May 19, 2026 · 24,542 words · 14 speakers · 446 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you banjo plays in young demented episodes Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Now Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you of video Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. So Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Let start with a matric siguiente Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you Madam Speaker would you please call the House to order
The House will come to order. Good morning, colleagues and guests. In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to your father for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Monday, May 18th. Ms. People Stokes.
Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Monday, May the 18th,
and that the same stand approved. Without objection, so order it. Thank you so much. Colleagues that are in the chambers with us today, as well as all of our guests, including the little ones. And I'd like to share a quote with you today. This one comes from Lao Tzu. He is a legendary Chinese philosopher and a sage, traditionally credited with writing most of the foundational texts of Taoism. His words for us today, he who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know. Again, these words from Lao Tzu. And I hope they hit you where they need to. if it's appropriate for you. Madam Speaker, members have on their desk a calendar and a debate list. Before any housekeeping or introductions, we'll be calling the Ways and Means Committee off the floor. That could be laid to the side for a moment. We'll begin our floor work by taking up calendar number 330. That one is by Ms. Paulin. That's going to be on consent. And after that, we will take up the following bills from our debate list. Calendar 142 by Ms. Lucas. Calendar 333 by Mr. Dilan. Calendar 137 by Ms. Reyes. Calendar 113 by Mr. Bronson. It's actually not the calendar. It's a rules report by Mr. Bronson. And there's a rules report by Ms. Szilagyi as well. In addition, we're going to be calling the following committees to meet off the floor. Those are corrections, economic development, energy, governmental employees, governmental operations, health, higher ed, mental health, and real property taxation. There may be a need to announce further floor activity as we proceed. Madam Speaker, if that is the case, I will advise at that moment. However, majority members should be aware that there will be a need for a conference as we conclude our floor work. As always, we'll consult with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to determine what their needs, if any, may be. Madam Speaker, if you could please begin by introductions and housekeeping. Thank you. We have no housekeeping yet this morning, so we're going to start first with introductions. we'll start with Ms. Torres for the purpose of an introduction.
Thank you Madam Speaker I have some very special guests with me today this morning My most important constituents my family So I have Gerald Mooney my partner in life and all things that allows me to do the work that we do here in the Assembly My daughter Soraya who you may have seen around the halls of Albany and Zade, my rambunctious three-year-old who has made his presence known to many of you by introducing himself. Would love to, if you can, Madam Speaker, provide the codialities of the floor. It's great to have them here in Albany all the way from the Bronx. Thank you.
On behalf of Ms. Torres, the speaker, and all members, welcome family to the Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. He is going to have ice cream later today, so he's very excited about that. We hope you enjoy the proceedings. Always wonderful to see family members. So thank you so very much for joining us today. Ms. Heineman for the purpose of an introduction.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I rise to introduce the women of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Incorporated and the men of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Incorporated. Today is social action and awareness that is the core of our organizations, particularly all of the D9, but today we are joined by none other than the mayor of Albany, who is in the chamber with us, who is also a member of Delta Sigma Theta sorority. And today we talk about public service and social action. So myself and Assemblymember Rodnice Bishat-Hermelin will please give us all the cordialities of the House for our social action chairs, Donna and Michelle, and our brothers of Omega Psi Phi, Kevin and BJ. If you could please give them all the cordialities of the House. Thank you.
On behalf of Ms. Hyman, Ms. Bichotte-Hermelin, the speaker, and all members, we welcome Delta Sigma Theta, Omega Psi Phi, sorority and fraternity to our Assembly Chamber, The People's House, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Both fraternal organizations are rooted in scholarship service and social action, and you definitely empower all your members to achieve everything academically, leading meaningful professional lives rooted in service in your community. We thank you so very much for being here today. Hope you enjoy our proceedings and enjoy your day of service. Thank you very much for being here.
Ms. People Stokes.
Madam Speaker, would you please call on our colleague, Ms. Clark, for the purposes of an announcement?
Ms. Clark, for the purpose of an announcement.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm here to announce immediate majority conference in the Speaker's conference room. Immediate conference in the speaker's conference room. Immediate majority conference. Please make your way to the speaker's conference room.
Ms. People Stokes.
Mr. Levine. I move that the House now stand at ease.
Thank you. At Mr. Levine's motion, And the house stands at ease. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you skill was 000 for 5000 chit seniors Now what about Everyone Thank you. Thank you. שский ду прив Esseق crank 男 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. We be right back Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. So Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. So Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, may you please call the House back to order.
The House will come to order. Page 28, calendar number 330. Clerk will read. Assembly number 463B, calendar 330.
Ms. Paulin, an act to amend the public officer's law.
