Senate Floor Session — Regular Session

The Senate will come to order. I ask everyone to please rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)

Reading of the Journal.

Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions. Messages from the Assembly. The Secretary will read.

So ordered. Messages from the Governor. Reports of standing committees. Reports of select committees. Communications and reports from state officers. Motions and resolutions. Senator Gianaris.

The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Move to reconsider the vote by which these bills were passed.

Ayes, 59.

I offer the following amendments.

Please recognize Senator Hinchey for an introduction.

Thank you, Mr. President. When Benjamin Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall, he was asked if our new government would be a republic or a monarchy. His reply was both a promise and a warning wrapped into one: A republic, if you can keep it. Franklin understood that for our great experiment to succeed, government could not survive on its own. It would need people, ordinary people -- people willing to show up, speak up, and hold their representatives to account. That was 1787. Nearly 250 years later, those principles still persist. And the students who are here with us today uphold them in a way that should inspire us all. We are joined in the gallery by students from the Democracy Matters Club at Emma Willard School in Troy, including one of my constituents, Fiona Kelly, from Hudson. Democracy Matters was founded in 2001 by NBA player Adonal Foyle and his parents, Joan and Jay Mandle, who also happen to be constituents of mine from the Hudson Valley. They built this incredible student-led organization on a simple idea: Civic engagement is for everyone, and especially for young people, who deserve a voice in shaping their futures right now. This year alone, students have led discussions with their peers on the importance of free and fair elections. They have written to their elected representatives. And they have raised their voices on so many issues that are important to them, from advocating for the right of 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote, demanding human rights and dignity in our immigration system. They have sounded the alarm on the climate crisis and the urgent need to protect our environment, and they have wrestled with the hardest questions on foreign policy and international conflict. They do not wait to be invited into these conversations. They have grasped something that takes most people years to understand, that democracy is as powerful as it is fragile, and it is not a spectator sport. It is imperfect, and it only works when people fight for it, generation after generation, relentlessly in pursuit of the greater good. To the students here today, thank you for your courage and your conviction. We need more people like you fighting for a world that's better, more inclusive, and more accountable. And thank you to the club advisor, who is here with them today. Mr. President, I ask you to extend the privileges of the chamber, and please ask them to be recognized. Thank you all so much for being here.

Senator Gianaris.

Senator Rolison for an introduction.

Thank you, Senator Rolison. To Ron and his family, we welcome you on behalf of the Senate. We extend to you the privileges and courtesies of this house. Please rise and be recognized. (Standing ovation.)

All right, Mr. President, let's move on to previously adopted Resolution 1681, by Senator Stec, read its title, and call on Senator Stec, please.

Resolution 1681, by Senator Stec, congratulating the Potsdam Central High School Girls Hockey Team upon the occasion of capturing the New York State Public High School Athletic Association Girls Hockey Championship.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, all. Absolutely delighted any time you get a chance to welcome constituents down here to our chamber, especially young people, people that have achieved something that they're going to remember the rest of their lives. They made their family and community proud, they worked hard, they had an outstanding season. The Potsdam Lady Sandstoners are this year's Public High School Ice Hockey champions. They defeated Adirondack United -- another team down my way that I share with Senator Tedisco -- who was the two-time defending state champion, but they beat them for the state championship back on February 21st, my birthday, with a score of 3 to 2. And it was just wonderful to meet them outside earlier before session started. But again, you know, to pause and just recognize the achievement of these young ladies that come from a hockey town; Potsdam's known for having great hockey, both at the high school and collegiate level. And, you know, certainly having them down here with a fantastic record, 18, 2 and 3, I think it was, or 3 and 2 -- 2 and 3. They avenged an earlier loss to Adirondack United in the state championship, so I know that that probably made that victory even sweeter. But, you know, Mr. President, through you, if you would please congratulate them, give them the cordialities of the house as we commemorate the Lady Sandstoners' 2026 Girls Ice Hockey State Championship. Thank you.

