dozen, something like that.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: So, it's not just one or two different

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: types It's of hardwoods, it's significant a review because it added, when I said originally that there was a change in the definition of tropical forest, it's those that are in a tropical moist forest and that added those that are growing in those threatened areas.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Understood. So can you explain to me what those hardwood projects or excuse me hardwood would be used for on specific projects now? So in other words you had mentioned MTA, you mentioned ferries I believe. Do you know what those hogwoods are used for now specifically in those projects and is there a viable alternative now?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, for for the ferry and the MTA, is it pronounced e k? Ecky is one and Greenwood, Green Heartwood. Those are, one is used for like railroad ties and the other, the green heartwood is These are very hard dense materials. So those are used on bridges and on ferry, wharfs, docks, very dense, good for heavy use marine operations. This is not the kind of which you would necessarily use on a recreational dock. This is more for heavy use.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Understood. And is there a viable alternative to those hardwoods now that we so and and I only asked that, and I apologize. It's more of a two part question. Because I know it says on here the MTA is allowed to use it until 2032 for certain projects. Is is that correct? Ferry services till 2035. New York City Department of Transportation until 2035. If there is a viable alternative now for those hardwoods and other tropical hardwoods, why wait so long?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, you know, we allow for a transition period. The MTA I know is already moving towards the use of concrete and composite materials. But I would be foolish to think that they didn't have some stockpile and that they are while they are exploring the what they've done in terms of a transition, I'm sure they want to study how long it holds up and how well they can maintain it and the like and that would give them time for them to do that transition. But we also allow for them to go to DOB and say, you know, we need additional time and the bill, we wouldn't have to come back to do something. The bill already allows for there to be an extension.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Who would and who would do that extension? I apologize. I didn't mean to interrupt.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Would that be DEC or DOB? DOB.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. So they would make that determination if there's a viable alternative at that time for those products and then they're allowed is is there a limit on the extensions, number extension, years?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, we we start with allowing the continued use for example for ferry service, wharfs, for them till 2035, they would get an additional five years if there is some determination by DOB, which we don't require them to talk to DEC but I think they would. They would have another five years. And we don't do an extension beyond that but you know every legislature can, know in 2040 you can discuss whether they should get another extension.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Please I hope that we

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: will not be here to be part of that conversation.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Well, don't wish that upon me to be here that long, but thank you. So with that being said, had mentioned though in your statement in the beginning, your explanation, excuse me, mixed used products. Can you give me an example of what a mixed used product would be? Is there like a percentage of that hardwood that cannot be in that mixed used product? Is it only for certain things?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, I think some of those may be in composite. So if there is a certain we don't have a percentage included in this, but if it's part as a secondary material in something, so I would imagine that probably some of the composites would be an example.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Right. So when we're talking about composites, you mean like pressed wood furniture, correct? Things like that?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Yes. But I would think that that would not I think the cost of these tropical hardwoods not likely to be used in that particular unless it was an extraordinarily high end kind of

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: And that would be my question. I don't know off the top of my head how expensive these hardwoods are to use in products. So that was really my question. Do you is there any concern or have you heard any concern when it comes to exist existing product that companies may already have? Or Well, is perspective. So this is just going forward.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: This is perspective.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: So if there's companies that use and and maybe they don't like you said because it's an expensive material, Some kind of mixed wood product. Would they still be able to sell it within New York State?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: This is state purchase.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Oh, it's only state purchase.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: This is state

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Oh, that's even better.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: This is

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: this is state procurement.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: I knew that and I apologize for bringing it

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: up. We buy desks. We purchase desks. But I would say that we're not purchasing desks that have tropical hardwood in it.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Understood. Just two more questions if you don't mind, Ms. Glick. Do you know of any existing projects state wise that are going on that are using these products that may go past this deadline?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Not off the top of my head. And as I say, it's perspective. So it's once this goes into effect, once it's signed it's ninety days after. So I wouldn't think that. Of course there's always perhaps some material that is still around. This is about purchasing

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Going forward.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Going forward. So I think the time frames allow for any existing product line to be used up.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Understood. And then actually just to jump on that. So if there's a state project that's going on currently now that's already been approved, waiting to start, and some of those products were already included whether it's some kind of tropical hardwood that now would fall under this bill. Are they still allowed to use it because it was the project was approved prior?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Yes. One this is procurement.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Right. So just going forward.

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: Once the

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Ninety days after this, if a new project was to pop up, you can't use these tropical hardwoods within that state contract.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Yes. And if if it's, again, temp where they're needed temporarily. But there isn't outside of some of these other applications, is since there's already been a prohibition on procurement of tropical hardwoods, by and large that's not a lot of what the state is procuring. We're just saying that this is looking at some tightening of the prohibition. I would think it is unlikely that this touches on anything other than those that are used for the very specialized applications. And one would come mostly from Western Africa and another one comes mostly from Northeast South America. So I think it's pretty limited. Most of the purchase would be for the specialized applications. These conversations were done with Office of General Services. So a lot of this was done understanding what the procurement is and has been and what would not dramatically affect anything that is in the pipeline.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Okay. And then and there's Because we

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: changed some things. We took some things, you know.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: I know it's if the bill is different than the the prior duration of

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: the bill, correct?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Yes. Very much.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Yes. So my last question would be, you said it's for state contracts. Correct? It it's it's it's not for anything where it's a not for profit company, a museum, anything like that receives any type of state money that may need

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: affect grants?

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Certain of these hardwoods to be able to keep the the look or or or or museum quality, you you know, per se.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I don't believe that this in any way affects the purchasing capacity of a nonprofit, as you say, a museum or something that is utilizing a state grant.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Got it. So it's only for

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: It's when OGS is making the purchases a state agency itself which might not be OGS, there may be a direct purchase but this would affect a state agency.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: But if a contractor that's doing a a project bid on a project or, like you said, a not for profit, a museum, some of the type of entity that receives a state grant or state funds would still be allowed to use those hardwood products. It's just more for a state run project?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: It is for state procurement that if there was a federal requirement or restriction because some that might impact a project but not not this.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Got it.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Thank you, Glick. I appreciate you answering my questions.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Thank you, madam speaker. My pleasure.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Mister Brown?

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you, speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes, the sponsor yield.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you Madam sponsor. I just have one main question. Would this bill be applicable to restoration projects, state restoration projects? I'll expand what I mean on that. We're in a beautiful I'm a student of architecture, a simple carpenter. When I saw the bill come up I did

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: a little tour of the

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: building. We're in a Richardsonian Romanesque structure that's beautifully maintained. We have the now $72,000,000 staircase being repaired outside, and I took a look throughout to see where we would have tropical rainforest woods that just like we did on the million dollar staircase, had put justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You know, do restoration projects. I noticed that we have mahogany door paneling, rosewood furniture, a number of ebony inlays, quite a bit of teak. I saw a lot of satin woods on the doors throughout the structure. And matter of fact, all the wood in this building is from the rainforest. So what would how would a state contract work on restoration projects or maybe it's not applicable?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Well, this would not give an exemption to the to a historic restoration if it's a new project. But I will tell you that you can make wood look very much like a different wood from my own experience of working at Steinway Piano. So not all of the wood that you might see on a piano that you think is walnut is actually walnut. I think that there wouldn't be an inability to color match and have similar grain effect for particular restoration.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: I so appreciate the answer. I certainly would be very interested to hear more about your experience at Steinway. That really is interesting and it is true. I've owned many cabinet shops and factories and it's true we can. However, just ask on certain restoration where you have to be true to the historical purpose, you know, ticking of grain you can't reproduce especially with the mahogany's and the marantes and all of that. Would that be allowed on simple restorations?

