Assembly Live Stream

The planning board could just deny it, right? So it really is about allowing the applicant more time. Okay, I understand.

Okay. Understood. And does that also apply for after an approval is given? Because oftentimes an approval can be given, but an application then has to continually go back for the extension of those approvals. Does the same apply there?

Okay. I appreciate that. How much of the state is currently covered by the FEMA 100-year floodplain or is part of a special flood hazard area?

I'm just thinking about my own district.

it's moved a few blocks in from the Hudson River than it would have been, you know, 10 years ago. So I think that is one of the challenges that it's continuing to, particularly in areas that have a lot of shoreline.

And on the environmental front, for areas that are dealing with water reservoirs, drinking water sources, specifically I'm personally thinking about New York City's watershed, specifically east of Hudson, west of Hudson. Are there special considerations given?

But going back to, and I agree with you, but going back to the issue of the extensions, a lot of times applicants, especially in the Hudson Valley that deal with DEP, those applications have to go through another level of scrutiny because of the fact that they're in the watershed. And so is there anything that speaks to tying, again, the extension process that we talked about earlier with the additional review that's required currently, do any of the reforms in the bill try to streamline that process?

Okay.

And I completely understand that. And again, as someone who's gone through the process, I just know that that was a hurdle that I've heard from many, and I wasn't sure if the proposals today addressed any of that. But I appreciate your answers to my questions. If I could pivot over to a public protection issue. Thank you very much.

Yes. Thanks. Safe by Design Act, I just have a few questions on that. This bill includes a provision to increase the security requirements for minors on social media platforms Yes And I personally glad that we taking this step because of how critically important it is to protect kids online I got two kids myself and always something that I'm concerned about. But kids are kids. And as those of us who have them know all too well, what safeguards are there to ensure social media platforms prevent kids from getting around the requirements without their parents knowing?

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Sunday, May 31st, and at the same stand approved.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm thrilled to welcome a familiar face to the chamber today, a familiar face to us here in Albany, a familiar face to us in the Hudson Valley. And frankly, if you watch any news outlet in the United States of America, a familiar face on that as well. And that is my great friend, a former assemblyman and our congressman, Mr. Salt himself, Mike Lawler. Congressman Lawler is a lifelong resident of the Hudson Valley who continues to deliver for our collective districts back home. He continues to be a maverick in Congress, much like, I think, one of his political heroes who earned the nickname the Maverick, John McCain, who I know you were very fond of. But he's been a great friend, a great partner, and we're thrilled to have him back in the people's house, Madam Speaker. We won't let him speak because he won't stop, but if you could extend the cordialities and privileges of the floor, we'd greatly appreciate it.

50A, Rules Report 176, Mr. Weprin, an act to amend the insurance law and the public health law.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Assembly number 1541B, calendar 61. Ms. Paulin, an act to amend the public health law.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Assembly number 6804A, calendar 412, Ms. Griffin, an act to amend the mental hygiene law.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Assembly number 7376B, calendar 458, Ms. Matanez. An act to amend the general business law.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Assembly number 10510, Rules Report 156. Ms. Rosick, an act to amend the public service law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Rosick. Thank you, Madam Speaker. this bill would prohibit utilities from recovering from ratepayers the costs of legal expenses incurred in labor-related disputes with their employees or labor organizations. And it clarifies that such costs must be borne by shareholders while also preserving the Public Service Commission's authority and protecting ratepayer interests.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Rosick. So I just wanted to clarify a few things. Under current law right now, does the Public Service Commission review the expenses and disallow some of the costs that are found to be imprudent? Right now, the PSC can exercise discretion and direct or promulgate rules and regs in this area. We don't change that in this bill. Okay. So if they can already do that, what do we have for support or evidentiary information that supports the necessity of this bill, if they can already disallow cost? We are just reemphasizing that ratepayers should not be on the tab for these kinds of expenses. We do that for other costs, and there is precedent for directing legislation around this. Okay, so this creates a new category of imprudent costs. Is that correct? It's not a new category. It would be managed the same way other costs would be managed. Okay, which is under the current authority right now of PSC, right? Correct. To disallow costs, correct? Correct. Okay. So would this possibly create any precedent for any other further disallowance of cost legislatively? No. Like I said before, there's already precedent that the state legislature can restrict costs of a utility or what the utility can recover. We do that around lobbying We do that for all sorts of other expenses Okay so I believe this has a look back if I not mistaken this has a look back on cases that are currently under review by the PSC is that correct It's not retroactive. It only affects rates filed after the PSC promulgates or would promulgate regulations in this area. So any cases that are pending right now before the PSC, this is not applicable to? That is my understanding. It's not applicable. Okay. Okay. Because I believe, okay. Okay. And that's in the effective date of the bill. That's the effective date of the bill. If there's a pending case, it has to be amended. Is that correct? I believe that it's in the effective date of the bill. Yeah. Section 3. Section 3 says pending cases, correct? So do we know is there going to be any cost to refile or to amend their cases if they're pending when this is? I don't expect that, no. Okay. Are the costs for implementing this new accounting, are some of those costs, the auditing, the accounting expenses, are some of those costs recoverable? No. No. No, so none of the costs for determining, for auditing and the accounting for reestablishing what's allowable, what's allowable, what's not allowable, none of that costs for re-implementation? This only governs labor-related legal activity. Okay. Okay, so the language that you have in the bill is, it says included but not limited to language. Is that correct? I believe so. Okay, so that is, I would say, more illustrative versus exhaustive, right? Right, because it leaves a window for other language to be inserted by PSC, correct? You can characterize it however you want, Mr. Gray, but the essential part of this is to get at the fact that labor costs should be borne by the shareholders and not the ratepayers. We're trying to alleviate some of the burden on ratepayers. Okay. Okay. So just one other quick question, if I may, and that would be, is there, would this possibly create a disincentive for utilities to go forward and just so they would more or less create an incentive just to settle at any cost and make sure that those costs are recoverable? Would that be accurate? I don't believe so, but I'm also not CEO of a utility. Okay, so just this is a kind of a departure from the longstanding cost of service regulations right now? No again like I said at the beginning of our debate there is precedent for the legislature in restricting costs that a utility can recover this is just the new frontier I guess It a new iteration of it Okay And one more time just do we have rationale or support for this I believe we're supporting ratepayers when we legislate around this area. Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Rosick. That's all, Mr. Graham Speaker.

Madam Speaker, can you please call on the Rules Committee to meet in the Speaker's

Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but if there are exceptions, members may vote now accordingly at their desks. Thank you.

Mr. Foll. 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.

Assembly number 3598, Rules Report number 172, Mr. Schiavone. An act to amend the mental hygiene law. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Schiavone. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is a slight change to the mental hygiene law, Article 81, providing guardianships for adult people who are incapacitated in the state of New York. Guardianship is a substitute decision maker for an adult who is incapacitated and is unable to manage their personal needs or finances or both. Now, what this bill does, the bill would require the courts to shorten the hearing for family visitation request from 28 days to 10 days of filing of the order to show cause. Additionally, the bill establishes a rebuttable presumption in the favor of granting consent. family visitation. And then finally, the bill changes the standard of proof to deny visitation from preponderance of evidence, which is kind of like a 51-49 thing, to a clear and convincing standard of evidence. This is all, of course, being done in the best interest of the incapacitated individual or the ward. And with that, I'd love to hear some questions. Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

Yes.