The resolution was adopted on March 5th. Senator Gianaris.

The resolution is open for cosponsorship. Should you choose not to be a cosponsor, please notify the desk. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today with an aye vote on this bill. It's the renaming of a local bridge. And I just would bear repeating of a few comments I'd made earlier regarding Sergeant Henry Johnson, who has been such an extraordinary local if not regional hero. He first enlisted in World War I in 1917, into the segregated all-Black 15th New York National Guard Infantry Regiment, which was the 369th U.S. Infantry Regiment, which ultimately was referred to as the Harlem Hellfighters. While on duty in France in 1918, his party came under attack by a German raiding party. They were completely outnumbered. He alone fought off, with his rifle -- because all of his party, his side, was injured. He fought using his rifle, then used it as a club, then used a bolo knife in hand-to-hand combat. He suffered 21 injuries, yet held off the entire raiding party. Fast forward 80 -- it took 80 years for him to even get a Purple Heart, although he was given the highest distinction and honors in France at that time, 80 years before he got the Purple Heart. In 2022 he finally received the Distinguished Service Cross and in 2015, almost a century later, with advocacy from so many, including Senator Schumer, he was finally awarded the Medal of Honor, our nation's highest military award. In 2023 a bipartisan congressional delegation renamed a Confederate-named Louisiana fort from Fort Polk to Fort Johnson in his honor. Very sadly, last year President Trump took that name off the fort, reverted it to its old name of Fort Polk with a different enlisted individual by the name of Polk. After a century of advocacy to right the wrongs of history, it's been a painful chapter. Our way of making amends on that, since we can't change those federal actions, is to elevate his legacy and his name here in the Capital Region by renaming the Patroon Island Bridge right here in Albany -- it connects to Rensselaer County -- after the Medal of Honor recipient, Sergeant Henry Johnson Memorial Bridge. It is a way to try to preserve this extraordinary history and make sure that we honor this extraordinary hero despite the attempts to rewrite history at the national level. It just beared repeating. Thank you for bearing with me again on this. It's just incredibly important, and I'm just so proud to have been a sponsor of this bill with so many. And with that, I vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to explain my vote and thank the sponsor for this legislation. Wounded 21 times, kept his comrades from being captured and kept the Germans from advancing, and then died at the age of 36, in 1929. A remarkable life, a remarkable achievement that went unnoticed for too long. And in this chamber today we solidify his memory here in New York State and in the Capital District with the renaming of the Patroon Island Bridge to the Sergeant Henry Johnson Bridge. And it's something that I'm very proud to cosponsor. To think of the lives of our veterans and what they stand for, their sacrifices, and what their families have endured, and what Sergeant Henry Johnson did at that time. To think that he was awarded the Purple Heart in 1996, so many decades after his sacrifice -- it's painful to think about. But what we're doing here today is a remarkable accomplishment, and I'm proud to vote aye. Thank you.

In relation to Calendar 252, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 58. Nays, 1.

Calendar Number 532, Assembly Bill Number 10080B, by Assemblymember Wieder, an act to amend the Public Officers Law.

Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you so much, Mr. President. This is an exciting bill. As I've mentioned before, the greatness of the Bronx and the beautiful diversity that we are, we have the community of Little Yemen in the neighborhood of Van Nest. And this community has grown exponentially. It is so vibrant, it is so beautiful in what it's been able to do, reflecting the American dream when immigrants come to New York and this country to build a better life, to build community, to build identity. And Little Yemen has built itself to be a community that we cannot forget, we cannot oversee, we cannot overlook. They are a community that has stood up to violence, if you will. When the first Muslim ban was enacted to our country, they started the bodega strike to show that we will not take this hate to our communities. Little Yemen is a community that has opened its doors to many, that has created opportunity for many. The many businesses that have grown and developed and opened, thousands of jobs, the economic boost to the neighborhood. Not only do we have great restaurants, but we have clothing stores, we have community centers, cultural hubs. And soon the biggest mosque that will come to the state is to open in Little Yemen. So this cultural district is now going to recognize Little Yemen as a place that we welcome everyone to come see, we welcome business, we welcome tourism. But we thank the Yemen community for their contributions to not only the Van Nest neighborhood, but to this state, showing that all things are possible and we can see prosperity grow in some of the darkest times. So thank you. I proudly vote aye.