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: If it's a new project and the state is doing the procurement, the answer is no.

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: Thank you, madam sponsor.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: A party vote has been requested, miss Walsh.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will generally be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if any members wish to vote yes, now would be the time to cast their votes accordingly at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they can do so here in the chamber.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Glick to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: Thank you very much. Briefly, I just want to thank the members for the questions. The bill is important because we should not, as a state, provide more of a market for tropical hardwoods that are endangered and see more deforestation. These are unique and important forests that we should be part of helping to preserve by not being a market to cut them down. So and I do believe that in most instances we have appropriate wood species to compensate and the state will not be actually might save money by having to think a little more broadly and not go for the first thing they think of is this tropical hardwood. So I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, Ms. Glick, in the affirmative. Mister Palmisano to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Philip A. Palmesano]: Madam speaker, I heard part of

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: the debate

[Assemblymember Philip A. Palmesano]: and I'm actually gonna vote yes on this bill. The main reason is from the sponsor's memo is because it talks about violations of land rights of indigenous people in local communities and with the exploitation of workers, including forced labor and child labor. So it's nice to see this house wants to do about something about child labor on this issue. I hope this house takes some issue and takes action on child labor. When we talk about electric vehicles and the batteries, the fact of the matter, with child labor, we know those batteries are sourced with cobalt and lithium, and the cobalt is sourced, 70% of it is extracted in the Democratic Republic Of Congo, well documented. They use child labor, so it's nice to see this house wanting to do something about child labor on this issue. I wish they do something about child labor on the other issues. So I'm gonna vote yes on this bill specifically for that point. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mister Palmisano in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: It's 98. Nay is 38.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Thank you madam speaker. I'd like to take up more bills on the debate list. And we turn our attention to calendar four forty eight on page 37 by mister Sajid. Calendar one zero two on page 14 by miss Rosenthal, followed by calendar two nineteen on page 23 by miss Torres.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Page 37, calendar number four forty eight, Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number two six zero five. Calendar four forty eight. Mister Sayesh, enact to amend the public service law and the public authorities law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Sayesh.

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. This bill is about transparency, preparedness, and accountability. This bill requires utility companies and public authorities to publicly post the results of outage management system stress tests. The very test we presently use to determine whether utilities are prepared to respond to major storms, national disasters, and widespread outages. New Yorkers depend on electricity, heat, water, and communication services every single day. When severe weather strikes, families deserve confidence that utility providers are prepared. This legislation ensures that critical preparedness information is no longer hidden from the public or lawmakers. Simply put, if utilities are testing their systems, the public deserves to know whether those systems can actually withstand a crisis. Again, requires utility, public authorities and service providers conduct an outage management system stress test to publicly post the results online and provide to the temporary president to the senate, speaker of the assembly, senate and assembly energy committee chairs and members, and defines a stress test as an evaluation of a utility's ability to respond to large scale weather events, natural disasters, and major service interruptions.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Mister Lamondes.

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: Of course.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: Thank you, mister Syed. Recognizing everything that you just said, I'm wondering if you could if you could comment on how this bill would identify issues and facilitate faster resolution of the very things you just stated. And I say that in the context of it seems that this is already in process. You know, for example, yesterday while we were sitting here, I received notification of my own business losing its power. It was done very well, very promptly, told me of the expected duration. And then when it was returned, I got the same the next message saying, everything is good. Your power is restored, etcetera. So could you comment

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: on Sure. This codifies existing law. Utility companies already provide and perform these tests annually, stimulating severe storms where customers lose 90% power. We're not changing any existing requirement, but codifying to your point that we're extending and expanding a practice we think is important to consumers to have. Very often, as we see the norm is there's a place in process, there's a process to give information, but the posting online is not always guaranteed and is not always practiced. We saw in the case of the storm Isaias that nearly 650,000 customers that had power outages weren't informed. And my belief, if the legislative body at the very least had notice of these test results, we would be better prepared as we move forward to plan and put together policy and procedures that better plan and better protect. As we know, you know we've dealt with the storm of the century, and we now know it's become a common practice. So yes, we all look to maintain cost. We all look to maintain our ability to keep utility costs down, but at the same time, I think it's our obligation to assure whether through expanding existing or codifying existing that we assure that we get proper notice and we're allowed to deal with the notice we're given in a proper way.

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: Thank you. And you hit on a very important point, the affordability of cost in energy. And I I think as we sit in the current environment that we're all in, tinkering with anything else with our energy and its provision that might add cost is the last thing that this body should be doing. Could you

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: just I comment on think utilities, as I said, already performed these stress tests. We're not asking them to do anything new. This is really saying to them, hey, you're doing the stress test, give us notice. Post it online and give the legislative body the information. So, in my opinion, I really don't see an additional cost, or if anything very very nominal. And therefore, you know in light of the minimal cost, transparency should never be avoided because information may be complex. I think public agencies already routinely release technical reports and lawmakers can make this information available to improve oversight and help us better prepare.

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: Thank you. So are you saying that through the convocation of this that their existing concept of operations don't distribute this information. It seems as if, I'm going back to my original statement, that it is already readily

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: Correct. This doesn't change existing practices. This focus is on posting the notice or the results of the test already done. The only difference is that it gets posted and it gets delivered to the legislative governmental body here to at least have the information when we look at what we need to do to address potential harms that delays and the lack of preparedness may cause.

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: So on that point, and thank you for making that, recognizing that this bill is generally not opposed, it similarly is generally not supported by by by the energy companies. What makes it then necessary? I would think I I would think if it was if it was really necessary, we would have strong support, and and if there were reasons to strongly oppose it, we would have that, but we have neither.

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: Well, I the information may be available to some, but the lack of proper notice, and for me as a legislator, and you as a legislator, I think we would want to know, and we would want the results of such to come to our energy committees, to our chairs, to our speaker, to our system of government so we can address these. This is more information. This is allowing us to better prepare and allowing us to protect our constituents. It's more information.