Read the last section. This act shall take effect January 1st. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you
Ms. Lunsford? Madam Speaker, could you please call government employees to the Speaker's conference room?
Government Employees Committee, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Government Employees Committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 139, nays 0. The bill is passed. Ms. Lunsford for the purpose of an introduction.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings for an introduction on behalf of Assemblymember Wright and Assemblymember Simon. The citywide leadership team is visiting Albany. today to advocate for student voices and shared decision-making in education policy. Today's student visitors are standout youth from John Jay High School School of Law in Park Slope, Brooklyn. We welcome them and urge them to stay engaged and active in education and public policy. On behalf of Ms. Lunsford, Ms. Simon, Mr. Wright, the speaker, and all members,
We welcome our young people, future leaders here to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. We extend to you the best wishes for continued academic success. You are here at a time where we are getting ready to do a debate, so this is a perfect time for you to be here, to be engaged actively, civically. We do hope that you enjoy it. Thank you so very much for joining us today. We're going to be on debate. Colleagues, page 18, calendar number 142. Clerk will read. Assembly number 5592A, calendar 142.
Ms. Lucas, an act to direct the Department of State and Public Service Commission to jointly study and report. An explanation has been requested.
Ms. Lucas.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and good afternoon to everyone. And an explanation on the bill, sir. This bill directs the Department of State and the Public Service Commission to study and make recommendations regarding the practice of utility cable and telephone providers reporting customer payment information to consumer reporting agencies. It requires DOS and PSC to jointly study the prevalence of public utility cable and telephone service providers reporting customer payment information to consumer reporting agencies, and it directs DOS and PSC to make recommendations on the regulatory and statutory provision necessary to protect consumers in this area.
Mr. Gandolfo?
Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I could just go on the bill for a moment.
On the bill.
Thank you. So what this bill does, it doesn't necessarily change how late payments and missed payments are recorded, But it is a study that I feel is going to lead to future legislation that will change the way data is reported to lenders and credit risk is scored. So what this would do, it would require a study about what to do about the reporting of missed utility bill payments, wireless bill payments, cable television payments. And to me, that's a very basic part of how you would score someone's credit risk if they're paying their obligations and their bills on time so lenders can determine whether or not they will have their money paid back to them. And if we're no longer going to allow those missed payments to be reported to credit agencies, I feel that they will also no longer accept the good on-time payments from those particular bills. That a problem in my opinion because there are a lot of Americans who are credit invisible There an estimate out there that there are 26 million Americans that are considered credit invisible and another 19 million Americans that are considered unscorable because they don't have a sufficient credit history. So if these types of payments and obligations get removed from that credit history, a lot of people are either not going to be able to be scored or they will have to open up credit cards to build that credit history. And I think a lot of people might not want to go down the road of credit cards if they're concerned about racking up credit card debt. So I think the sponsor has good intentions. You know, people fall on hard times, and unfortunately, they might not be able to meet their bills, and that might impact their credit score. But at the end of the day, that is the purpose of a credit score, is to determine whether or not you are a good person to lend your money to. So I am going to be in the negative on this. It was vetoed in the past due to the fact that there was no appropriation made for this study in the budget, so that's another factor here. And we don't have a budget, so we might not have any appropriation toward it. And I would also recommend that my colleagues vote no as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. Ms. Lucas on the bill.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, again on the bill. This bill is necessary to examine the impact that utility and service provider reporting practices have on consumers' credit score. Late utility bill payments that are reported to credit bureaus and significantly damage a consumer's credit rating, even though utility services are essential and a single late payment may not accurately reflect the consumer's long-term credit worthiness. At its core, this legislation is about fairness, accountability, and understanding the real-life consequences that utility and telecommunications reporting practices have on everyday New Yorkers. Today, a credit score impacts far more than the access to a credit card. It determines whether someone can rent an apartment, purchase a vehicle, qualify for a mortgage, secure affordable insurance, or even obtain employment. For many working families, good credit is the foundation for stability, mobility, and economic opportunity. Yet, we are living through one of the most difficult affordability crises in recent memory. Across New York State, families are struggling under the weight of rising rents, soaring utility costs, increasing grocery prices, and ongoing economic uncertainty. Many hardworking people are falling behind, not because they are irresponsible, but because they are doing everything they can to survive. When a missed utility cable or cell phone payment is reported in a way that damages someone's credit score, the consequences can be devastating and long-lasting. A temporary hardship can quickly spiral into years of financial instability. Lower credit scores often lead to higher interest rates, larger security deposits, reduced housing opportunities, and increased barriers to building wealth. These impacts fall disproportionately on low-income communities