In relation to Calendar 565, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 58. Nays, 1.

Calendar Number 579, Senate Print 2648, by Senator Addabbo, an act to amend the Insurance Law.

Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Ayes, 59.

Calendar Number 583, Senate Print 1462, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.

Lay it aside.

Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Mr. President. Years ago when I served as the chair of the county legislature, I gaveled out of a session and proceeded across the street from county hall to our county services building, where I encountered a woman and her young son. The woman did not speak English. She spoke her language to her young son, and then he in turn asked me: "Miss, what door do we go through so that we can sign up to get food?" I instructed them on what was the proper door to go through and what floor that they needed to go through. Of course the little boy then explained to his mother in his language. And at that time I realized the hour of the day and how young that little boy was, and that he was likely supposed to be in school, learning, getting educated, socializing with his friends, learning how to be a contributing member of society. But he was there at the county social services building, trying to help his mother navigate a way to get food. Mr. President, this bill before us today expands on a previous action that this honorable body has taken to provide language access services across the State of New York. This bill will ensure that all agencies of the state are included, not just those under the Governor's purview. It provides services in the top 12 languages statewide and the top three languages in each region, ensuring access reflects local communities. In Western New York, where I represent, some of the most prominent languages include Arabic, Chinese, Bengali, Hindi, Swahili, and Somali. Eleven percent of Erie County residents speak a language other than English at home. And in the City of Buffalo, that number is 20 percent. This bill recognizes the diversity of New Yorkers, but also it recognizes that legislation is not one-size-fits-all. And that cannot be done in a successful state. Legislation must fit the realities of each region. And I am happy that this bill does that. This bill is not only good for public service for our residents, but it is also an investment into our residents who are seeking to be a part of New York's economy. We want people seeking jobs to be able to navigate the New York State Department of Labor's job list. We want people to be able to understand their legal rights. And we want our children, many of whom unfortunately act as informal interpreters for their families, we want them to be able to be focused on their education, to establish themselves as first-generation New Yorkers, instead of having to be pulled out of the classroom to help their families fill out an application or speak with a caseworker during an appointment. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge all of the advocates who have pushed for this bill time and time again. Many people who speak limited English or who need an interpreter to feel heard, they feel unheard, they feel that government is not here for them. They feel that government is not here to support them -- or even worse, they feel that government is here to punish them. But I hope that this bill instills some hope and some confidence that we here in this honorable body, and in New York, will represent and represent all people who call New York home with dignity, in their preferred language. This body passed this critical legislation last year. And I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Assembly to do the same this session, to show all New Yorkers that they deserve a government that is accessible, a government that is respectful and responsive to everyone in their native language. I vote in the affirmative, Mr. President, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

In relation to Calendar 601, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Helming, Martins, Mattera, O'Mara, Rhoads, Stec, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 50. Nays, 10.

Calendar Number 605, Senate Print 8046A, by Senator Bynoe, an act to amend the Emergency Tenant Protection Act.

Lay it aside.

Calendar Number 612, Senate Print Number 3519, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, an act to amend the Penal Law.

Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Senator Scarcella-Spanton to explain her vote.