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: Of course. Thank thank you, mister Sayagyi. Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember John Lemondes Jr.]: So in recognition of everything that we we just discussed, I think that the systems and procedures in place are adequate. As I said, I I just myself yesterday, I got notification of a power outage of my own business, and I I I got the notification was sent to my phone. It told me everything I needed to know without asking, and it also told me when that restoration would take place and that it was in fact, restored. So with respect to this bill, I I think it's redundant and duplicative. And because it doesn't have support, I just can't discern any benefits through its enactment, and therefore would recommend voting against it because it seems to be just one more thing that is already provided for down to the customer level. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The clerk will record the vote. Mister Assayes to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. This bill is a common sense transparency measure that helps protect New Yorkers before the next major storm arrives. The bill does not create new testing requirements. It simply ensures that the results of existing utility stress tests are shared with the public and policy makers. When outrage affects hundreds of thousands of residents, transparency matters, being prepared matters, and accountability matters. I thank my colleagues and ask that we support this very important legislation as we continue to be concerned about utility bills, and keeping the cost of utility bills down, but at the same time, taking measures that protect our constituents, and assures that if simple measures of notice and follow-up and planning are put into effect, then it really helps us not only keep costs down, but potentially save lives. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Mister Saj in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Page 14, calendar number one zero two. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 3121, calendar one zero two. Ms. Rosenthal, enact to amend the real property tax law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On a motion by Ms. Rosenthal, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Rosenthal.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: This bill would prohibit a landlord from assessing a fee or other charge for the use of an automated clearing house payment for the payment of rent and require the landlord to provide a lessee or tenant a method for the payment of rent that does not incur a fee or other charge assessed by the landlord.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mr. Gandolfo.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Thank you madam speaker, would the sponsor yield please?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay, thank you very much. So first, why do we need this bill?

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: We need this bill because increasingly landlords are requiring that tenants use a portal like an ACH to pay their rent and they are charging them a convenience fee for the tenant to use it.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. So the landlord is requiring as the only payment method for the tenant Yes. Would carry that extra fee. Okay. So I see the language in here that says you can have a payment method that might incur a fee, but you also must accept, let's say, cash or check, which would be a no fee payment. Is that correct?

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: Yeah.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: So if the landlord is offering or will now have to offer the option to pay with cash or check with no fee incurred, why would we have to prohibit them from charging a fee for the online ACH payment?

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: You know there is a lot of confusion out there about the fee, if tenants have to pay it, if landlords can assess it and this just clarifies the whole subject matter.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Right, but so that it's providing that there has to be a fee free option of So if that's the case, if the landlord then also wants to have this other option, it might be easier for everybody involved to pay online. Why couldn't they assess a fee that they might be getting assessed by their bank?

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: Because paying online is a convenience for the landlord. They get their money quicker. And the tenant, you know, can send in a check. So just to say, can't do that.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Right. But if they could send in the check at no additional fee, so why wouldn't a tenant choose that option every time if they choose the online payment option when there's a free option available and that online payment costs the landlord to be able to process that payment, why couldn't they pass that on? Because they are allowing for a payment without a fee already.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: But if they are saying you have to pay through electronically, then the tenant might not know and the landlord may not know that they're not allowed. They should not charge a fee. This just prohibits any kind of fee.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Right. But this bill is rectifying the fact that some a landlord might have only one option to pay and it would incur a fee. But this bill rectifies that by saying you can't only have that one option with the fee. It says you also have to have a fee free option with the the cash or the checks. And if that's the case, why couldn't they continue to charge the fee for the online payment?

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: But why should the tenant pay more than their rent?

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Because they're choosing to pay by an option that incurs a fee to the landlord. If they the the tenant could also choose to pay by cash or check according to this bill and incur no fee. So if the tenant chooses to use the convenient online payment system and the cost of that convenience might be one or 2%, why can't the landlord pass that back on to the tenant?

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: Because it's really most most beneficial for the landlord. They get the money right away. A tenant can send a check although increasingly fewer people have checks. You can use a money order but it should not be assessed on the tenant who already usually pays a lot of rent. Why should they pay extra

[Speaker 0]: Well, they

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: on their rent?

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: They don't have to pay extra. They could send a check and that would

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: They not can.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: And that would be free, correct? There would be no charge.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: They can. I mean the landlord doesn't have to offer an online system.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. Well, if it's easier for people to pay online, wouldn't it be less convenient for the tenant? I know I'm someone, I pay everything online, I get my direct deposit, I never have cash. I like the option to pay online. Would it stand to reason that a tenant might also like having that convenient option instead of having to now go buy checks so they could mail in

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: the check?

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: Mean that could be the fee free method.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. Alright. Just moving so I'm looking at the statute here and section two thirty five gs. So, is existing law. It says a landlord shall not require a lessee or tenant to use an electronic billing and or payment system as the only method of rent. So, that's already law.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: Yes. That was that was a bill I introduced in 2010.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: I'm not surprised. Oh, and it goes on to say a landlord shall not assess any fee or other charge for a lessee or tenant who chooses not to use the electronic billing or payment system.

[Assemblymember Joseph Angelino]: So Yes.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: If they off they can't make it the only one and they can't charge them for using cash or check.

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: Right.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: So, now we're going on to say you also can't charge them for using the electronic payments system. Correct. So, you can't charge them.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: In instances could a landlord charge a fee?

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: I think if well, if a tenant pays by credit card, then the credit card company would assess a fee.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay, now would this apply to let's say a landlord who accepts Venmo or PayPal?

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: You know, yes. If if if Venmo or PayPal would charge it, you know