Thank you very much. We've discussed a little bit this bill before, as well as the sponsor in the Senate, Senator Palumbo, who I believe originated the bill, I think, while he was here. I think that might have been his bill while he was here, maybe? That sounds about right. Yeah, okay. So just a couple of questions, because the moving from, I guess, taking each part, because you mentioned really the three changes that the bill makes to the current situation. The part about the expedited hearing going from 28 days to 10 days, that seems to make a lot of sense. Has there been any indication from OCA or anybody else indicating that expediting it in that way, cutting the 18 days off, is going to be any kind of a problem for the court system? No, they haven't reached out to me on that. Okay. All right. And that's only if it's brought by order to show cause, which very often these matters are. Okay. Yes. Was there a particular case or what prompted the creation of this legislation, if you know? There were a number of high-profile national cases, predominantly in other states, that had this situation where a guardian would limit the contact of the incapacitated person to family members. And it just was not a great situation. And a lot of states are moving to change their laws in that regard. And so that is what we're doing here. But in the state of New York, I'd like to say that I believe that our guardianship system is doing quite well. It can be a guardian, can be an individual, it can be a group, or it can be an entity. And I think that we probably do this better than most states, if I could tout our foreign people. I think one of the cases that I remember hearing about, not really knowing a ton about it, but just seeing it in the news a lot, and I want to say maybe it was out of California, involved that famous radio personality, Casey Kasem. and his, I think his new wife, newer wife, was denying visits to his children to Casey when he needed guardianship. And that was a huge, there was a huge lawsuit blow up over that, right? Yeah, and a sad story there. Very sad story. Yeah, very sad. And I personally don't have any issue with the idea of making sure that if there's a request for an expedited hearing, making sure that it does come in quickly to the court. I think that that makes good sense. The second thing that the bill does, though, is it talks about a rebuttable presumption in favor of visitation. So we're going to start from the premise that these other family members that wish to see the person that's under guardianship will be able to see. And I also don't have a problem with that issue at all. I think that that's fine start from a position where we're going to allow visits with the idea that More family around the individuals is requiring these supports is generally speaking going to be a good thing Okay a myriad of benefits for family visitations for people in this condition Yeah Yeah So really what I what I wanted to talk about was the third piece of what this legislation does and that is the change of the standard as you mentioned in your explanation from a case where it would be a preponderance of the evidence and moves it to a clear and convincing standard, which is a very high standard. And I think that my concern with that piece is that there could be instances where I think the judge that's taking a look at this should be able to kind of size up the family situation and figure out yes or no, whether it really is in the best interest of the individual who's under the guardianship to have these other family members visiting. but the clear and convincing standard is so very high. Do you know why that standard was chosen rather than just keeping it a preponderance? A couple of reasons. First of all, for the issue of consistency in the law, when somebody receives an Article 81 guardianship, that is the standard that is used to determine that... Whether the guardianship is necessary at all? Whether the guardianship is, thank you, is created. And, you know, that is a high standard because we're, in fact, limiting a person's civil rights, limiting their freedoms. Someone is going to control their finance and personal decisions. So, you know, because that standard exists there, it would, in the interest of clarity and consistency, that standard should be placed here as well. Also, you know, it doesn't preclude the guardian or the state from bringing clear evidence that a person, a family member, should not visit someone. That, to me, is a big deal. And, you know, if that does exist, I am sure that there is clear and convincing evidence that does exist and that a judge could be shown that this should not happen for whatever reasons. And, you know, there are a myriad of reasons. Also, you know, in addition to that, there are benefits to visitations for family members that I think outweigh any kind of problems. Also, in a failsafe, the judge can assign monitored visits as well. Can assign. I'm sorry. I'm using the terminology wrong. What kind of visits? Supervised visits. Oh, supervised visits. Okay. I was a teacher. That's fine. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate all your answers and your work on this. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

So I think I'm going to jump to that third piece, because that's really where I do have some concerns about the legislation as it's currently written. I think that when you're first figuring out whether an individual needs guardianship, I agree that that should be a very high standard. I think the clear and convincing standard should be there for determining whether there should be guardianship to begin with. But at this point, at this stage, when we're talking about whether folks are going to be able to visit with the person under guardianship, I don't think that there should be a standard that is a clear and convincing evidence standard in favor of visits. Because really family dynamics are complicated They can be very messy And I think that a judge should be able to weigh out the factors and then indicate whether on balance if it is better or just even slightly less good for the person to have visits In other words, I think it should remain the preponderance standard that we already have under the law. I think that that makes a lot more sense. I agree with two of the three changes that this bill is making in the guardianship system. I just think that this last piece about making it a clear and convincing evidence standard for visits and with leaning towards in favor of having visits happen is, I think, unduly kind of tying hands behind the judge's back a little bit from being able to properly size up the family dynamics. And there might not be such clear and convincing proof that's available, especially in such a short time frame of the 10 days that we're going to ask for this decision to be made. I would rather keep it a preponderance. Let the judge say, you know, it's more likely than not that this is either in the best interest or not in the best interest of the person under guardianship. And I'd rather keep it that way. With that change, I mean, I would ask for if this does, I didn't see whether this is already in Senate mental health, so I don't know that there's been a vote taken down the hall yet. But if it does pass the Senate and it does go to the governor's desk, I would ask for a chapter amendment just fixing that piece of it. But the other remaining parts of the bill, I think, are very well-intentioned and are a good idea. And I would, with that one change, be very happy to support this bill. As it stands right now, I'm constrained to vote in the negative only because I just don't like that issue about making it clear and convincing standard. I think it just reduces the discretion of the court, and I think it does tie the court's hands a little bit too much. But I do appreciate the sponsor's answers to my questions. And with that, Madam Speaker, I'll be voting in the negative, and I would ask my colleagues to consider doing the same. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So for the reasons I previously stated, despite the fact that a large part of the bill is, I think, very good, with the changes that we believe that need to be made to it, the Republican conference will be not supporting the legislation in its current form. But if there are exceptions, they can be certainly noted with a yes vote at individual members' desks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fall. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, we can do that here in the chamber. Thank you.

Mr Scafone to explain his vote Thank you Madam Speaker Maintaining family connections provides a critical emotional support and comfort system that wards under Article 81 guardianship's need. This critical emotional and psychological needs to the incapacitated individual is absolutely imperative. Family visitations also act as a quality of care monitoring, and they provide independent oversights for their loved ones. Clear and convincing evidence, in my opinion, is appropriate standard as proof to establish the necessary guardianship. It should be an appropriate proof to not limit family visitations. Additionally, when you have preponderance of evidence, Very often, family members don't have the financial means to go into court and battle the guardian to have visitations to their own family members. So I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation, and thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the sponsor of this piece of legislation. New York State, we do a good job of trying to keep families together. This bill is making sure that we do that as well. We watched a very high-profile case in the case of Wendy Williams and how her family said that they could not get access to her. We've seen multiple documentaries. We've seen it all on the news channels talking about her struggle for her family to see her, visit with her. And so this bill is just to make sure that we can keep families together. We do the same thing when it comes to children and the foster care system. We want to make sure that families have access to children because we know that it helps with their mental health and their well-being. So I want to say thank you to the sponsor for this piece of legislation. I'll be voting in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So just briefly, I mean, I think that this bill does some good things. I mean, with this bill, we're going to get individuals who want to visit their relative into court quickly. It's going to get heard quickly, more quickly than it is right now. It's going to go from 28 days to only 10 days. So there's going to be a rapid decision. The second thing I think that's good about this bill is it will create a rebuttable presumption of visitation. But here's the, I mean, all of us have families. We cannot say with certainty that visits from family members is always going to be healing and positive and good for the person that's under guardianship. It just might not be. And, you know, we're starting from a presumption that it will be, but I think that if somebody can, if the guardian can show that on balance, more often than not, it's not going to be a plus for the person under guardianship to be visiting these particular relatives, I think that that's the setup that we should have. I don't think that the guardian should have to come in with clear and convincing proof that it would be some kind of an act of harm. I mean, families are messy. I'm not saying that every one of these is going to turn into some kind of a legal battle, but I think that by doing it this way with that third prong, I just don't think it's a good idea. Not every family is a warm, friendly, healing, positive influence on their family members, and I think that we need to recognize that and acknowledge it. So I will be voting in the negative. Thank you.