Senator Scarcella-Spanton to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Mr. President. So this legislation addresses a very serious, growing public safety concern, which is the rise in false reports involving weapons, particularly incidents that mimic active shooter or violent threats. Instances of falsely reporting a critical emergency, otherwise known as swatting, have increased exponentially across the state. These situations don't just strain emergency systems, they send a very, very frightful ripple through our entire communities. Parents get the call that their child's school is in lockdown, students are left frightened and confused in classrooms while families sit in fear waiting for answers. That kind of trauma just doesn't disappear when the all-clear is given. You know, this sort of trauma stays with students, parents and educators long after this fake incident has occurred. Under current law, falsely reporting fires, explosions, or hazardous materials releasing around schools is a crime. However, this statute has not kept pace with the reality that we face today. This bill provides law enforcement and prosecutors with the tools they need to respond appropriately and, more importantly, deter this dangerous behavior in the future. It also strengthens protections for schools by making clear that false threats involving weapons, on school grounds, will be treated with the seriousness that they deserve. At a time when students, parents and educators are already on edge, we must ensure as lawmakers that those who intentionally cause fear and disruption are held accountable. We need to hold people accountable for doing this. I thank my colleagues for their consideration, and I vote aye. Thank you.

Ayes, 60.

Calendar Number 618, Assembly Bill Number 8492C, by Assemblymember Weprin, an act to amend the Executive Law.

Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of today's calendar.

The Secretary will ring the bell. The Secretary will read.

Senator Lanza, why do you rise?

Thank you, Senator Lanza. Upon review of the amendment, and in accordance with Rule 6, Section 4B, I rule it nongermane and out of order.

The appeal has been made and recognized, and Senator Rhoads may be heard.

Thank you, Senator. I want to remind the house that the vote is on the procedures of the house and the ruling of the chair. Those in favor of overruling the chair, signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

A show of hands has been requested and so ordered. Announce the results.

The ruling of the chair stands, and the bill-in-chief is before the house. Senator Martins, why do you rise?

Would the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. I don't have the current latest data from the most recent census available to me, but I think it is roughly about $200,000 per year for the 16,000 residents of Battery Park City.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor has yielded.

Through you, Mr. President, I've seen those numbers. I don't tend to look at that as a Manhattan -- as a Manhattan figure. The median income that this bill is premised on is the AMI for the New York metropolitan area, and that number for a single-person household is about $120,000 and -- a little less than $120,000. And it is typically adjusted for household size upwards for households with more people in them.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. The Battery Park City is an unusual entity. It is a state authority that controls the property in Battery Park City. In addition to those 16,000 or so residents, it also has very large corporate properties, commercial properties. And it generally covers its own expenses. We have in this chamber approved -- we have to. As an authority, we have to approve their borrowing authority. So we've approved very substantial amounts of borrowing for the authority in recent years. There's not a lot of state direct taxpayer subsidy going to Battery Park City. And I would also note that this bill has no -- effectively will have no cost whatsoever for state taxpayers.

Does the sponsor yield?

The Senator yields.

Through you, Mr. President, the median -- I'm not going to dispute that figure. I don't have that figure before me because it's not relevant to this bill. I mean, it's not relevant to the way this bill would operate. This bill operates on the area median income, which is calculated on a metropolitan-area basis, and the bill specifically refers to that median income as the median income that this bill -- that the eligibility for households are calculated in this bill. And that number is, again, 150 percent of AMI. Currently in New York City the metropolitan area is $170,000. That's the 150 percent number for -- that would be relevant to this bill for a single-person household. And again, as I said, the bill adjusts that for household size upward if there are more residents in a particular household.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, that's false.

Through you, if I may elaborate, we have many programs that subsidize affordability at all kinds of income levels. In this chamber we have approved tax breaks for developers to build housing that -- where the affordable units that they must provide are sometimes up to 165 percent of AMI or 130 percent of AMI. In this case we're providing -- what this bill does, which we haven't gotten to, is basically freeze the portion of somebody's housing costs that are a result of the ground rent that their building is paying to the state authority that the Battery Park City Authority is, and that money, the surplus of the Battery Park City Authority, all of it goes to the City of New York. So as I think my colleague is quite aware, the City of New York has a wide range of programs to subsidize affordability for middle-class families to continue to live in various parts of the city, and this is one such program.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is now closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.