such as mine and communities of color. Families in neighborhoods like East New York, Brownsville, and Canarsie already face systemic barriers to economic mobility, including lower household savings limited access to affordable credit and greater vulnerability to housing insecurity and predatory lending practices Harmful credit reporting can deepen those inequities and trap families in cycles of financial hardship that are difficult to escape This bill does not rush to impose sweeping mandates or burdensome regulations. Instead, it takes a thoughtful and measured approach by directing New York State to carefully study the issue, hear directly from consumers, and develop informed recommendations that protect the public while ensuring fairness and transparency. That is not radical. That is responsible governance. Before essential service providers are allowed to significantly impact someone's financial future through credit reporting, we owe it to the people of this state to fully understand the consequences and ensure that working families are not unfairly penalized for temporary financial struggles during difficult economic times. This legislation is about protecting dignity, promoting economic fairness, and ensuring that access to basic necessities does not become a pathway into long-term financial harm. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support Assembly Bill A-5592A. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will not be supporting this piece of legislation, but if there are any members that wish to, they may certainly vote at their seats right now. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lunsford.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference on the whole will be supporting this bill. For those that wish to deviate, you may do so by voting at your desks. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 95, nays 44. The bill is passed. Page 29, calendar number 333. Clerk will read. Assembly number, Senate 6365, calendar 333, Senator Salazar. An act to amend the correction law. An explanation has been requested. Mr. DeLong, can we have quiet in the chamber, please? Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill requires any financial institution who is contracting with DOCS to provide a schedule of fees to incarcerated individuals upon issuance of a debit card. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?
Absolutely.
Sponsor yield. Thank you so much. Okay, just a few questions about how this actually works and what it does do and also what it doesn't do. So the policy and the practice of having incarcerated individuals receive release debit cards is an already established program, right? Yes. Okay. And so we're not creating that here. But what – and just to amplify what your explanation was about what the bill does, how does this bill change or alter or make any changes to the already existing program of issuing these release debit cards?
It would have no impact on DOCS itself. The impact it would have is that the financial institution contracting with DOCS would have to make public their schedule of fees for the use of their debit card.
And so would that be like a bank or a credit lending institution?
A bank or a credit lending institution or some others who have contracted with DOCS.
Okay. So specifically, the bill talks about that any fees charged by the financial institution have to be, for example, presented in a clear and conspicuous manner, be easily accessible and written in plain language, right? Include but not be limited to give fees for ATM use, balance inquiries, fund transfers, card replacement, account maintenance, and customer service interactions. be provided in physical forms as a separate document, and if feasible, electronic forms as a separate attachment upon the card's issuance, be available on the official website of the card provider, and be provided in the six most common non-English languages spoken by individuals with limited English proficiency in New York State. Did I cover it? That is the bill. That is the bill. Okay. So one of my questions was, was since these release debit cards have been used, for how long, any idea how long they've been around?
I don't, but let me see if.
Yeah, I'm just curious.
No, we don't have. Yeah, we don't know. But it's probably been a little while.
But is this type of information just not provided at all?
That's the issue, it's not provided.
Okay. So upon release, You know, individuals basically get surprised and shocked, one, by the amount that they're being charged. And I think with this, it doesn't change the lender's ability to do whatever they want with their fees.
It just helps individuals plan a little bit better.
So it's like a transparency measure.
Absolutely.
Okay. And was it, it was an issue as far as a language barrier for understanding this kind of disclosure? I mean, to use the six most common non-English languages, do you see any issues as far as any burden on the financial institutions to have to provide the translation of what the documents talk about?
I think they make enough money with the contract to docs. They should be able to do this. The bill has been around, I would say, for three years now. And this is the first time, obviously, it hits the floor. But in that three-year period, we haven't received any letters of opposition from any of the lenders who are contracting with docs.
Okay. And as far – so how much – I'm just curious. Like, how much money would be going on to these release debit cards? And what would be included in that?
Well, it would vary. So any outstanding balance on their commissary accounts would be added to the account. And then I think there's two different things. There's a dox rule. There's an old law that says $40.
Yes.
And then there's a dox rule that says $200. So they generally leave with plus whatever on the commissary account If they work if they working would any wages or anything like that that they would have accrued while they were inside would that also be on there potentially
Yes. Okay, but there's no cap on it.
It would be like a base would be $40, and it could go up from there to some amount.
Yes. Okay. All right.
And, yeah, so it's really a transparency measure.
Would it be ordinary that they would be hit with some kind of like a monthly charge, or is it more like an ATM fee if they go to take money off of that debit card?
They get hit with both. They get hit with a monthly charge. They also get hit with fees just for balance inquiries, which doesn't happen in the general public.