Ayes 89, nays 44.

Assembly number 8313B, Rules Report number 180. Mr. Anderson, an act to amend the public housing law.

Thank you. Thank you. So the purpose of this piece of legislation is to serve as a transparency bill. It will require the New York City Housing Authority to provide information and training to all residents regarding the formation of resident management corporations and the requirements of such corporations and the potential benefits of creating such corporations. This piece of legislation, as it currently stands, does not transfer management authority from NYCHA and instead ensures that residents are informed about this federally recognized option that has existed for decades in HUD. So it's putting us in line with the 964 regulations which allow for tenant participation in the development. The bill also requires that residents receive this information, training, and educational materials regarding RMC so that they can make informed decisions about opportunities available to their communities. Most importantly, this bill does not require NYCHA to establish a new bureaucracy for this program. Information and training can be provided through NYCHA's already existing infrastructure, including the REES office, Office, which is the Resident Economic Empowerment and Sustainability Office, and already through Resident Engagement Infrastructure. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for questions?

Well, Mr. Fitzpatrick has to get some NYCHA in his district, but I will yield for him.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. How many of these resident management corporations are in effect now at NYCHA?

Okay, so we only have one in the entire city of New York. And that's because residents don't know about it.

And that's because residents don't know about it.

Okay so let me ask you how is this the one that exists structure How many members are there How are they So every bit of the structure must follow HUD regulations right

Very well. To whom is this corporation accountable?

Well, let me just give you some questions. To whom is it accountable? Is there compensation involved? Is there compensation involved? And is there any liability? Who covers the—is there any liability in terms of their decision-making if something goes wrong?

No, you say it already exists and we have one in New York City.

That's what I'm asking. Let's ask about this one that exists even though it's used elsewhere. We're not very much aware of it here in New York. So, you know, to whom is it accountable? Is there compensation and what about liability for the decisions that they make in managing the property?

What about qualifications for serving on this board? Many tenants want to say, yeah, I'd like to be active, but what expertise, what experiences do they bring to the table? Managing a building is not an easy thing to do.

Right. So are you saying basically this is an advisory board rather than a management corporation?

Who manages, who serves as the management corporation right now for the buildings that might be interested in doing this?

Okay, so how does that operate? Is there a, there is a building superintendent?

Got it. Are there any examples of problems or failures under this system that have been reported?

Right. No, I understand. And that's what concerns me is that, you know, a group of residents want to form this corporation. But again, you're entering into a legally binding contract, so therefore there is responsibility, there's liability. We really have...

And who will give that training?

In other states, Mr. Anderson, where this is employed, you said there's great success. but I'd like to know where the failures have been and what those failures are so that if we do this in New York we want to learn from their mistakes. So what problems have there been in other states that have used this system?

Right. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate your answers.

Madam Speaker, on the bill?

Well, I'm kind of in the middle on this bill. I certainly support the self-regulation and the participation by residents in managing the property. But I do have concerns and the lack of evidence where there are problems. And there have to have been examples of this system falling short in some capacity or other. No organization is perfect. And before I would commit to doing something like this, I would like to know more about where there have been failures and what was done to correct those failures and not just assume they're going to be successful. I'm all for residents being more involved in the management of their properties. We know that there is a shortage of money, frankly, to fix some of these properties and bring more of these properties online to create affordable housing. Creating a corporation may not change that other than increased advocacy. But if you're going to create a corporation, this is a legally binding. You're creating a nonprofit, and we have had problems in the past in this state and elsewhere with the activities of nonprofits. So we want to be very careful there. We also have liability, insurance. You know, this is a serious endeavor, and one that I, if it happens, I wish it all the success in the world, but I think we lack right now to make a good decision here. Some of my questions were not answered because the sponsor did not have any data, but I would prefer we have the data before we make a decision like this, and I would recommend a no vote and that we get that data and then have another debate on where did things go wrong and what did they do to correct it, because we don't want to repeat mistakes made elsewhere. And since we only have one corporation in this state that's doing this, I'm sure they made their own mistakes when they were first organized, but we need to see that data before we can really make, I think, a responsible decision here. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yields.

Absolutely I think the residents know their buildings and their communities sometimes a lot better than the superintendents and those managing the buildings NYCHA has a sprawling portfolio across the state especially downstate

They certainly are, and I think the resident management corporations would provide the support necessary. As we saw in this report a couple of years ago, you know, we saw additional social services and support enter into the development under resident management corporations. And so we want to replicate that success here in New York. So just like every entity is when you have a community that's engaged in their schools or engaged in a community boards or engaged within their tenant associations, we see an uplift in spirits and uplift in services and possibly better cohesion within that community. Certainly. And actually, if you look at. if you look at the changes to the bill that we've made from when it was previously, the education piece really would empower residents to know what options are available to them. And I know that the last questioner had asked a question, and it leads into your question, with regard to making sure that these resident manager corporations are responsible. If you look at 24 CFR section 964-225H of the housing law, it does require bonding and insurance. Before assuming any management responsibilities under its contract, the RMC must provide fidelity bonding and insurance or equivalent protection that is adequate as determined by HUD and the public housing authority to protect HUD and the PHA against law, theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent acts on part of the RMC and its employees. So to your point about people being empowered, not only are they empowered by the additional protections that are in place, but what my bill does is it gives them the technical assistance that they need so that they do not fail. We want to make sure that we add an additional resource for people to help NYCHA get out of the hole. Understood. And to your point about accountability or making sure that people are doing their job by having a more engaged community and engaged tenant association basically or a management company, we also can make sure that those companies that have contracts within these NYCHA facilities are doing their job, correct?

And to that point, Mr. Days, I think we saw a couple years ago some issues with local contracts within NYCHA. And I think when you have people who live in development and understand the mechanics into development in terms of how things operate on the day-to-day as tenants and as residents, they can be able to speak to it. Another section that I neglected to mention when Mr. Fitzpatrick came and asked, in terms of licensing, RMC must be in compliance with any local licensing or other local requirements governing the qualifications or operations of a property manager. So it's the same thing in a sense, but it's giving the residents the tools to be empowered to do this work themselves. There's also monitoring. There's a bunch of things if you take a look at subpart C.