The bill will be restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Mr. President. The bill before us creates a housing rebate that's limited to certain homeowners and renters in one small area of New York City. But the reality, as we all know, is housing affordability isn't just a Battery Park issue, it's a statewide issue. Like so many people in this chamber, I've heard the concerns from our young people who are struggling to afford to buy or to rent their first home. And I've heard from so many seniors who are worried about being forced out of their lifelong homes because of the state mandates that are driving up property taxes and utility costs. But the good news, Mr. President, is I have a housing affordability package that includes real solutions to make housing more affordable and more attainable for people across the entire state. Legislation that includes help for first-time homebuyers, incentivizes new construction, offsets the infrastructure costs needed to build new homes -- you know, Mr. President, you and I in our districts are struggling with the lack of electric capacity. Legislation that encourages the renovation of existing properties by providing relief from increasing property assessments. These are real, practical, statewide solutions to reduce costs and expand housing opportunities, and I am frustrated that they've been sitting in committees for years. These are good solutions that should be considered. The bill before us does not consider statewide impact, so for that reason I vote no.

Thank you, Mr. President. I was quite heartened to hear Senator Martins' assault on those who are doing too well in this state and in fact have no need for government assistance. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, his district is one of the wealthiest in the state. And so I would encourage him to be consistent with what he just said and support what we are trying to do and actually ask for more from those people. If he's so concerned that there are people who are doing so well that we shouldn't think about what they might need -- they're flush, I think was the word that he used -- he represents many, many flush New Yorkers. And perhaps the best way to deal with the problem that he identified is to ask them to give a little more so we can truly help those who are genuinely in need in this state. I vote yes, Mr. President. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to clarify a few of the things that have been said here on the floor today. First of all, on the notion that the state is subsidizing the Battery Park City Authority and the capital subsidies were proposed for improvements to Battery Park City, the capital subsidies that we have authorized but not paid for, through state law, are to do the very expensive resiliency projects that are intended to protect all of Lower Manhattan from the kind of catastrophic damage that we saw during Sandy. This -- in order to protect Lower Manhattan, we need to basically address the waterfront all the way around, basically for all of my district, but down the Hudson River, around the Battery, and up the East Side. And the City of New York, mostly through city capital dollars, are spending many billions of dollars to do that. And what we authorized is the Battery Park City to borrow money against its own revenue -- not the state's -- which is mostly generated by rents paid for by the people who live in that space, who then are going to pay back the bonds for capital subsidies that will do the resilience projects necessary to prevent catastrophic flooding throughout Lower Manhattan, as we saw in Sandy. There is not a substantial amount of state subsidy going into Battery Park City in general. In fact, very nearly -- like I can't think of a state taxpayer subsidy that goes directly to Battery Park City. The second thing is just -- and I referenced this before, but all of the surplus revenue of the Battery Park City Authority goes to the City of New York. So if you're worried your taxpayers will be paying for any portion of this, this is entirely going to be a financial transaction that will address -- will have a very minor increase in the city's revenue and no increase in the tax burden of any New Yorker who doesn't live in New York City. The total estimated cost of a bill like this, it varies, because it's hard to know how many people will take it up and how many people will be eligible. But roughly we're talking about the Battery Park City Authority waiving about half a million dollars in rent payments. These are ground rent payments. They still will pay rent on their apartments. They'll pay payments in lieu of taxes, they'll pay other things. They will not pay an increase in the ground rent that their building pays -- which are going up very rapidly because, as my colleague noted, Manhattan has become a very desirable place to live in recent years. Most of the people who are recipients of this are people who went to Battery Park City when it was not such a desirable place. The people who are recipients -- when you make $140,000 in my district, you are not a wealthy person. Sorry, but the figure is slightly larger than that. But the kinds of people that are paying this are teachers, they are firefighters, they are people making what we consider middle-class incomes. The idea that somehow it would be beneficial