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. Because I know Venmo, it doesn't allow personal accounts to be used for business purposes.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: Yeah. But, I think it depends how the user sets up, so how the landlord would set up the platform. You know, if it goes from their bank to the landlord's bank, that's ACH, that probably should not cost anything. It's directly bank to bank. So, it's just you know try to try to encourage landlords to use the fee free which saves everybody a few dollars.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. Now, what about like QuickBooks payment? That's typically ACH but QuickBooks, if you're a commercial user, which you would be, it would charge you a fee on those transactions. So, the landlord would just have to eat that fee then if they provide that method.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: If that's the electronic way they present to their tenant to pay, yes.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay. Alright. Thank you for answering my Madam speaker on the bill.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Madam speaker, this is another example of a bill where we're pushing here that would just make it more difficult for landlords to offer housing to people. It seems like every other week we're back making it more difficult for people who own these properties to have a successful business out of it. Now, a situation like this, if a landlord can't charge a fee for accepting cash or check and can't charge a fee for a more convenient online payment option, I would imagine many landlords might get rid of that online payment option or increase their rent to cover the cost of the fee that they would have charged and that increase would apply to probably all of their tenants rather than the specific few. And if they get rid of the online payment option, what you would have to happen, these tenants would now probably have to go pay to buy checks to be able to mail with stamps that they have to pay for their rent payment into the landlord all to avoid that because the landlord can no longer pass on the fee that they are being charged by their bank or billing service. So I will be in the negative on this bill, madam speaker. I would recommend my colleagues vote against it as well. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Party votes been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will generally be in the negative on this bill. But if there are members who wish to vote yes, now would be the appropriate time to cast that vote at your seat. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this bill. But for those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thanks. The clerk will record the vote. Mister Bologna, to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you, madam speaker. You know, a lot of these these tenants and landlord bills oftentimes hit close to home. I know that there's a lot of owner occupied duplexes and landlords that are just small mom and pop shops that that are just trying to help either pay for retirement, pay for their own mortgage, supplement their income, and a lot of these burdens make it more difficult on them. One thing that always continually surprises me in this house is that we do our best to to not let people negotiate between themselves. We we we minimize and diminish contracts, whether it's lease agreements, you know, agreements between two parties, and we try to insert ourselves into that process. I think that is antithetical to capitalism in general. If you don't like the way a fee structure is put out into a lease agreement, rent someplace else. That is not that difficult of a concept. And in this state, we need to try to stop saving people from themselves in in that regard. So with that, I'll be emphatically voting no on this piece of legislation.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mr. Belong in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 93. Nays, 43.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall, for the purpose of an announcement.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. On behalf of our colleague from the Upper West Side Of Manhattan, miss Rosenthal, we have a group of seventh grade students here with us from the Joshua Heschel School an Assembly Member Rosenthal's district. Every year they make the visit to Albany to better understand how state government operates and they're here today to understand the proceedings of the Assembly. So if you could be so kind to welcome miss Rosenthal's guests to the People's House, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On behalf of mister Ful, miss Rosenthal, the speaker, and all members, welcome back young people from the Abraham Joshua Heschel School. We welcome you to the chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hope you will enjoy our proceedings today. And we extend to you best wishes for your continued academic success and keep up your great work of civic engagement. It will take you very far. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Page 23, calendar number two nineteen. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number eight nine zero six, calendar two nineteen, miss Torres, enact to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation has been requested. Miss Torres.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill requires entities that access a consumer's credit report to notify such consumer about their right to obtain a credit freeze.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mister Bologna.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you, madam speaker. With the sponsor yield fair few quick questions?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: For the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Catalina Cruz]: Of course.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you very much. Okay. So it is my understanding under federal law this is in a roundabout way already kind of required. Is that

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: moderately accurate? So under federal law and under state law, credit reporting agencies under limited circumstances can, should be, and are required to provide you with information about a credit freeze. What this bill does is it requires other entities that are involved to also provide information about a credit freeze.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Can you give me some examples maybe of what those like other entities might be? Sure.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: It would be a lender, an insurer, a bank.

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: We just had a bill on landlords. So, if a landlord wants to check someone's credit report, are they now considered an entity?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: Potentially.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Yes. Potentially, Okay. So, I just want to hone in on this. So, if you are a small mom and pop, you know, if someone owns a duplex or something like that, and you have a number of potential tenants and you find some some ones that you want to potentially rent to, and you, you know, check their credit report by if this was implemented, you would now have to send them a kind of essentially a bill

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: of rights on what their It's about a page worth of information about you know the fact that you have access and you have the right the free right to request a credit freeze, how to lift it, how to obtain it.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Okay. So, just for like posterity sake, where is the gap being filled here? Credit reporting agencies are already required to do this and, again, keep in mind, they're credit reporting agencies. I mean, we're talking about TransUnion, Equifax, and

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: The three big ones. Yeah.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you. Mhmm. We're though I mean, those agencies already have the means and the regulation in which they have to send this information. So where does requiring other entities to do this really help the consumer?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: So so in 2025 alone, we saw, according to the New York State Department of 1,300,000 complaints regarding fraud, stolen identities if you will. In 2017, Equifax had a huge breach of data where a 147,000,000 people had their data breached and our information is essentially everywhere.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: And also, this according to federal law and state law, this is applied and applicable in particular circumstances and limited uses. So for example, you have to provide the CRAs have to provide a credit report in the instance that a fraudulent action had occurred. This is more preventative. So, this allows New Yorkers to know that they have an option to freeze their credit when their credit report is pulled.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Correct. And for the record, think it's actually a phenomenal idea to I mean, not giving financial advice, but have have that option, be aware of that because, obviously, we've seen many breaches in the past. But in a practical scenario, let's say I'm shopping for auto loans. Correct? And I try to I go to a number of credit unions, different banks, maybe, you know, the auto dealership themselves, and I'm shopping rates for myself and, you know, they're checking my credit report, doing a hard or soft inquiry. In those scenarios, is is it not conceivable that I, as the consumer, could be receiving, I don't know, up to however many credit checks I'm getting done on myself, and I'm just gonna be getting an influx of mail. Is that is that conceivably possible to happen?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: Well, would I would say, you know, this goes into effect once a consumer approves that their credit report is is pulled. So, you have to approve that as a consumer. You know, banks, credit unions, they do many disclosure Mhmm. Letters and so this would be an additional one. Many of them are automated. I don't think it's a bad thing when you can tell a consumer that they have a right that is free Mhmm. For them to access their to access a credit freeze.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Understandable. But, again, I mean, if we're talking is it it was a very short I mean, the actual it's very short. It's almost one paragraph.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Mhmm.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: But does it is there any specification on whether it's a hard or soft inquiry into that? Because again, if I'm signing a document going in to try to get a loan, is there any type of specification that's a hard or soft inquiry by the entity?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: That's really determined by the entity. So, we don't address that in the bill. That's really determined. And usually the entity will tell you if it's a soft or a hard pull.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: So, within that within the structure of the language then, there's a little bit of ambiguity there. So, are we kind of defaulting? Are we allowing the entities to kind of make their own determination on whether or not they should be sending this information to consumers? So

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: it's it's once again after they approve the report being released, then the entity has to step up and provide the information.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Is that going to be regulated by DFS?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: Because it's general business law. Yes, DFS because it's general business