So we want to create a system in which the residents who are always there can continue to supervise and do that work. And sometimes having this thing centralized and using Ben Carson's own remarks from 2018, the idea of centralizing some of this work may pose a challenge. But when it's right in the community, it's able to be better managed and maintained, particularly by the residents. Thank you. On the bill.

Sorry. A party vote, read the last section.

Party vote has been requested. Mr. Gandolfo.

Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Anderson, to explain his vote.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson, in the affirmative. Thank you.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

Bill is passed. Page 11. Rules report 267. Clerk will read.

An explanation has been requested. Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. Jensen.

Sponsor yield.

On that stack of papers, what you find is check boxes. So folks are typically going through that pretty quickly, throwing out their information. It's not abundantly clear that their credit cards could be stored for future use. And this bill would be a transparency bill to clarify that.

Currently, that's not clear. So it's unclear at the moment. Okay.

Sure. What this would do is it would remove just check-in-a-box to actually someone clearly writing that they authorize the use of that credit card and file to be used for future transactions. So they'd actually, under the confines of this bill, they'd have to actually, with a pen and paper, sign their name. They would make it affirmative that they've read, understood, and signed, opposed to just checking a box.

Certainly. This is obviously an opportunity to clarify that you're not just checking a box, but you have read and affirmatively signed, whether electronically or on paper, that they would be using that credit card.

the urgent care to retain that credit card data. That is correct. Okay. What would be in this,

need to reaffirm that consent is if you provide a new credit card, but that first consent on that

or you go to an acute care facility, you provide your consent then, correct? Correct. Would for

In this current version of the bill, it focuses primarily on giving consent to the provider that you're before. So whoever you're going to see at that time for that point of care. and that it would be for as long as you use that specific credit card. Given that credit card doesn't expire, it's not a new credit card provider on file, it would be for that credit card for that facility.

The mechanism in this particular bill is just a transparency mechanism to ensure that the credit card that they placed on file would be the credit card they bill for future payments.

No, they wouldn't have to communicate because you've given consent for the visit and for the service to go ahead and bill that card. And this would not change this fact? That wouldn't change it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Page 11, Rules Report 270, Clerk will read.

An explanation has been requested. Ms. Hooks.

Ms. Walsh.

The sponsor yields.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

They wouldn't do one.

Okay.

Not in all cases.

They would be just denied a visit.

And I'm sure that that is very frustrating.

Am I correct?

Okay.

There's some other reason they can deny entry or no?

Okay. All right.

It's not being done now.

Okay.

A few years, maybe?

22?

Okay.

Wow.

2022 is when we expanded the program.

I see.

On the bill.

Thank you. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

This will be a party vote.

Thank you.

Withdraw the vote. Read the last section.

A party vote has been requested.

Any exceptions?

Thank you. The clerk will read the last section. Excuse me. The clerk will record the vote.

Ms. Hyman to explain her vote.

Thank you, Ms. Hadiman. In affirmative, Ms. Hooks, so explain her vote.

Ms. Hooks in the affirmative.

How do you vote? Ms. Jackson in the affirmative, Ms. Gigolo, to explain her vote.

Thank you, Ms. Gigolo, in the negative.

Thank you. Ms. Simon in the affirmative. Thank you Miss People Stokes to explain her vote

Ms. Peoples-Stokes in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Page 12, Rule 279. Clerk will read. Clerk will read.

An explanation has been requested.

Mr. Melandes.

Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yields.

That's what would.

Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Levenberg, in the affirmative.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Page 36, calendar number 3. B-99, Clerk will read.

On a motion by Mrs. People Stokes, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a couple questions?

Yes, of course.

Thank you, Madam Floor Leader. I just have a couple questions. Maybe you can help me out with these. I've been to one of the commissaries in one of the prisons.

Why do we have them?

Well, I would imagine it's because you want to serve the needs of the people you're taking care of there, as well as operate a business.

As well as operate an opportunity to sell products to your customer base.

Go ahead.

Absolutely.

So it's my understanding that this was brought forward because we believe that there's price gouging going on in our commissaries.

Well, if you look through the public record, you will not see a record of exactly how much they spend for commissary and how much they take in from inmates. And sometimes they actually do increase prices when they're not necessarily to be increased. And so I think this will provide some opportunity for transparency on how they're running their business in the state institution.

So I read the text, the bill text, when I read through it. If this bill passes, it says on one of the lines that this will take effect on June 1, 2026. I'm assuming we'll change that date? Yes, sir, we absolutely will.

Okay. With some of these commissaries, where do the correctional facilities get their food and supplies? I don't know that. If they were a little bit more transparent, we would have that information available to us. I did talk to one, and they do get some from their local people, local grocery stores, local hardwares, local facilities, whatever they need.

Well, I think that makes sense for them to purchase locally, and I also think it makes sense for them to purchase by bulk.

So if you're going to sell ramen noodles... No, sir, I think that as a response to your previous question, based on what region you're in, how much things may cost.

because one of my concerns is if we do it across the board, I'm just hoping our local grocery stores or local business owners don't lose any money. I not sure that just something you could do across the board We a great state a lot of different regional areas with products Absolutely especially with our farms having the opportunity to sell some of the products there as well

Well, I'm not sure if any of our other state agencies have the number of people in population on a regular basis. there's some 34,000 population right now in our state institutions. I'm not sure if we have other institutions that manage themselves like that in that same

mean when you go in there to buy a bottle of water, the price is so much more.

populations. So I think if I understand the question you're asking is, how do we know that they're not getting the best price? How do we know if the population is not getting the best price? So correctional facilities, they go and make purchases, and they buy a bottle of water that costs them a dollar, a period. and then they want to charge $1.50, that's kind of almost unfair to their population. So the idea here is whatever they're buying, that they not go over 3% in increasing the cost to the population base.

My question, though, Madam Floor Leader, was when I asked the question,

And I think about the three-way stops on the three-way where you're going to get a bottle of water and it's cost $4.50 for a bottle of water. Are we watching that as well?

I'm sorry? I wouldn't buy that water, but I have a choice. The populations that are incarcerated, they don't necessarily have choices. They have the bottle of water that's in front of them.

And then we said, you said earlier that we're going to allow each facility to kind of buy their product from wherever they want.

I do think they have to manage their separate operations. So facilities are in different communities, and so it could be a different price around a farmer base where you are than it is where I am. And so I think you have to do them individually, absolutely.

Absolutely. One of my last questions was, I see the New York City Bar Association was in support of this. Why would they be in support of this?

I'm sorry. That's a better question to ask of the New York State Bar Association, but I think in all fairness, it's because it's fair. Okay. It's fair to the people who we are inclined to take care of because they are incarcerated in our state prisons. All right. That's all the questions I have. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Very much appreciated. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

So I understand where we're trying to go with this, and I'm not saying it's wrong or right. But what I wonder sometimes is, as I mentioned when I was asking a couple questions, are we going to do this for other people across New York State? Absolutely. When you're incarcerated, you kind of don't have a choice on what they're going to charge you. should it be a fair price? Yes. My question would be if we're going to do it for an incarcerated individual, should we not do it across the board for some of our other state entities that could or could do the same thing That was my only concern with the bill So again thank you Madam Speaker for allowing me to ask a few questions Thank you

This act shall take effect immediately.

Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will not be supporting this legislation generally, but if there are members who wish to, now would be the time to cast affirmative votes at one seat. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. People-Stokes.