So it would just be good for them to have the information out there and available so that they know, even to check their balance, that they know how much it's going to cost them to even check their balance. Yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense. Okay, I think you basically answered all my questions. I appreciate it. Madam Speaker, on the bill.
Thank you. On the bill.
So it does seem like this is a good transparency measure. And although we haven't had any written opposition to the bill that I have been able to see from the financial institutions, I would imagine that there may be some concerns as far as any administrative burden on the banks and to implement it by creating and maintaining detailed multilingual plain language fee schedules and mailing notices, potentially expensive, and creating an administrative burden. and that the administrative load on agencies, it does sound like most of the burden is really on the financial institutions, but some may argue that mandatory compliance, the six languages, the website postings will consume staff time and resources, maybe better spent on other things. But for my part, I will be supporting the legislation. I think it is a good transparency measure. But I would imagine that there may be a variety of opinion, as there often is, you know, in our body here. But I'll be in the affirmative, Madam Speaker. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Mr. DiPietro.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? I will, and before I do, I do have to make one correction. The $40 is no more. It's $200. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Sponsor yields.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. DeLon. On those cards that are given to those that are released, who authorizes those? Where do they come from? It's a contract that DOCS has with an outside institution. So DOCS has this contract, but yet did DOCS not do any, according to what I'm hearing is there's exorbitant fees every time they check their balances. DOCS is run, as we know, it's a one-party system. Did the governor or anyone higher up tell docs to go to another bank or to get another vendor because of what's going on? Has anybody tried to change that? To my knowledge I have no knowledge if that true To my knowledge no Okay With those cards it seems like are those the same things that happen to every one of us If we're going to get a, going to our bank and getting a debit, any kind of a card that we use, don't we have to look through, don't we get a list of all the rules and regulations? I know it's hard to see them because they're so tiny print, but they tell you the fees. They tell you everything up front. Okay, so my point is, and the question is, we all get those, and we shop around. Is there a reason Docs hasn't shopped around to get a better vendor so that this doesn't happen? I can't answer for Docs. I would say the fees in and of itself maybe were problematic, but I think the bigger problem is that the information wasn't available to people who are in custody. And with some folks who leave with very limited amounts on their debit card, the fees were eaten away at their money. This was a problem that my office had gotten calls about and looked into and then got this legislation done. But I can't speak for DOCS and what they do with the lending institution. DOCS hasn't said anything to me about it. on those fees, are a lot of them related? I know a friend of mine just told me last week that he hates ATMs because they charge an exorbitant fee, and he got dinged in Western New York $10 on an ATM machine because they're all different. They have all different rates depending where you go. Is that a problem also? Yeah, I don't know that it's as high as 10, so I don't think it's a problem in that regard. But I think the problem is they charge for things like balance inquiries and the like, which anyone else on the outside doesn't get charged for. And if, like, if you or I had a problem on the outside, we could change our lending institution, but they do not have the ability to change their lending institution until they're outside. Are they told this before they get out? I mean, if this is such a problem, are these individuals told that there's, hey, when you get out and you get that card with money on it, you might want to switch your bank up or switch it out right away because you're going to get crushed.
I can't say that they're told. And, you know, in many cases, you know, as we debated yesterday and we'll do a bill in committee in a few minutes, In many cases, these guys get out without the proper ID. That's been less of a problem lately since 2022. But many of them have a hard time opening up accounts at financial institutions because of the lack of ID. So therefore, they're forced to kind of lean on this card. So I go back to the original question. why are we still in 2026 dealing with a bank that charges exorbitant fees on a card that only goes to incarcerated okay but yet every one of us every one of the public doesn have that issue Why are we dealing with that type of an institution Yeah, and I would say that's a matter for docs to have to answer. You know, the legislature obviously doesn't enter into contracts with agencies, and I think what I would like to gain from this process is the transparency so that we can drill down better as a legislature on if these rates are usurious or not and make corrections based on the data that we're able to collect. But at this point, we don't have that information. So I think the first step is to get the information as transparency and then take other necessary steps if they present themselves. But, you know, I certainly can't speak for why DOCS has stayed or changed their vendor. It could be more complicated because the vendor is probably also contracted in other aspects of DOCS operations. So it could be more complicated than just this one area.
Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Beline. On the bill, please.
On the bill.