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: law. Okay. And as far as like smaller credit unions, I mean, again, if they're if they're a credit union or a bank, I mean, I would assume that they would be aware of this. But, again, if you're a mom and pop, you know, landlord or a small business owner, you may not have any idea that this is gonna become a law or become a thing. And and in here, we're talking about fines. I think I read, like, close to $5,000. So, you know, do you have any concern that someone who may not be aware or may have the means to understand what their obligation is as an entity might get pinched or might get in a jam by not sending something out.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: So, fair point. I think there are many entities that provide disclosures like this all of the time and many of them are automated. Mhmm. I would also say for some of the smaller like landlords etcetera, it's a choice to pull someone's credit report to overall assess whether they can pay their rent, etcetera. It's a choice. It's one of many different things that you can choose.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: It is. But but as someone who's done it, it is a choice, but you do it to protect yourself because you wanna make sure someone is reliable and is gonna be able to pay on time. Again, I have friends, family that are, you know, small duplex owners that literally live in one half and rent out the other half to help supplement pay their mortgage. I could promise you that I love these folks. They would have no idea that they're required to do this. So I just I have concerns with those people specifically that they may not even know this is a thing, and they may not have the wherewithal to come up with the language. Is there a template language that maybe that that there is that they could be able to send out?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: there's usually regulations that DFS provides after laws are passed with regard to their the work that they do. So, this would be publicized and those entities would essentially know that this is something they have to do.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Okay. So, with that then, I also noticed there's not necessarily an implementation period here. It's kind of just hitting the ground running. So, do you have any concerns that there's not a lot of runway for entities, again, smaller in stature, to adequately prepare or be be prepared for this? Or are you amenable to any type of amendment that would maybe can take that into consideration?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: I don't have any concerns, but I do think that it's something you know in terms of implementation and you know the operationalization of it, it's something we could certainly talk to DFS about.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Okay. And then there was one more thing I always want to kind of go over like so there was a term advertising or promoting a paid service in the legislation. Under the bill, could that language unintentionally prohibit helpful or legally required disclosures?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: So, This is a free service that is under state and federal law. What a lot of CRAs and other companies, related companies do is they promote paid credit locks, for example. Mhmm. And that's confusing to a consumer because this is free. Yep. So, that's what we're getting at here in terms of marketing because consumers are often confused about whether they can freeze their credit for free or if they have to pay for it. And this is free. We want consumers to know that it's free.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: And this might be a jurisdictional question that I actually don't know the answer to before I'm asking it, so bear with me. Do we have jurisdiction over the credit reporting agencies and just rather than than putting the onus on the entity itself, it on the CRA where every time something is sent out or even a hard inquiry or soft inquiry that we can, you know, go there instead of actually kind of broadening our net, if you will.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: I mean, this is already under federal law, so that already exists. What this bill would do is it requires other entities that are sort of a part of this whole credit ecosystem

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Mhmm.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: To play a role. Yes. No.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: I'm I get that. What I'm saying is is do we have the jurisdiction to actually increase what we're asking of the three main credit reporting agencies?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: It's federal law.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: It's federal that's

[Assemblymember Jarett Gandolfo]: a federal okay. Mhmm.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: So anything we do in New York State with regards to them, we essentially wouldn't be able to do is what you're saying.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: Essentially not.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Okay. Then my last question is this. Given that the federal law may preempt state regulation in this area of security freeze, Do you have any concerns that this bill could be challenged and ultimately invalidated in court?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: No. Because it complements the law. It it requires a notification. We're not pulling the entity is not pulling or authorizing the actual credit freeze. They are informing consumers so we don't have a concern about that.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Got it.

[Assemblymember Mr. Bologna (full name unconfirmed)]: Okay. Miss Torres, thank you so much for answering my questions. Really appreciate it.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: A party vote's been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will, generally speaking, be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but members who wish to vote differently may do so now at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Miss Torres to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: Thank you.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: Thank you, madam speaker, and thank you to my colleagues for the support for this bill. Look, New Yorkers we need to protect New Yorkers from identity theft. This is a free service. It's authorized at the city at sorry, at the state, at the federal level. And our credit reports are the most important financial document that we have. It carries with us, it stays with us for our entire lives. It determines our ability to take out a loan, to buy a house and all these other things. And so it's really important that consumers know that they have access to a credit freeze when there's suspicious activity going on with their credit report and with their financials. So I'm excited to vote in the affirmative and I thank my colleagues for their support. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you, miss Torres in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, two. Nays, 44.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, we'd like to take up a couple more bills on debate starting with calendar two ninety three on page 28 by mister Hevesy followed by calendar two forty six by mister Bronson on page 25.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Page 28, calendar number two ninety three, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number eighty two forty eight a, calendar two ninety three, mister Havassey, an act to amend the social services law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Havassey.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Thank you, madam speaker. Good afternoon, my colleagues. Good afternoon, miss Walsh. This bill will authorize the New York City Department of Investigation to have access to certain records related to juveniles for the purposes of investigations within its legal authority.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Ms. Walsh.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely. The sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you very much. So I'm not super familiar with the New York City Department of Investigation only just not by So, what would be like the counterpart to the New York City Department of Investigation, you know, like up in my neck of the woods?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: The State Attorney General. Okay. So, yes. So, the DOI is the independent watchdog that is created in the New York City Charter which is the city constitution. So that's their independent watchdog that watches all city agencies.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. And what problem is this legislation trying to correct?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: So I was alerted by the former commissioner that there are five sections of state law on the books that is stopping the department investigation from fulfilling its mandate to oversee all agencies with regard to one agency, the Administration for Children's Services, or ACS. And what the DOI is telling us is that they're not able to conduct a variety of investigations because they're not able to have access to state law I'm sorry, records for kids that go through either the state central registry of abuse or the persons with special needs registry. So right now DOI is saying they are hampered, they are blind in another of areas, I could go through what they are, but basically they're not able to fulfill their required city mandated charter.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. ACS is the equivalent, the equivalent would be CPS in my area?

[Assemblymember Angelo Morinello]: Yes, that's exactly right.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: For the five boroughs.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: For the five boroughs. What kind of information are they have they been unable to get then?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Okay. So, types I'll give you the type of records and then if it's okay I'd like to take you through the types of crimes that we're looking for that we're not able to look

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: and Okay.

[Assemblymember Michael Tannousis (probable)]: Yes, please. First, type

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: of records include investigative records that are including but not limited to written reports and photographs, final dispositions, names and identifying data, dates and circumstances and other essential information for thorough investigations. And then let me tell you the gaps if I can. This what we're really concerned about. So number one, under state law, DOI has to get prior approval from OCFS if they want to get any records for the CARES program. CARES is the non investigatory track in the city. It's like FAR upstate. You're familiar with the FAR program? So there's two tracks. There's one where it's a child abuse track. That's the investigative track. You want to make sure the kids are okay. Another track is for kids who are likely to, you know, it's a poverty issue, most likely maybe maltreatment. They're in a non investigative track. Cares is the program of non investigative track in the city. That program has grown exponentially so it now covers twenty five percent of all new cases. We are blind. DOI is blind at looking at any of those cases. That's the first problem.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Let me keep going. Second, there have been in child fatality cases, this is another section. So in child fatality cases, DOI is not able to go back and look at unfounded reports. They're blind to the history. So that's another problem. And then here are just a list of some other types of crimes that DOI is telling us that they've had problems in the last couple months looking at. So first, there was an ACS worker who was an abuser in their personal lives. OCFS denied the access to the records. ACS worker took a bribe not to substantiate a case and there was another ACS contractor stealing preventative service money, DOI couldn't investigate. An ACS contractor having sex with children in city contracted juvenile facilities, They could not investigate. And then other things, sexual misconduct, personal misconduct, physical abuse, fraud, extortion, falsifying records, indecent exposure to a child, and inappropriate interaction with families. These are all instances that DOI is telling us, hey guys, the prior approval that you're requiring from OCSVEST means we can't investigate these particular types of crimes and it is highly dangerous for the city and the families in New York City.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah, okay. So the way that goes then is somehow DOI is getting some kind of a tip or a hotline possibly?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Or from the newspapers. Get a lot of their stuff from the

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: papers. They are getting alerted somehow that there is something wrong within They the are then required to go to OCFS and say we are specifically requesting this information in order to investigate and then they have to wait. Any idea of wait times?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: So the wait time is part of the problem. They say it's months. But beyond the wait time, here's the other problem. OCFS has taken this statute and said we need specific investigatory matter from DOI before we give you those records. So in essence, OCFS is saying, hey we want you to give us your actual private confidential investigatory records which compromises the investigation. That's number one. In addition, OCFS is conflicted. This is an absolute conflict. ACS is the city agency responsible for taking care of kids. OCFS is the oversight entity but they work together all the time. They share regulations. Basically OCFS has a functional veto power from an independent entity, DOI, looking into anything related to OCFS. It is a conflict of interest. It is terrible government policy and there's a risk to our kids.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So that was one of my questions was if OCFS says no, for whatever reason it says no, is there any further recourse?