The majority conference is going to be in favor of the speech of legislation. There may be some that would desire to be an exception. I should hope not, but if so, they would love to be able to do so at their seats.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, colleagues, if we can continue our work on our debate list, we're going to go to calendar number 83 by Ms. Rosenthal, followed by calendar number 143 by Mr. Egas, calendar number 200 by Mr. Pretlow, calendar 400 by yours truly, People Stokes, Calendar 233 by Mr. Bronson, Calendar 350 by Ms. Paulin, and Calendar 486 by Ms. Rosenthal. Thank you.

Assembly number 2287, Calendar 83, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

This bill would add the illegal conversion of dwelling units to the definition of harassment in New York City's Housing Maintenance Code.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a couple minutes?

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ms. Rosenthal-White, if someone is making an improvement, even though it may be considered illegal, how is that harassment? That seems to be a stretch. If something's illegal, it shouldn't be done. Understood. But if someone is doing something illegal, how is that a form of harassment if what he's doing is trying to improve his building? If something's illegal, it's illegal. It doesn't matter if it's trying to improve the unit or not. It is illegal. And the term harassment, I can explain to you what it says in the New York City Administrative Code. Harassment shall mean any act or omission by or on behalf of an owner that causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit in order to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy. That's part of it. I'm sorry, could you? It's hard to hear you. You want me to repeat it? Would you, please? Thank you. Sure. Speak a little louder, please. So this would add certain actions to the term harassment. And in the New York City Administrative Code, harassment shall mean any act or omission by or on behalf of an owner that causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy. And then it goes on some more. So we're adding that to harassment. Does that have to be, does that illegal action have to be perpetrated against the occupant or anywhere in the building? Well, it depends if it's intended to cause any person, you know, trouble, make them surrender or waive any rights. And I have some examples of that that were the subject of lawsuits in 2022 and 2023 where landlords did – made some actions to harass their tenants and cause them to leave. But when you say harass, I'm trying to connect the dots here. They're doing something to their building to improve. Well, you think it's improved, but this doesn't weigh in whether it's an improvement or not. It just discusses illegal. Illegal meaning you didn't get a permit, you're not allowed to do it, things like that. So if it's legal and improving, then that's a different issue. But these are things that are already illegal. Well, I understand perfectly what you're saying, but I think you're trying to stretch the definition. How, if they're doing something, okay, maybe he's doing it without a permit. But if it being done to improve his building or her building and again notwithstanding the fact that it illegal how do you make that stretch that it harassing the tenant That I don understand When the intent is to cause the occupant to vacate the unit, then that would fall under harassment. Okay, that, yeah, that I understand. So are you making an assumption here that anything they do you're going to define as harassment? No. Things that are illegal to do that in turn cause or intend to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy to vacate such dwelling unit or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy. All right. So then if a tenant does something illegal, like trying to sublet or putting up an artificial, you know, a fake wall to circumvent the system in the other way, putting the shoe on the other foot, is that tenant now eligible to be removed? Well, the landlord – Does the landlord have the right to remove that tenant? Well, if the landlord wants to remove a tenant, they would have to go to court to evict them. And if they want to cite that, that that's a violation of their lease, then that's what they'll argue in court. Okay, it doesn't automatically expel them from the apartment if they're doing something illegal. No, neither does this. This is just adding to the term harassment. After that, then the DA would have to assess whether to go after that particular owner. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Rosenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker, on the bill.

I believe what the sponsor is attempting to do is to just, in an effort to create a more pro-tenant atmosphere, which I understand the goal of wanting to do that, but it is, I think, stretching the definition of harassment to just nitpick, death by a thousand cuts here, to constantly, I think this legislation is a form of harassment against building owners owners who may be trying to improve their properties and maybe out of frustration with the slowness of the bureaucracy in New York City and the anti-building owner attitude in some of the bureaucracies, especially under the new mayor, maybe in an attempt to create neglect, which would allow the mayor to then confiscate these buildings. I'm wondering, will that increase that kind of activity? So I think this bill is absolutely unnecessary. I think it's a form of harassment itself against building owners to try and make their life even more miserable than it already is because of rent stabilization, an unfriendly bureaucracy, and now a very unfriendly mayor in the city of New York. So I would recommend a no vote on this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for just two quick questions?

Sure.

Thank you, Ms. Rosenthal. So just to clarify, you said if the landlord is doing work that makes the tenant happen to have to move out of their property, then they could be charged with harassment, correct? Yes. But now you also said to my colleague that if the tenant did some illegal work in their apartment and or sublet it right that illegal Well depending on some sublets are legal some are not You have to get permission generally from the landlord. So understand, but let's say they illegally sublet their apartment. Yeah. They are now a landlord, essentially, even though, albeit illegally, could they be charged with harassment also? No. So it's just for the landlord of the building, correct? Correct. So if the tenant is doing something illegal where they bring someone else into their apartment or sublet, they're not going to be charged with harassment, only the landlord. That could be a violation of their lease, and then the landlord would have the choice to go to court to evict them. No, understood, but they are now essentially becoming an illegal landlord, correct? Well. More or less. Well, it's not within the definition of landlord, as far as I can tell. Okay. So if that tenant also was to do illegal work in their apartment, they could be evicted, correct? They could be taken to court to be evicted. Right. As part of their lease agreement, correct? Yes. Yes. Now, if that tenant was to be doing illegal work in their apartment and it was to cause damage in the apartment or surrounding apartments where people would then have to leave their apartment, could they be charged with harassment also? You know, those are details that are really not contemplated in this bill. I see that. I'm just wondering why. Why? Yeah, it seems to be very focused on the landlord, but not if a tenant or someone else in the building was to do something illegal. Well, because there are already plenty of laws that the tenants are— Tenants may not do their own work. That's already illegal and a breach of their lease. So we don't need to add that. Right, but if someone has a lease and they're being forced to leave their apartment due to work that the landlord is doing illegally, they're breaking the lease anyway, right? Wait, say the beginning. If a landlord is doing work illegally, because that's what this is about, correct? Yes. It's about illegal work. Yes, and, well, it's about harassment. No, no, no, well, I understand it, but the language in the bill says if they're doing illegal work in the apartment, and if someone has to move out because of that, that's harassment, correct? Yes, that's part of it. Okay, what's the other part? It is, it's cases where they, and this is rare, but it happens, moving of a building. What is it? Moving of a building. Moving of a building, okay. Yeah, so that's different. Things like that. But the statute that we're amending, the whole thing has to do with what constitutes harassment by a landlord. Understood, but that was my question. If a landlord is already doing illegal work, right, and the tenant would have to leave because of that illegal work that's being done, that's already a law. They cannot do illegal work, just as you were saying the opposite way. There are tenant protections, and there's also illegal things that a tenant could do. There are landlord protections and illegal things that a landlord could do. So why are we adding it only for the landlord but not for the tenant if they were to do illegal work? Because as I said this statute is concerning harassment by landlords It not concerning the other thing because there are remedies right now that landlords have at their disposal So does tenants. Well, let me tell you. Yes, ma'am. It's illegal to discriminate based on a person's protected class, and that is also considered harassment under the Administrative Code. It is illegal to withhold repairs from rent-regulated tenants, to refuse lease renewals, remove a lawfully occupied tenant, and change the locks on a tenant, but those are also classified as tenant harassment. So proving a case of tenant harassment is different from proving a case under the penal law or another section of law and carries different penalties. Okay, so this is just changing the definition of harassment in this case? Because it's adding harassment just for the landlord, but not to a tenant. Yes, that is true. For the tenant, there's a whole set of other obligations and responsibilities in a different section of law. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Foles. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference is going to be in favor of this piece of legislation. There may be some that will desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. to explain his vote. Thank You Madam Speaker. Changing the nature of an apartment, converting it, doing construction on it, maybe a lot of things. It may be a breach of contract, it may be a violation of building code, the fire code, plumbing code, a whole bunch of other things. But it's not harassment. Harassment means something. We see it all the time in the Streets of the city, we see it in real life. We know what harassment is. Changing an apartment should not constitute harassment. Number one, it diminishes what the meaning of the word is. And number two is it kind of makes us seem just a slightly bit silly when people look at us and say, what exactly is it that you're doing to change what people feel when they're being attacked, when they're being harassed, when they're being violated? you're calling changing the nature of an apartment, making a new wall, changing a door, extending an apartment, expanding an apartment. It's not harassment. It really doesn't matter if we say that it is. And I respectfully vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let's explain my vote. So during the debate, the sponsor repeatedly stated, if it's illegal, then it's illegal. I totally agree with that statement. My concern is that this legislature often applies that principle selectively. Today we're expanding the definition of harassment because a landlord engaged in illegal conduct. I kind of agree with that to a degree. We are told that illegal conduct must have consequences. Yet too often this body is unwilling to apply that same principle to other violations, for instance, federal immigration. If we're going to argue that illegal is illegal, then that principle should be applied consistently, not when it's politically convenient. And for that reason, I voted in the negative. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I represent many landlords in my district. Nassau County, they have apartments in the Bronx and the Queens and everywhere. They are feeling that they are being attacked on a daily basis just because they decided 40, 50, 60 years ago to invest in the real estate industry and to own apartments, small apartments here and there. These are not billionaires. These are people that need to be harassed, to be attacked all the time. We're not passing any bills here the past year that support in any way these landlords. Same thing with small businesses. It goes in the same boat. Right now, like we said last week with the Second Amendment, that we're creating a death with a thousand pinpricks. This is what we're doing with landlords here. There's no reason to do it. They are not the bad guys. They're not here to hurt anybody. Yes, some of them come to violations. But now we're at a point where they just don't know what to do, where they should invest. If you guys want people to invest in New York State, if you want the mom and pop people to invest in, then we should do more to help these landlords because it's just embarrassing. This is not what harassment means. If a person is making a mistake, it doesn't mean that he's harassing a human being. I'll be voting on the negative. Thank you.