You know, and I feel for this because, like I said, I had a constituent, a good friend of mine, get jammed up with $10 just on an ATM machine, and he's switching out his bank. But we've got docs, and we've got a governor who controls it, and we know how she feels. This seems like an easy fix. This doesn't seem like it's something that we need to start changing all these different laws. Get a new vendor. have some, the first thing I would have done was look into this and say, look, we've got a financial institution which is gouging these individuals when they come out, let's get a financial institution that doesn't do this, because there's a lot of them that would be happy to lend their services. And so with that, when I'm looking at just on the outside, why are we using and staying with one vendor, and I know why, and I won't get on the floor, but because there's a lot of times those vendors are very favorable to a certain few people. So I think what we need to do is get some higher-ups on the other side of the aisle to go and sit down and talk and say, you know what, we've got a problem here. We know it's a problem. Look into it and switch out and put it up to bid and find the best financial institution that will help these people and not gouge them. Because yes, they are getting gouged every which way they turn, but we're doing a bill instead of going to the source. It's like we're doing an end run around this whole problem when we should go directly at it and get it stopped for that reason. So with that, I'm going to vote no on this bill, but I think we can fix this pretty quickly at the top end of our government. They can make these things happen, and this is not a heavy lift. This is not a hard fix. This is just looking at the contract and saying we want something better, and those people with the financial minds can make it happen. So I'll be voting in the negative. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. Read the last section.
This section will take effect immediately.
A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the Republican conference will, generally speaking, be in negative on this legislation, but there will be exceptions and those members can vote differently at their seats now. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Lunsford?
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative on this bill. Those who wish to vote in the negative may do so from their seats. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results.
Ayes 98, nays 41.
The bill is passed. Ms. Lunsford.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can you please call the corrections committee to the speakers' conference room?
Corrections committee members to the speakers' conference room.
Corrections committee members, speakers' conference room, Ms. Walsh, for the purpose of an introduction. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings for an introduction of some very beautiful guests who are here today. I'm making this introduction on behalf of the Staten Island delegation, Assemblymembers Pirzolo, Riley, Fall, and Tanusis. We have guests today from within the Miss America organization, the nation's largest scholarship provider for young women, proud Native Staten Islanders dedicated to bettering their community through their own unique community service initiatives. We have Victoria DiPaulo, Miss Staten Island's teen, Nadia Michelle, Miss Richmond County, Alexis Ryan, Miss Richmond County's teen, Gabriella Marinelli, Miss Staten Island, and Nadia Anwar, Miss New York's teen. So, Madam Speaker, if you would please welcome these guests to the People's House and afford to them all the cordialities of the House. I'd appreciate it.
Thank you. On behalf of Ms. Walsh, Mr. Perizzolo, and the entire Staten Island delegation, along with the speaker and all members, we welcome royalty here today to our Assembly Chamber, the People's House, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Congratulations to you all for your accomplishments for sure. Very lovely to see you representing the mighty Empire State. Continued best wishes to you on your future endeavors. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Page 17, calendar number 137. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 52078, calendar 137. Ms. Reyes, an act to amend the public health law. On a motion by Ms. Reyes, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Reyes. This bill would require two years after being signed into law, every chain restaurant with 15 or more locations to include a sodium warning for each food item that contains at least 100% of the FDA daily value for salts, which is currently 23 milligrams, 2,300 milligrams, I'm sorry, and a factual warning statement about high sodium intake, both to be developed by the department. Mr. Jensen.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, of course.
The sponsor yield.
Thank you very much. I want to get into the definition of chain restaurants. Is your intent and I understand we creating a new area of public health law with an existing health law is the intent for locations that are fast food type restaurants or would it contain any retailer in New York that has more than 15 locations and serves ready-to-eat meals off a hot bar or cold bar seated table seating?
Got it. And I know you asked this question in committee as well and I think I might have given you the wrong answer but So this bill is intentionally limited to chain restaurant settings and incorporates an existing state regulatory framework already familiar to businesses and regulators, and it references sanitary code definition that explicitly excludes retail food stores, and I can read that to you. but generally this is whether consumption occurs on or off the premises. The term excludes food processing establishments, retail food stores, because I think that's what you were concerned about, private homes where food is prepared or served for family consumption, and food service operations where a distinct group mutually provides, prepares, serves, and consumes the food, such as a covered dish supper limited to a congregation, club, or fraternal organization.
So just to clarify, a fast food establishment like Chicken Queen would be applicable, but a supermarket would not be applicable.
Correct.
Okay. For a restaurant, and I know that when I'm driving on the thruway and I stop at a rest stop, they have these types of food purveyors, and they don't have paper menus. They have display boards where they have their menu items. would this statute only apply to printed menus or printed menus and visual displays?
All menus. All menus. Printed and visual displays.
So on a visual display, they'd have to have like a little salt shaker or...
Yeah, whatever the icon is developed by the Department of Health would have to be there, and that would indicate to consumers that that particular food item or combination, combo meal, is more than 100% of their daily allotment of sodium.