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: That's it.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Because the statutes themselves say that these are confidential except for approval from OCFS. We're trying to get rid of that entire process completely. I believe OCFS should have zero role in this process. Now they are conflicted and they are stopping us from investigating some of the scariest crimes against our kids in New York City, including analyzing and this is a big one, analyzing child fatalities. We're not able to look back at the old cases and say hey this is a pattern, this is a problem, we've got to fix this.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So that was another question. As far as the fatality, you mentioned unfounded reports Yeah. And that always kind of raises a little bit of a red flag with me because we know, we believe that you know if somebody, if a report is unfounded then it should be unfounded. Mean we just talked earlier today about completely expunging other material and some other instances. But here you know with an unfounded report, generally speaking, we don't want that to see the light of day again.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Absolutely. Except if a child is dead that had, excuse me, child died that was in contact with the system before and now we want to know what the track record was. How did ACS handle it? Was there proper contact from ACS? Did anything criminal go on? There needs to be an accounting and we've written it to a statute, into this bill, that we will retain the confidentiality of the family if possible. And also, this is one other point. This is important because The I want this on the opening up of unfounded cases is only intended to go after ACS and their workforce. It is not intended to reopen the cases for those families and re bring up their whatever ACS case they had before. That is not the intent.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Would the unfounded reports only be accessed by DOI if in the case of a child fatality?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: No, so we're doing a couple of things. So yes for a child fatality.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Right, which is your example primarily. Exactly.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: So we're opening up for take out the prior approval process from OCFS. Getting OCFS out of the way for unfounded reports, for CARES, the CARES which is the non investigatory track, it's twenty five percent of their cases. And also access to records for the registry for people in special needs, the Justice Center. So we're going to allow DOI to have access. One other important thing to note, currently NYPD and DAs have access to all this information. They don't have to ask for permission, they can just get it. DOI is a fully staffed up investigatory agency like the AG's office. They have the professionals. There's no reason they shouldn't be treated like the NYPD and the DAs.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Thank you for that. That's interesting. I was just thinking about DOI. I mean who is the head of DOI? I mean is that like a commissioner?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: No, DOI, the head of DOI is appointed by the mayor but subject to the city council in the same way that a senator in the United States Congress would be questioning somebody who works for the federal administration. Yeah, that's the answer.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I mean I would say that I completely understand your stated perspective about OCFS. OCFS is being a barrier or too much of a gatekeeper. But on the other hand, I don't, I mean I don't know anything about DOI and I would not cast any aspersions because I don't know them. However, I would say that preventing an outright fishing expedition is something that we would like to avoid particularly when it's going to be involving unfounded reports.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Totally appreciate that and I get that. Just for context, maybe this will be helpful to tell you what their mandate is. So DOI is responsible for conducting oversight of ACS operations including incidents of violence and contraband in the city's juvenile detention centers, contraband trafficking by staff, the handling of cases involving death or serious injury to a minor, problems in the foster care system and allegations of staff misconduct. They're blind in this arena now in a way that we just can't tolerate. And I too want to be on record saying I'm nervous about the idea of opening up unfounded cases. That's the last thing we want to do. By the way, unfounded means by the standard of the law there was no misconduct. So I'm concerned about that too. However, in the case of a child fatality, think you can make the argument that seeing the history of how we got there from initial point of contact with ACS all the way up to the child's death, I think that's worthwhile for the public to be taking a look at.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Well I think with the example of a child fatality, I think a deeper dive, it makes a lot of sense to me. But as you said earlier, it's really more broad than that than a child fatality too. Under current law, can DOI, if they do get information, can they currently redisclose to DA's, etcetera? Because I noticed in the bill that they can now under this bill. Will

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: be So able they're allowed to give the information that they get now under this bill they're allowed to be given. My understanding is two places. One is the U. S. Attorney's Office, the second is the local district attorney's office. That's it.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: But they can currently do that or it's being added just by this legislation?

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: I believe

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: they can currently do it. I believe they can currently.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: They can currently? Okay. Alright. I I would mean just say like why not just allow these matters to be handled by the DAs or by the prosecutors that we already have?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Bandwidth? Bandwidth? So I've got DAs, the Queen's district attorney, I mean they have so many cases there, run the gamut, they're all over the place asking us for additional money and we have an independent entity that is staffed with investigators and former cops. I mean they're serious. The only thing we need to do is allow them to take a look at the records and we have another set of eyes on what's happening to our kids.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah, mean I've definitely heard that concern from families of adults or children with special needs that had been placed and would be, you know, that whole argument about the justice center, about, you know, the law enforcement, like the DAs not wanting to get involved in those types of cases. And I definitely heard that concern raised.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: And it's a serious concern because particularly in cases involving kids with special needs, I don't think I know the DOI is not allowed to go investigate the victim or have a conversation, interview the victim. They are precluded from getting any of this information which just makes them ineffective when they should be effective.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I think one of the things from this debate that I find the most troubling to hear is that is feeling about OCFS as being just completely conflicted. So I was thinking when I first read the bill, well if the issue is that OCFS not responding quickly enough to inquiries, then maybe the issue is