To explain my vote, I'd like to clarify, for the sake of the debate, examples of harassment. In a building in Crown Heights in 2020 the landlord converted a vacant storage closet into a personal office for two LLCs he had created one of which was for a music label Tenants reported the landlord would arrive in the office every morning at 5 a.m., routinely making noise, waking tenants regularly, and also threatened the tenants with plans to make the new office into his music studio. We've also heard many cases where A tenant is temporarily displaced for hazardous conditions or a fire, and while they were displaced, the landlord submitted plans directly to the Department of Buildings, circumvented DHCR approval to reduce the number of bedrooms and living spaces for families in an attempt to subdivide the units and remove rent-stabilized tenants. That is the kind of harassment we are talking about. That is the kind of harassment that will now include illegal conversions and harassing tenants to get them out, intending to get them out. That is a strict construction of the term and therefore makes common sense. I vote in the affirmative.

Clerk will read. Assembly number 5622, calendar 143, Mr. Ekas, an act to amend the education law.

Thank you. This legislation would phase out over two years the provision of law that allows an individual seeking licensure as a geologist to have 12 years of practical experience in lieu of meeting certain education and experience requirements. And finally, I ask that you not put me between a rock and a hard spot on this issue.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely.

Mr. Ekes, currently how many ways are there to gain your licensure? Currently there are two ways. Educational and experience. Educational experience and then just experience. Okay, so with the experience, is there any other requirements that go along with that? Any additional testing or anything that the applicant would have to do to show proficiency in geology? Yes. Okay, so with that being said, why would we eliminate the 12 years of practical on-the-job training experience with the testing to just go with the educational experience? Because of a couple of reasons, but most importantly, looking back on my own experiences as a teacher, we stay right up to date on issues and so on like that, where if you're working for another licensed geologist or in a program that has been perhaps going on for decades and decades, you probably aren't up on what is modern, what is currently safe, and what is not safe at this point in time So we feel really that an educational background or part of an educational background is necessary for this So would this bill impair the ability of current state employees in geologist training or assistant geologist positions from advancing their career No. We give a two-year period in which anybody who is actually on this current program of a 12-year experience to get their licensure, we give them a two-year period of time to make an application and get exempted from this. So how many employees would miss that two-year window if they were... That I can't answer for you. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Ekes. You answered my questions. You're very welcome.

This act shall take effect on the 180th day.

Mr. Gandolfo. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference is generally opposed to this bill. However, any member who thinks it rocks may vote yes at their desk. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ms. Bebelstokes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. because it does rock. The majority conference is going to be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, there may be a few that would be in denial. The ones who voted their seat for no, but we would prefer yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you

Assembly number 8004, calendar 200. Mr. Pretlow, an act to amend the public health law.

Yes, Madam Speaker. This bill would prohibit health plans from requiring providers of health services to participate in the Child Health Plus program without joining their networks. Mr. Jensen. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the gentleman from Westchester County yield for some questions?

Yes.

Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. What is the basis and the reasoning and the necessity of this piece of legislation? Well, the basis and reasoning for this legislation is to ensure that as many providers of health services can be made available to our underserved young population. Okay. Currently, providers can negotiate with which products they participate in. Why is this legislation proposing to mandate how certain private contracts would be negotiated? Well, this is insurance is directed to young people between 4 and 19 years of age that are uninsured or underinsured right now. It is the feeling of myself as sponsor of this is that these individuals deserve all the health care that can be provided for them. All right. For consumers moving between products within the same insurance provider, the same insurance company, isn't it likely to potentially confuse those members if they move products but they don't have access to the same providers, even if they're still under the same coverage because somebody may be in-network versus out-of-network? That was a very confusing question, but I don't believe that anyone would be adversely affected. Okay. Do you have any concerns that this, by putting these prohibitions in place, that we could see a situation where they could lose their doctors, but they're not actively seeking to find alternative coverage in having a... I'm not following it. How would they lose their doctor? What this is, is if a family is seeking the medical assistance of a health care provider, and that provider wants to operate under the Child Health Care Plus program, that that doctor not be required to join the network of the participating healthcare industry or company, insurance company. But is there a concern so they wouldn't have to join the network of the provider, but they still be out of network in other respects. So just because they're on Child Health Plus. No, no, that is not true. They will not be out of network because they will, number one, not be in network. This program is paid for between a partnership between the federal government and the state of New York. 65% is paid by the federal government and 35% by the state government. This very substantially similar bill was vetoed by the executive in 2021. That was basically this bill, and the then-governor vetoed it because they said that there were not many complaints of this nature. So it's not a reason in my eyes to veto a bill because people hadn't complained at a recent time when the bill was first passed in 2021. Has there been any substantial changes? None. So it's largely an identical piece of legislation? It's identical. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Mr. Gandolfo. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference is generally opposed to this bill. However, any member who wants to vote yes may do so at their desk. Mr. Benedetto. Madam Speaker. On the other side, the Democrats will be generally in favor of this bill. But if they wish to vote against it, they are free to do so. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Assembly number 8091B calendar 204 Mrs People Stokes An act to amend the general municipal law An explanation has been requested Ms B Stokes Thank you Madam Speaker This bill actually provides that certain purchase contracts to purchase food can be awarded to a qualified bidder who fulfills certain values based on procurement standards when such a bid is not more than 10% higher than the lowest responsible bidder. And when the bidder makes publicly available data on where such bidder sources of food items set forth the criteria for values-based procurement standards to include local economies, environmental resilience, racial equity, value workforce, value agricultural sector, animal welfare, and nutrition. So the bill actually provides an option for local governments to award food purchases through the general municipal law to qualify New York-based bidders who is within 10% of the lowest bid for certain value-based conditions are met.