And it would have to say that also on the visual display?
Correct.
Okay. So it would be for each menu item, correct?
For each menu item that exceeds 100% of the FDA allotted amount.
So I know previously we had a similar piece of legislation, and you might have actually been the sponsor, on sugar intake. Now that we're doing a second version of this, wouldn't it make sense to have these retailers place a QR code in a conspicuous location so that patrons who are concerned about nutritional values as well as things like salt and sugar and condensed fats,
they could scan the QR code to see all the menu items at once, which would then take the mandated burden on printing new menus if the menu items change or the recipes change. Wouldn't that be a logical step? Well, so this is intended for point of decision disclosure. And QR codes arguably provide a barrier to disclosure. So a QR code also assumes that a person has access to a phone access to the Internet that they are technologically savvy and are able to scan the QR code and access the information It would also preempt the New York City current standard And you know I think this is a challenge It could be a challenge for disproportionately impacts would impact like older adults, people with disabilities, rural consumers who may not have access to the Internet.
Fair point, well made. You brought up the New York City local statute. Is their local statute identical to what we're voting on today?
Similar. We are making sure that we are not creating duplicative requirements for New York City that already have a law on the books since 2016. So very similar. Very close.
So the New York City law has been in place since 2016? Correct. Has there been any data published either by the City Department of Health or any other entity that shown that having this information posted on a menu has changed buying habits of consumers?
Yeah, there actually has been some data and the evidence suggests that people are making better decisions. There has been like a decrease in the amount, the indices of hypertension in the city of New York since the simple implementation. And we've also seen kind of restaurants change some of their formulations to include less sodium, which I think is a turn in the right direction. Okay.
Thank you very much to the sponsor for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bell.
On the bell.
Certainly I can understand the need to eat healthier. I think anybody watching this or seeing me would show that I'm not the greatest example on positive eating habits. However, I do believe that to an extent there is a level of personal responsibility that if you are, whether it's sugar, whether it's salt, and you do have dietary restrictions or dietary concerns, that if you eat at a chain restaurant, you are willingly and knowingly eating in a place where you are going to have less healthy food with higher levels of sodium intake. Certainly, I believe that there are, as I mentioned on debate, some common sense ways to ease this mandated burden on businesses. I do appreciate the clarification on the QR code difficulties, as well as clarification on which type of locations would be not applicable to this law. I do still have concerns. I do believe there are some ways we could amend this moving forward that both ensures that New Yorkers are making healthier choices, myself included, when deciding what to eat at some of our establishments in the state, but also ways that we can make it easier for the industry to abide and provide this information to consumers. So thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Reyes on the bill.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill, I think it's very important. I know my colleague mentioned personal responsibility. And there is always an element of personal responsibility that we can take when we have the information available to us. This is really a transparency bill so that consumers can make better decisions. It's not a mandate on local businesses. And I just wanted to say that we've gotten dozens of memorandums of support on this legislation. We've had sign-on letters for about 150 groups, including clergy. And the American Heart Association has given us some interesting data. About 90% of Americans consume more sodium than recommended. High sodium intake is linked not only to cardiovascular disease, but also to kidney disease, osteoporosis, and stomach cancer. In New York, about one in three adults are living with hypertension. Heart disease accounts for approximately 40,000 deaths per year in New York State alone. And reducing average population sodium intake by just 400 milligrams a day could prevent up to 32,000 deaths nationally each year. So I think this is a very important step in ensuring the health and well-being of our state, I think we often talk about how do we really make some inroads on some of these preventable diseases. And one of the ways that we can do that is to arm consumers with the information to make better choices. So thank you, Madam Speaker. And I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this bill.
Thank you. Read the last section.
This act shall take effect immediately.
A party vote's been requested.
Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. the Republican conference generally will not be supporting this legislation, but there may be exceptions. If there are, members can vote accordingly at their seats now. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Lunsford?
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative on this bill, and if you would like to deviate from that position, you may do so at your desks. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 97, nays 42.
The bill is passed. Page 5, Rules Report 113. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 2749, Rules Report 113, Mr. Bronson, an act to amend the labor law and the executive law.
An explanation has been requested. Mr. Bronson.
Yes, Madam Speaker. This bill would require the Department of Labor to administer the federal rules regarding renovation, repair, and painting of properties, housing, and in child care facilities.
Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, I will, Madam Speaker.
The sponsor yields.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bronson. So, I guess my first question is, why would New York want to do this, to take over administration of this lead abatement process?