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: It's deeper than that.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Giving more money or more staffing to be able to address these in a more timely way. But you're saying, if I'm hearing you correctly, and I think I am Yeah. You're saying that the whole, the whole setup is just an inherent conflict that OCFS can't really get out of.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: I agree. I don't think OCFS should be involved in the process and I've had this bill going for a couple months. Nobody has given me an argument why OCFS should still be involved. They will say that we need to protect the confidentiality of kids. We're doing that with this bill. We're protecting the kids confidentiality here. They're not necessary.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you very much for answering my I you. Appreciate it. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Assemblymember Ms. Torres (full name unconfirmed)]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So having really just taken a look at this bill and I appreciate all the comments raised on debate, I always appreciate those thoughtful responses from the sponsor. You know, I think what we're really trying to balance here I think is child safety, right? And a reasonable expectation of confidentiality and potential risks of over disclosure. So that's kind of what we're trying to balance out here. I have no reason to really disagree with anything that the sponsor has put out there. It's a New York City bureaucracy that's really you know, involved here. It's one that I have not personally been participating in as a practicing attorney. So I really don't know. I think that we do want to make sure that there are enough safeguards around unfounded material and just generally very confidential, sensitive information. We want to make sure that the entities that are tasked with investigation are not going on, you know, any kind of extreme fishing expedition just trying to dig up information. It sounds though from what the sponsor is saying that there is a very legitimate reason for the development of this legislation. And I'll just conclude by saying that based on the answers that I received during debate, this is a bill that I will support because I haven't seen I mean in committee both children and families and codes were both unanimously in favor of it. We haven't had a prior vote on it. And I don't see any formal written opposition against it. So based on the answers that I've received and just my analysis of the bill, I'm going to support it and I hope that it results in increasing safety for our kids and our vulnerable individuals who are in care. And I hope that we are striking an appropriate balance with the real desire to have a confidentiality that maintained for the most sensitive information that's that's coming out in this process. But hoping that it is struck appropriately in this legislation, I will support it. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Assembly Deputy/Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Read

[Acting Presiding Officer (likely Speaker Pro Tempore Jeffrion L. Aubry)]: the last section.

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

[Acting Presiding Officer (likely Speaker Pro Tempore Jeffrion L. Aubry)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Presiding Officer (likely Speaker Pro Tempore Jeffrion L. Aubry)]: The bill is passed. Page 25, calendar number two forty six. The clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number fifty four eleven a, calendar two forty six, mister Bronson, an act to amend the labor law and the executive law. On

[Acting Presiding Officer (likely Speaker Pro Tempore Jeffrion L. Aubry)]: a motion by mister Bronson, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Mister Bronson?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yes, madam speaker. This bill would void provisions and employment agreements that would waive or limit substantive or procedural rights, remedies, or claims protected by the New York State Labor Law and the New York State Human Rights Law.

[Acting Presiding Officer (likely Speaker Pro Tempore Jeffrion L. Aubry)]: Ms. Walsh.

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

[Acting Presiding Officer (likely Speaker Pro Tempore Jeffrion L. Aubry)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yes, I will, madam speaker.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you very much. So I just have a few questions to try to get around what the what the scope of this is likely to be because in recent years, you know, we've already done a lot of work in in this area and I just want to name a few of them. Currently, employers are prohibited from including terms in their employment contracts that would restrict or abridge the rights of employees to take certain actions against the employer. For example, employers are prohibited from including in nondisclosure agreements language that would prohibit an employee from disclosing facts and circumstances concerning claims for discrimination, harassment or retaliation. Agreements are void if they don't notify the employee that he or she may speak with law enforcement regarding claims of discrimination. The labor law prohibits stay or pay agreements that would require employees to repay bonuses and benefits. In some instances, courts have struck down employment contract terms that would require arbitration of wage claims. So I guess that's the big build up to the question. With all of that work that we've already done, why do we need this bill on top of it?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Well with that list is evidence that we certainly have done good work, but there's still more to do. And this particular piece of legislation is to address court cases that have determined that in an employment agreement, sometimes merely by the employment application, that the courts have determined that the employee has waived things like statutes of limitations or the ability to participate in a class action. Those are two examples. This would void those types of provisions in employment contracts.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: And so, okay, because when I'm thinking of an employment contract, I'm thinking about a contract. A contract where there are two parties. Very often there's, if you're a high level, for example, if you're a high level employee that's having a written contract, very often, you know, when I was practicing in the area of employment law, I would have somebody bring me an agreement and say, you take a look at this? Would you give me some talking points about what's good, what's bad, what I should go back to the table and bargain more for or against? And and that was part of my practice. So if you've got parties that are on equal footing like that, is your concern for employees that aren't on any kind of anything like an equal footing with the employer?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Well certainly in most instances, we do not have equal footing with an employee and an employer. So that's number one. But more importantly, there's a reason why we set statutes of limitations in law. And that is to give a party an opportunity during a period of time to bring a claim for some form of wrong that they've incurred. But also on the flip side is to help the party that's being sued that they don't have this endless uncertainty they might get sued about a particular instance. But we have made a policy decision on those statutes of limitations. There are examples of court cases that have removed six year statute of limitations down to sixty days or six months. And we just feel that that is not the intent of the laws that we put in place, So we wanna clarify this for the court system that when we say it's a six year statute of limitations, we truly wanna afford a wrong party that amount of time to bring a lawsuit.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: And in that case, did the court strike that provision down that took it from six years to six days?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: No, the case, court and there's many examples of them, the courts have enforced those terms moving the statute of limitations by 87%, 95%, things of that nature.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: And you also mentioned that a term that might be that would be struck down or voided by this legislation would be saying that the employee, the prospective employee would not be able to be a part of a class action. That was another biggie? That was

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yes, that's another example. We're not changing the parameters that would be required in order to bring or be a party of a class action, but we're saying that that's not going to be waivable through an employment contract. And again, there are case examples where the employment contract is actually a process of applying for the job and the courts have deemed those employment contracts where those waivers have occurred.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah, I find that interesting. So is it so defined like in the legislation that you've created or is that acceptable that filling out an employment application is tantamount to an employment agreement under this Under contractual law.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: I mean you use the same principles that you would in interpreting contractual law and when does a contract actually occur. And I don't know about you, but when I went to law school, my first year instead of having a torts class and a contracts class, I had what was called contorts, which is a bizarre concept. But that being said, that being said, we're not changing the parameters to determine a contract exists. I'm just giving you an example of a court case that said a contract exists through the application process, the written application process, and the individual accepting the employment offer, and through that application waive their rights.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah, I think for me that's a distinction with a difference because if we were, the idea that I came into this debate with which was that you were talking about a distinct written contract between prospective employer, usually highly compensated probably executive and the company, that that's one kind of an agreement but you've explained that it's really could be interpreted, it has been interpreted to be much broader than that to include something as I I mean I would I I don't know for me law school is a dim memory okay I'll be honest but and I've never heard of contorts before that's hilarious But University of Buffalo, look it up. You be, alright. Okay. But it it does seem like you're you take a more expansive view of what could be or the courts have a more expansive view of what could be called an employment contract and that's part of the reason. That informs more of the need for this legislation then. Well,