Yes, would the majority leader yield for a couple questions?

Yes, of course I will. The sponsor, yes. Well, first of all, Madam Majority Leader, it's been an honor and a pleasure to serve with you. This might be the last time that you and I ever get an opportunity to debate each other as we're both leaving. Well, let's hope not. Well, I don't know. You might change your mind when we get done. We may. You never will. Anyways, my first question is, is the governor vetoed this bill. Can you tell me, is there anything in this bill that we're debating today or that's before the floor that has been changed since the governor's veto message? Well, there have been some amendments since there was vetoed in 24. And it basically clarifies that this is for New York state suppliers only. The 10% price preference for values-aligned suppliers is now available only to New York State-based farmers and vendors.

They always were included in the Good Food New York bill just by virtue of being a New York producer. And we're explicitly naming out dairy products in the nutrition provision of this legislation.

Well, I'd like to help you remove those roadblocks, because I concur with you, my colleague, that New York State is one of the best states in the nation for farming. I happen to live in every county in an urban area, but the county that I live in's largest industry is agriculture. It's what we do in the state of New York. But I also will mention this to you, that perhaps had we been able to implement this legislation, some of those firms that closed wouldn't need to because they're in a place where they have to compete with larger industries, where they cannot be the lowest bidder. So we have to give them grace in order to get access to doing business in the communities around where they live. So hopefully once this is implemented, we will not be losing more firms because they will be able to compete with, I won't say the names of the larger firms, we all know who they are who roll into our state on with food on trucks as opposed to us buying our food from farmers who live within and around our communities. Well in closing Madam Majority Leader I want to thank you for your

Thank you, Mr. Lamondes.

Yes, Madam Speaker, of course I will.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Very nice to engage with you. I just have a question. There's language in here. I want to read that. This framework allows municipalities to choose bidders who exemplify values important to them through specific criteria, et cetera, et cetera. Who's defining those values?

In the justification memo. Do I have the bill? I'm just curious what values we're talking about.

Yes, and thank you for pointing that out. Carrying on my colleagues' comments, I would like to ask a follow-on question. Do you think the fact that our minimum wage is so disproportional to neighboring states like Pennsylvania that that causes a problem for our entire agricultural economy? For example, their minimum wage is half of ours. and essentially what that means is just about any commodity of agricultural product from Pennsylvania can be shipped anywhere in New York for less than the New Yorkers in that local area where it's being sold can produce it for.

Okay, I beg to differ with you. Thank you for answering your questions.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the majority conference is going to be in favor of this piece of legislation. It's consumer-friendly, it's business-friendly, and quite frankly, it's nutritious-friendly. However, there may be a few of us that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I certainly want to acknowledge the advocates who have been working with me faithfully on this piece of legislation for like the last six years. But I also want to mention that this bill provides an option for food procurement. And as we move further and further into the world we live in with a lot of uncertainties, and we're not sure what may happen next week in terms of the multiple wars that are going on in our country, what a great option it would be to know where you can get optional food close to you that would be healthy for you and your family. And by the way, I also want to mention that only New York-based bidders can be considered to receive this sort of preference, period. And despite there is some objections from the New York State Farm Bureau, there are some farms who support this legislation because they can see that there are ways for them to increase their business opportunities in and around the regions where they live. So, again, you know, I want to thank those who have joined me in supporting this legislation. And I hope that the rest of you will come along and understand this is the right thing to do at the right time. Thank you.

Yes, Madam Speaker. This bill would amend mental hygiene law to designate the records and information relating to patients who have been deceased for 50 years or longer as historical records and would not be subject to privacy protections. And it would also not require any entity to retain records for any particular period of time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

So I understand that the legislation would make it so that after the individual has been dead for 50 years, it would no longer, the records would no longer receive the privacy protections, correct?

And are these specifically mental health records?

Okay. And would that be mental health records maintained by whom?

Okay. So say that that period of time has elapsed and now someone wishes to access those records after this legislation is passed. So who can then request those records? Does it have to be a family member or could it be anybody?

And could you run through that, just generally speaking, what that procedure looks like? Does it require a court order, or is it just simply almost like a FOIL request, or how is this information obtained?

Okay, but is it, just help me, is it a form that needs to get filled out by the individual requesting it and sent to OMH, maybe identifying what they know about the patient's name or where they might have been?

Okay, and then that's just handled administratively?

Okay, so it could be that a genealogist could be interested. I saw that there were some memos of support from the genealogical community, if I'm saying that right, that they would be maybe interested in this.

Yeah, so the objective here is to make these records accessible for a number of reasons. Number one, it could be a family member who needs or would like to know if mental health conditions run in the family. So for their, they could then possibly have preventive steps and things of that nature. It could be that in past years, unfortunately, some of our state facilities operated with coercive tactics and inhumane tactics and would remove a family member. So it could be a family member who would like to find out what happened to a previous family member as they look at their genealogy. or it could also be someone who is interested in studying particular types of mental health illnesses or diseases and looking at past records of treatments and things of that nature. So there's a lot of different reasons why someone would want to look at these records, But the important part here is we're given a sufficient number of years, 50 years, to protect the privacy of individuals. That's very similar to what is under HIPAA regulations with mental health records. But we're balancing that privacy interest with the need for, in general, society to understand about the treatment and the care of individuals who had mental health illnesses or conditions. And I can appreciate that in some instances it might be family members who might be interested. But let's take the reverse of that and say that there's a family that's very private. And they want to preserve the memory of their loved one. And the dignity and respect that they want that person to continue to have even in death. in death, they would not have any standing to oppose this very administrative request for records. They would really have no say as to whether the records regarding their loved ones got released, right?

No, I can appreciate that. And I agree with you. I think that there is a balance. I just think that when we've – well, let me ask you this question before it goes out of my head. You mentioned about aligning the 50 years in this legislation with federal HIPAA.

All right, thank you very much for answering my questions. I appreciate it.

Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Sempolinsky?

It would be qualified persons under Article 33 of the Mental Hygiene Law. And that does include family members and caregivers. It does include family members, caregivers, and legal representatives.

That is correct.

Yeah, it could be a descendant of a family member who has been estranged or in some other way disconnected with the general family line that would need this protection.

We're broadening it under our New York state law, but remember we're also aligning it with what already exists under HIPAA, under federal law, or federal regulations.

On the bill.

Thank you Thank you Read the last section This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Bronson, to explain his vote.