New York has the highest level of lead-based paint homes in the nation. We also have the highest level of exposure to lead with our children in the nation. And so it's important for us to put regulations in place to protect our children. And I wanted to point out that it looks like if this bill becomes law, if authorized, New York would join a list of 15 other states that are already doing this That number sounds correct to me yes Okay all right Now I like to ask you a little bit about the difference between lead dust clearance testing rather than cleaning verification
God help me, but yes, go ahead. No, I just want to know what the difference is. Literally, I'm not trying to trick you. I really don't know.
Can you refer to the particular section that you're looking at?
Oh, God. Now you're going to – I guess I deserve that.
Let me do this. Let me do this. So this bill came to me through experts in the field, including a personal friend who has led the nation and the state in helping to remove exposure to lead for our children. The city of Rochester was a leader in the state and in the nation when it came to protecting children from lead-based paint. So a lot of the stuff that's in this bill is pulled from not only the federal regulations, but also its terminology that's known in the industry. And I would do my best to try to explain it, but I'm not going to do well in that regard.
No, I mean, that's okay. Maybe we could just take a step, like take it from a little bit of a higher altitude and just look at it and say, is lead dust clearance testing standard a more stringent standard than cleaning verification?
Yes.
Okay.
And if you look in the section of the legislation, you'll see there's ways to test the lead dust, including using x-rays. And there's also language in the proposed legislation that talks about adjustments on the level of lead that's determined through an x-ray analysis versus another analysis. And that's because when you use x-ray, there can be false information, so you have to make adjustments because it's actually digging down into the layers of the paint. So you did know a lot more about this than you let on.
That's a very complete answer. I was seeing it. As somebody who's, I mean, I don't have a construction background. I'm surrounded by those who know a lot more about this than I do. But I was thinking about asbestos. I was thinking about it like in an old home. If you were to disturb it and it becomes airborne, then that becomes a big problem. And I didn't know whether looking at like lead dust, whether it's as you're disturbing it and trying to remediate it, Are you creating a situation where it could go into the ambient air, and then that itself could be another hazard?
That's exactly correct, and that's why there are limitations, again, based on the federal regulations in connection with using high-heat flames for the removal of the lead, using scraping for the removal of the lead, and it's the same concept as in asbestos, where you don't want this to become airborne. And I will also note that lead dust is the most damaging to our children. I mean, we talk a lot about lead in pipes and things of that nature, but this is the most damaging to our children. And another reason why we want to make sure that we have some regulations. I mean, it's all going to be implemented or put in place through the regulatory process of the Department of Labor. And there will be a public hearing and comment period in that regard. but we really want to hone in on making sure that the folks who are working on this that are doing the renovations the demolitions the painting that they they certified they know what they doing to keep our families safe So under current law in New York do we require those who are doing lead paint abatement to be accredited We would, this bill would allow or actually require the Department of Labor through the commissioner to set up a mechanism for accreditation and certification.
I guess I was just a little bit surprised that that didn't already exist in some form. We don't currently require that in New York?
I don't believe so.
Okay. All right. It also says the bill also requires the on-site presence of an accredited person at all times during residential property renovation work, such as all demolition activities. And I was wondering as far as the scope of that, I mean, I can understand having an accredited person available during the actual lead abatement, but would this potentially require an on-site presence during, say, an entire renovation project? Like every day somebody's going to be showing up to do that? You know, being a past owner of a coffee house, I always had to have a certified worker through the Department of Health on site 24-7. Whenever we were open, I had to have a certified food person on site at all times. And so what we did is we got people certified, so that, you know, our workers certified and all of our managers were certified. So it was easy for us to manage that. I would think the same kind of principle would apply in the construction situation. You get your folks accredited so that you can meet this requirement, not just for the sake of meeting the requirement, but for the sake of making sure that the work you're doing is done in a safe way. Okay, I appreciate your clarification because what I was imagining is somebody just showing up, you know, taking a stool out and just kind of parking it all day. But if you're going to get one of your existing workers on your team accredited, then they could be on site doing other things, performing other work, but they are there.
Yeah. They are there, and that would meet the requirements under the new law.
Okay, so you mentioned that the commissioner would establish by regulation a schedule of fees for the accreditation and registration of the individuals or firms. Any idea how much that will cost or what that process will be like if you had any conversations about how detailed that process will be?
The legislation indicates that it shall be sufficient to cover all costs, including the cost of state personnel attribute to accreditation activities conducted under the section. So it doesn't give a dollar amount. It just says that we're looking for a cost that's going to cover the implementation of this. That's on page 5, lines 29 to 32.
Thank you. I'm looking at that right now. What's the effective date of the legislation? Are they going to have enough time to set up this whole schedule?