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: I I would suggest that there's a need in both scenarios and that is because it is clear that our intention in passing these laws as it relates to remedies and procedural rights and things of that nature are that we don't want to allow them to be contracted away through a private contract in general. Albeit there are distinctions between the power leverage that can exist depending on the level of employment and things of that nature. But in either situation, we clearly intended here in New York State when we set forth in particular statutes of limitations that we would allow the parties both the opportunity to bring the lawsuit during that statute of limitation, but then also to have the burden of a potential lawsuit go away after that statute of limitations.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you very much. Appreciate your answers. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So this is our first vote on this particular piece of legislation but I mean historically our conference has opposed attempts to limit voluntary contractual terms between employers and employees. Written employment contracts that are between or involve more sophisticated executive level employees who may already have counsel advising them on reviewing terms. You know, if you're negotiating an agreement like that, there is a level of sophistication and I believe that as long as something is entered into voluntarily and knowingly, I believe, I have always believed, let people negotiate, let people decide. But based on the debate that we've just had, it appears that the definition and the interpretation of what an agreement is is broader than that. So as a result, I'm also going to say that while there may be some of us, some people voting on this that may adhere to that belief, let people negotiate, keep the state out of it, we have enough nanny state laws on the books, we don't need to add another one, let people do their own thing and figure it out. But I also think that there is a strong argument that can be made in this case that there are certain things that should not be waivable. And I'm not familiar with the cases that the sponsor cited about dropping it by agreement, and I'll use air quotes around that, by agreement dropping a statute of limitations from six years down to, you know, days, mere days or something like that. That seems egregious. And but I take the sponsor certainly at his word that that was upheld by a court. Mean I think that that is a good example of maybe why this legislation would be necessary. So I would expect perhaps votes on both sides of this, but I think for my own part, I will support it. I think that it probably makes some sense to do that with the understanding that when something just as simple as a job application could be considered an employment agreement, that there will be people who are certainly not on anything near like an even footing, an equal footing with the prospective employer. And they might need to have some additional protections from the state in that instance. So I'll support the bill. But I expect that we might have a difference of opinion as we sometimes do in a body of 150 of us. So I'll be up on it, madam speaker, and I thank the sponsor for answering my questions.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is passed. Pay resolutions. Page three, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen thirty eight rules at the request of Ms. Zenterman. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 03/14/2026 as Black Midwives Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen thirty nine rules at the request of mister legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Yemeni American Heritage Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty rules at the request of miss Simon. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/14/2026 as dyslexia advocacy day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty one rules at the request of mister Weapon. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May the seventeenth two thousand twenty six as Stuttering Awareness Week in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mister Wepprin on the resolution. Thank

[Assemblymember David I. Weprin]: you, madam speaker. As we all know, we're proclaiming stuttering awareness week. We passed a bill yesterday in this house, and the senate will be passing it shortly to have insurance coverage for stuttering services and treatment without co payments. We've had Michael Kidd Gilchrist who's a national and international spokesperson for stuttering awareness, and he's been with us all day meeting with a number of people. So I think it's important that we recognize that stuttering can be treated. Some of it is a result of, you know, medical illness later in life. Others are starting from a very young age. So if we can treat stuttering and get services for young people with stuttering, we can really change their lives. So I urge everyone to vote for this resolution.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty two rules at the request of mister Burdick. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as period poverty awareness week in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty three rules at the request of Ms. Delevingne. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as stroke awareness month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty four rules at the request of miss Solage. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Trauma Informed Care Month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty five rules at the request of Ms. Griffin, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 07/01/2026 as postal worker day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty six rules at the request of mister p Carroll. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 2026 as Indian American Heritage Month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty seven rules at the request of mister Brabanek. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 09/06/2026 as Onion Appreciation Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen forty eight rules at the request of mister Slater legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 2026 as physician assistant week in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, do we have further housekeeping and or resolution?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: We do have both. Starting with housekeeping on a motion by miss Bichon Hermelin, page 20. Calendar number one eighty four. Bill number a seven one nine four b. The amendments are received and adopted. Bill number a one two one nine. On behalf of mister Dinowitz, assembly bill recalled from senate. Clerk will read the title of the bill.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: An act to amend the civil practice law and rules.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed the house. Clerk will record the vote. Clerk will announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is before the house, and the amendments are received and adopted. Bill number a nine two seven four on behalf of mister McDonald. Assembly bill recalled from senate. Clerk will read the title of the bill.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: An act to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed the house. Clerk will record the vote. Clerk will announce the results.

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

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: The bill is before the house, and the amendments are received and adopted. A resolution by mister Ra. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen fifty eight, mister Ra, legislative resolution mourning the death of Patrick w Curry, distinguished citizen and devoted member of his community.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Mister Ra on the resolution.

[Assemblymember Edward P. Ra]: Thank you, mister speaker madam speaker. I'm sorry. I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a friend of mine, Patrick W. Curry, who he lost on May 1. Patrick was a guy who I think we all have people like this in our communities that was just involved in in a little bit of everything and really made his community and the community he worked in, the the community he lived in better. He generously gave of his time to a number of organizations including the Salvation Army, the Kiwanis, well as the East Meadow Chamber of Commerce where he maintained his law practice. But he was very devoted to the West Hempstead community where where he made his residence. He was the president of the Garden City Kiwanis for for many years and emceed the Saint Patrick's Day luncheon they would have for thirty three years and did it with such a sense of humor and wit. He would essentially be telling jokes. It became a very big event that people loved going to because he was emceeing it. He was a respected attorney dedicated not only to his profession but serving others with compassion, integrity, and dignity. And one of the things that I will always remember about him, he shared my affinity to two sports teams, the New York Mets and the New York Jets. And just to mention quickly about two of them, he used to go to Met games and he would bring this giant cardboard cutout of mister Met with him. And as he was, you know, unwell over the last, you know, I'd say six months or so, he I know he went to a game last fall and and he brought the giant cardboard mister Met with him. But he also was a very devoted Jets fan. And I know our colleagues from Western New York like to mock us Jets fans that the team in Buffalo is the only New York team. Well, Patrick actually started an initiative back in the early two thousand's called Bring Our Jets Home. And I remember I had a t shirt, it said Bring Our Jets Home Y2K8. It was, I guess it was when the lease was supposed to expire in the old Meadowlands Stadium and and he he you know got a lot of media attention and all of that trying to spearhead an initiative to get the jets back to New York State. Unfortunately, that did not work out and we continue to be mocked by our brethren from Western New York that our team plays in New Jersey. But Patrick was just a wonderful human being always there for the community, always there for people in need in need. You know, he leaves behind a wife, children, grandchildren, and as devoted as he was to his community, he was extremely devoted to his family. And unfortunately, we lost him far too young, and I know that this is an individual that made the world a better place. So on behalf of all of my constituents in the nineteenth assembly district, but certainly on behalf of our conference and the entire state, I wanna just pay tribute to Patrick. Rest in peace my friend. And thank you for your friendship and everything you did for those around you.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. All those in favor of this resolution signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed no. The resolution is adopted. We have a number of resolutions before the house without objection. These resolutions will be taken up together on the resolutions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, can you call on miss Clark for the purposes of an announcement?

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Miss Clark for the purpose of an announcement.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am here to announce there will be majority conference immediately following session in the Speaker's Conference Room, majority conference immediately following session.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: Thank you. Immediate majority conference after German obsession, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we will reconvene at 10AM, Thursday, May 14, tomorrow being a session day.

[Acting Speaker Pamela J. Hunter]: 10AM tomorrow on mister Fall's motion. House stands adjourned.