Mr. Bronson, in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you.

Mr. Derso on the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 127, noes 12. The bill is passed. Page 34, calendar number 350. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1931, rules calendar 350. Ms. Paulin, an act to amend the social services law. An explanation has been requested, Ms. Paulin.

Ms. Paulin. Ms. Walsh.

Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Warner to explain her vote.

Ms. Warner in the affirmative.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, noes 0. The bill is passed. Page 41, calendar number 486. Clerk will read. Assembly number 109608, calendar 486, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the election law. An explanation has been requested. Require the Board of Elections to notify survivors of domestic violence prior to the expiration of their confidential registration status. Mr. Slater.

Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. So can you explain to me how a domestic violence victim is notified currently by the Board of Elections that their information... They're not. They are not.

No, no, we don't. But we know that there are some.

Well, in 2021, we passed a law allowing survivors of domestic violence to apply for confidential registration.

Yes. They have to submit a sworn statement to the local Board of Elections and say that they're a survivor of domestic violence and want their records kept confidential because of the potential for physical or emotional harm. And that we passed in 21, but also the provision was it's confidential for four years. For four years Bill would say six months before the four years expires they would get a notification And we don have any records though so that we would know how many registrations are expiring each year No, we don't, but the boards of election do. The board of elections do, the individual board of elections do.

Correct.

That's right.

In the first place. Well, usually if they are leaving a domestic violence situation, they are connected with resources and organizations that help people in those circumstances.

That would be one way. There are many ways. They might have a friend or in a group for domestic violence survivors. Here's what you should do if you leave.

Yes.

They would not. They would not.

It doesn't ban it. It doesn't say explicitly.

Well, it doesn't say you can't.

I don't know. I guess we just thought of snail mail.

Well, this is something that the survivor has asked for. So they would assess for themselves if they thought this was good or not. I mean, they wouldn't be in the same location with their abuser. So they'd have a new address which would be confidential and the abuser wouldn't know where it was, at least not through voter registration information.

I'm saying it with hope, but not with certainty.

What? I didn't hear –

Yeah.

That's the number we pick to give the survivor enough time to take care of it.

then that confidentiality expires.

We chose six. That's enough time for the survivor to assess their situation. It gives enough lead time for the Board of Elections to send the notice out. It's just a good amount of time for both sides.

It doesn't address that. It doesn't address that.

But like to confidential address and name, I mean, it's like a regular letter.

I think your concerns are unwarranted. the board of elections, the boards of elections routinely send out, you know, your voting polling place has changed, it comes in a board of elections logo on the mailing, you're in the wrong election district, things like that. So it would just be a routine kind of, it wouldn't necessarily arouse any suspicion.

Yes.

Yes. It does.

Well, I actually happen to have, I know we can't use props, but I'll share this with you later. It's a Board of Elections New York State Statement of Confidential Voter. So it's already written, and they would have to submit a new application.

Yes. The confidentiality is supposed to be registered with the Board of Elections. So that's the confidentiality regarding the registered address of the Board of Elections, not any other registered address.

No, no. I mean, it's just for Board of Elections purposes.

So they wouldn't be able to see that.

On the bill.

Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 138 nays 0 The bill is passed Majority leader People Stokes

Majority Leader People Stokes.

On a motion by Ms. People Stokes, the A calendar is advanced. Page 3, and starting with Rules Report 288. On consent, page 3, Rules Report 288. The clerk will read.

Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 1558C, Rules Report 289, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the general business law. The bill is laid aside on a motion by Ms. Rosenthal. The Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. The bill is laid aside. Assembly number 1934A, Rules Report 290, Mr. Maher,

Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 137, nays 1. The bill is passed. Assembly number 4018A, Rules Report 291, Ms. Forrest, an act to amend the public health law. The bill is laid aside. Assembly number 5066C, Rules Report 292, Mr. Jacobson, an act to amend the public authorities law. On a motion by Mr. Jacobson, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill has advanced. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Mr. Jacobson in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 6037A, Rules Report 293, Ms. Hunter, an act to amend the mental hygiene law. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, noes at zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 6545C, Rules Report 294, Mr. Zaccaro, an act to amend the general business law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 6950, Rules Report 295, Ms. Cruz, an act to amend the labor law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 7121A, Rules Report 296, Ms. Bichotte-Hermelin, an act to amend the executive law. Read the last section.

Clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 138. Noes, 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 7558, Rules Report 297, Ms. Reyes, an act to amend the workers' compensation law. On a motion by Ms. Reyes, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, noes at zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8008, Rules Report 298, Ms. Lunsford, an act to amend the general municipal law. On a motion by Ms. Lunsford, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Mr. Slater in the affirmative.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8244A, Rules Report 299, Mrs. People Stokes,

This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 8273B, Rules Report 300, Ms. Resta, an act to amend the tax law. On a motion by Ms Resta the Senate bill is before the House The Senate bill is advanced Home rule message is at the desk Read the last section This act shall take effect immediately The clerk will record the vote

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 107, nays 31. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8525B, Rules Report 301, Ms. Giglio,

Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8773, Rules Report 302, Mr. Magnarelli, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 8810A, Rules Report 303, Mr. Dinowitz, an act to amend the general municipal law Home rule message is at the desk, read the last section

The clerk will record the vote

Mr. Dinowitz in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 137, nays 1. The bill is passed. Assembly number 8874A, Rules Report 304, Mr. Burke,

Read the last section. Home rule, message is at the desk.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 9518, Rules Report 306, Mr. Bronstein, an act to amend the real property law. On a motion by Mr. Bronstein, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 138 noes 0 The bill is passed Assembly number 9534 rules report 307 Ms Solange an act to amend the local finance law On a motion by Ms Solange the Senate bill is before the House The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 138, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 9564, Rules Report 308, Mr. Magnarelli, an act to amend the transportation law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 9645A, Rules Report 309, Mr. Levine, an act to amend the mental hygiene law. On a motion by Mr. Levine, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote. The Senate bill is before the House.

Mr. Levine in the affirmative.

Ms. Warner in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 139, nos 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10104A, Rules Report 310, Mr. Berger,

Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Mr Berger to explain his vote Madam Speaker, a legislator is only as good as the office and the staff they have behind them.

Mr. Berger in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Assembly number 10188A, Rules Report 311, Mr. Magnarelli, an act to amend the general business law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10218A, Rules Report 312, Ms. Warner, an act to amend Chapter 589 of the laws of 2015. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Ms. Warner in the affirmative. Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 139 nays 0 The bill is passed Assembly number 10263A Rules Report 313 Ms Buttonshaw an act to amend the retirement and social security law Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Buttonshaw to explain her vote.

Ms. Button-Jone in the affirmative.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Assembly number 10334A, Rules Report 314, Ms. Zillage, an act to amend the education law. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Assembly number 10396A, Rules Report 315, Mr. Jacobson, an act to amend Chapter 295 of the laws of 2023. On a motion by Mr. Jacobson, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

The bill is passed. Assembly number 10429, Rules Report 316, Mr. Powers, an act to amend the tax law. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Assembly number 10470A, Rules Report 317, Mr. Simone, an act to amend the public authorities law. Read the last action.

The clerk will record the vote.

Mr. Fall.

The vote is withdrawn. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10588, Rules Report 318. Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the public housing law. On a motion by Ms. Rosenthal, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.