to people in the Bronx to price those people out so that the millionaires my colleagues are talking about can move into their apartments, is an odd one, to say the least. For perspective, the Battery Park City Authority's operating revenue is $445 million a year. Again, a great percentage of that goes directly to the City of New York. And again, the total cost of this bill would vary somewhere in the range of half a million to a million dollars a year, or about $1 or $2 per thousand dollars of revenue of the Battery Park City Authority. So this is not going to break the bank. It is subsidizing middle-class people. I, for one, think it's important that we continue to make sure middle-class people can live in all of our neighborhoods, not just on the outskirts of our cities. And I vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I do represent what I consider to be the best district in New York State, the Northern Shore of Nassau County. And yes, Senator Gianaris, it is an affluent district and it has wealth there. But this bill doesn't involve the North Shore of Nassau County, Mr. President. It involves Battery Park City. And if we're going to talk about paying their share, I can tell you that the hundred billion dollars in additional state spending that has been imposed on all New Yorkers, including the people in my district, by the Majority in this house over the last eight years is significant. That's $100 billion that was pulled out of the New York State economy, including the residents of my district. So yes, they have contributed -- probably more than they should, but so has each and every one of your community members. Every person, when you do the math, is paying. Every person is paying $5,000-plus more per year today because of the additional spending that this state has incurred over the last eight years. A family of four, between $20,000 and $25,000. So yes, Senator Gianaris, they are paying. My district, your district, every other district. And that's why I'm opposing it, and I continue to oppose the incredible increases that are being suggested by this body, irresponsible increases that are being supported by this Majority. And I continue to vote no on this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to speak a little bit to this idea that there should be more means-testing in affordable housing. We already of course use means-testing quite a lot in affordable housing policy. We use it for Section 8 vouchers. We use means-testing in determining eligibility to live in public housing, to live in other projects that have an affordability component. Means-testing in even broader strokes, such as when a renter applies for a rent-stabilized apartment or seeks to live in rent-regulated housing, is bad public policy. Practically speaking, it would be a nightmare to actually implement. But it would also serve to exclude more people from housing in a time when we should absolutely not be interested in doing that. But also, it does nothing to increase housing supply. And to this idea that we have rent-stabilized or rent-regulated renters who are wealthy Manhattanites exploiting the system, we -- based on 2023 data from the Furman Center, we know that the median rent-stabilized household income in New York City is about $50,000 to $55,000 annually. That is not a wealthy person, certainly not in New York City. And they are demonstrably typically very rent-burdened. So I really appreciate Senator Kavanagh's commitment to Battery Park City residents and also to ensuring that we have permanently affordable housing in New York City and in our state. Thanks.

In relation to Calendar 583, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 38. Nays, 22.

Calendar Number 605, Senate Print 8046A, by Senator Bynoe, an act to amend the Emergency Tenant Protection Act.

Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.

Yes, Mr. President.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bynoe. Can you tell us -- how many units are we talking about that would be covered by this bill outside of New York City?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

So has this bill been introduced at the request of DHCR?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

So does DHCR support the bill? Have they indicated or have you asked them whether or not they support committing resources from DHCR in this way?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

Yes.

So do you have or have you calculated how much additional funding would be necessary through DHCR for them to be able to do this level of enforcement on units outside of New York City?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

So would that be $5 million in addition to what they spend right now currently on doing IAI enforcement? Or would that be $5 million total for DHCR to do that, including the units that they have in New York City?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

Yes.

Are you aware that the current budget for DHCR for this is about $5.6 million in last year's budget and continues to be about $5.6 million in this year's budget -- that is, not only in the Governor's proposed budget but in the Senate one-house, for all of their IAI inspections in the city, outside of the city, all in, $5.6 million for this work?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

Yes.

Aside from the community or the Village of Hempstead, I understand there are other communities not only in Nassau County but also in Westchester County and others, and villages and cities that have rent-stabilized units. And so this 5 percent figure that you have for units outside of New York City, without a sense of how many units those are, do you have a calculation of how many people you would need or DHCR would need to have in order to conduct an audit of those units sufficient to be able to meet the need of this bill?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

Has there been a commitment made to fund the budget to provide the resources necessary in order to be able to -- for DHCR to be able to hire people sufficient to be able to do the task? Or -- or is DHCR going to be expected to take those people who are currently doing this work from the work perhaps within New York City and dedicate those resources outside of New York City in order to meet the needs of this bill?

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

Yes.

So as I understand it, the purpose of the bill is that there's audits every time a unit is -- improvements are made to an individual unit. Are you familiar with the audit process, how these audits are conducted and whether or not currently those audits include visits to the unit itself or whether it's a review of paperwork that is submitted to DHCR?

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

Through the bill there's a determination of willfulness in terms of an unsubstantiated claim being interpreted as being willful. Before there's a determination, is there an opportunity for the property owner to supplement, provide further information or, if there's a discrepancy in the document itself, that that will actually trigger the additional inspections that -- to all of the other units that they have? So what -- where is that trigger specifically, if you could.

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

So just to be clear, the language of the bill says if the audit finds that the recoverable costs claimed by the landlord cannot be substantiated, the resulting overcharge shall be considered to be willful. And so to be clear, and just so we can create the record, there is then the opportunity for the landlord to supplement, provide resources or provide additional information before there is a determination of willfulness.

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

Yes.

So I'm glad you brought up the appeal aspect of it, because naturally it's going to be my next question. What is the appeal process? So if there's a disagreement between the person conducting the audit and the landlord such that they believe that they have provided the information but the interpretation of DHCR is that they haven't, to whom do they appeal?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

So just so we understand this, the -- DHCR would itself decide the appeal? So the appeal would effectively be to DHCR or someone in DHCR, perhaps a supervisor or someone else, but effectively would remain within the agency to make that determination and not someone outside of the agency to take an appeal.

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

And so if there is a determination that it was willful, and they took an appeal and it was confirmed that it was willful, this bill would require, then, DHCR to do a search of all of the properties that that particular owner had outside of New York City, right?

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

So I know that there are 1.2 million rent-stabilized units within New York City. And I know that DHCR has this responsibility to audit those units within New York City with a budget line of $5.67 million, and of that, the personnel line is only $2.7 million. So with those many units inside of New York City and the limited number of units outside of New York City -- I believe that in the Village of Hempstead it's probably about 6500 units, and I believe that in places like Garden City Plaza in the Village of Mineola and some other villages within our respective districts, you know, there may be other rent-stabilized housing units. Do you have concerns whether DHCR is going to have the means, resources, personnel and the mechanisms to be able to effectively implement this bill, if it's passed, and whether or not that would come at the expense of being able to do it in other parts of the state where it currently provides those services?

Mr. President, thank you. Senator Bynoe, thank you. On the bill.

I want to thank -- I want to thank the sponsor for the bill. I want to thank the sponsor for this attempt. But Mr. President, I'm concerned that the bill, frankly, misses the mark. If we're going to go down this road and we're going to hold bad actors responsible, I think absolutely, I'm with you a hundred percent, let's go after those landlords who are not providing proper housing and resources and let's make sure we hold them accountable. But let's make sure that DHCR has the wherewithal and the ability to do just that. You know, when we talk about 5 percent of the units, we talk about then willfulness and then triggering even more inspections -- you know, by my estimation, if you have a personnel line in a budget of a little over $2 million, I think that accounts for about 20 people. If we have those 20 people doing inspections right now, the bulk of rent-stabilized housing in the state is in New York City, and they're expected to do it statewide, not just in New York City. And now we're going to dedicate resources outside of the city to other places and require actual on-site inspections and then require, in the event of willfulness, that they have to do further inspections of all those other units -- it's not going to happen for the $5.7 million that's in the budget. And I haven't seen the one-house from this Majority adjust it to account for the additional resources and funds that are going to be necessary to actually make this work. So I would urge my colleagues who are concerned, hopefully as much as I am, that there may be resources out there that need to be targeted somewhere, put it here. And don't just vote on a bill in order to require DHCR to go do something without putting the resources behind it that's necessary for that to happen. I would ask that you consider also, target those bad actors that are out there. Understand that if there is a discrepancy in documentation that's provided, make sure that that documentation is substantiated and warrants it. Because there is no criteria here. It could be an inconsequential amount, or it could be a significant amount. But the reality I think we all should arrive at, all of us, is that we want to incentivize property owners and landlords to actually maintain their buildings. We want to give them the opportunity, through policy, to be able to invest back in their buildings. And to have that discussion we have to kind of look at policies that have been passed in this chamber that have made it difficult, if not sometimes impossible, for landlords to make ends meet. Hold them accountable. But let's reevaluate some of the policies that have been passed in this chamber. The difficult process that we put before our landlords for removing tenants, and how long it takes for them to do so not receiving rents at all, and the cost that that has to a landlord in their ability to reinvest in those buildings as well. Now, we all think -- or at least some people in this chamber think that anyone who owns a building has got to be rich. They've got to be filthy rich, Mr. President. And so they've got money, they can absorb the hit from not being able to collect rent from tenants. But the reality is they collect those rents and the good ones, or even the average ones, invest back in those buildings. No one has an interest in owning a building and watching it fall apart. But we create policies in this chamber that prevent people and landlords from being able to actually collect those rents and reinvest them. So let's analyze that. Let's take a look at the things we're doing from a policy standpoint that are preventing our landlords from doing it. I had a landlord recently ask me a question. And maybe, Mr. President, rhetorically, everyone can maybe consider this and think about it. But, you know, they asked: What if I have a tenant, and I do -- this person did -- had a tenant in a building that was up all night making noise, bringing people in and out, disrupting the other tenants, and the landlord couldn't get them out of the building because of laws that have been passed in this chamber. Now, the landlord in this case didn't live in the building, Mr. President, but he couldn't get that person out, which affected all the other tenants in the building, who then decided not to pay rent because their enjoyment and use of their building and their units had been compromised. And so now this landlord had a problem. Because of policies and laws that were passed in this chamber, they no longer had the ability to collect rents. And if they did, and if they wanted to enforce those rights, we've made it so difficult that it takes months if not years to actually go through landlord-tenant court to have somebody removed. So if we're going to talk about reinvesting in buildings and maintaining buildings and making sure that buildings are adequately maintained, let's consider those things that have been done to make it difficult on our landlords and our property owners in order to maintain those buildings as well. So, Mr. President, I'll be voting no on this bill. I am willing and looking forward to working with the sponsor to figure out ways we can actually hold bad actors accountable. But I'd also like to work with the sponsor and my colleagues in this chamber to come up with ways that we can change the bad policies that have been passed in this chamber that have impacted our own property owners and prevented them from actually being able to make ends meet and make the resources available. And sure, if there are people out there who are taking advantage of the system, target them. But unfortunately, the policies in this chamber, Mr. President, have consistently been written with a broad brush. Which means we've impacted every property owner, the good and the bad. And that's a shame. Because we're now seeing the results of those policies. Each and every day we see another bill or another effort where people come up here and protest the fact that they have a conflict with their landlords. Let's make good policy. I'll vote nay.

Mr. President, let's restore this to the noncontroversial calendar as well, please.

Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.

Senator Kavanagh to explain his vote.

Senator Kavanagh to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of today's controversial calendar.

There is no further business at the desk.

On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, April 7th, at 11:00 a.m., with the intervening days being legislative days. (Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)