The effective date will be the 60th day after it shall have become a law. So that would be the, I would presume that would be the starting process for the regulations.
Okay. Do we expect that the fees will be – I mean, we just don't know. If we vote for this, we really just don't know what they're going to be. But we do know, because the bill says it.
that the fees that are collected will go into a non-lapsing special fund for continuing the accreditation and that that fund will be invested and reinvested. Is that right?
Okay. How do you think, do you anticipate or does the Department of Labor, I don't know if you've spoken with them, I mean, how big of an additional project is this going to require? Are they going to need to hire more people to do this at the agency level? It sounds like there could be a lot to this.
Yeah, quite frankly, I'm astonished that each year when we do the budget, as we are currently, that we don't get requests from the Department of Labor for additional full-time equivalents. We've passed a number of laws regarding safety in the workplace and things of that nature. This would fall under that category. And so I will acknowledge that having enough enforcement officers is a problem. One of the things that we have in this bill to help out is that we authorize localities to participate in the enforcement if needed. So hopefully we will be able to do that, but that certainly has been an issue, an ongoing issue. but I don't think that should prevent us from trying to protect our children against lead exposure.
So if I heard you correctly just now, you thought that in addition to activity at the State Department of Labor level, there could also be a use of more local, maybe code enforcement officers at a town level or something like that in the auditing and assurance that this is being done according to the law?
Yeah, so on page 5, lines 5 through 7, that authorizes enforcement by localities. Okay. Okay, directing that municipalities and counties may, upon the approval of the commissioner, assume enforcement in part or in whole of such regulations pertaining to residential property renovation.
I see that. Thank you. And then what about the enforcement part as far as the bill also provides that if a person or firm is found to be in violation, they would be subject to a misdemeanor and a civil penalty of up to $2,000 initially for the initial violation and up to $4,000 for a second or subsequent violation. Who is anticipated to be doing that?
Would that be done at the local level as well, or would that be at the state level or both? I think that that would be done at the state level, but probably with information received from localities if they're involved in the code.
Yeah, that tracks. That makes sense to me. Okay. All right. So let me just see. One question I wanted to ask you about was we mentioned earlier that New York would join some other states that have also taken this step. Any concern about the idea of having like a patchwork set up? I mean in certain areas we know that New York is close to Pennsylvania, it's close to New Jersey, it's close to Massachusetts. So I don know if they part of those 15 or so states that are already doing this but is there any concern that patchwork regulations could cause confusion for contractors as far as compliance I don think so because we really setting up a mechanism of implementing the federal regulation
So, you know, the federal regulation sets forth this and in large part our legislation tracks that federal regulation. And I do know in my conversations with the folks who brought this measure to me that they have spoken to the other states and folks in that area to see how the implementation worked and didn't hear anything of the nature of confusion by contractors and things.
Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. And then I guess really the last question would be as far as reciprocity. So you have a contractor here in New York that once these regulations are developed and they pay their fee and they get accredited, but then they want to do work in maybe an adjoining state, maybe that's where their work takes them, would that create another hurdle for them to be accredited in one state and maybe not have reciprocity in another state or vice versa?
Yeah, this bill doesn't anticipate reciprocity. It may be something we should look at, but this bill does not address that issue.
Okay. Do you know whether any of the other states, particularly the ones near us, have developed any kind of information about reciprocity? Like when they've developed their law, have they included that kind of information in theirs?
I do not know that.
Okay. All right. Fair enough. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Bronson, for answering my question.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, on the bill.
On the bill.
Thank you. So as the sponsor said, we do have in New York some of the oldest housing stock in the country. And certainly this chamber has done a considerable amount of work, I think, in the area of concern about, very valid concern about lead paint issues and the way that are present in some of, particularly some of the oldest buildings that we've got. I think that there may be some members here who may not want to support this legislation only because we're experiencing such a housing crisis. and the concern might be that creating this new system where New York is going to be taking on the federal enforcement piece in addition to its own, that we're going to end up putting more cost and more pressure, more administrative hurdles on our contractors. So there may be some who may not wish to support this legislation, although I think a number of others may feel strongly that we need to continue to take steps to protect children and those who are exposed to lead. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Brown?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.
Sponsor yields.
Thank you, Mr. Sponsor. I certainly always appreciate this type of legislation. I'm a big believer in the issues of lead paint, and I have no complaint about it. But I was just curious. I remember it was somewhere around 2008 this exact legislation came out. By 2010 we were all in the industry required to do this exact EPA certification As a matter of fact for every job that we have a man on I have to have one EPA RRP what do we call it RRP program certified renovated It exists now I remember we had to pay like or or per man to take the course It lasted about five years We always keeping track of whose certification expires All of this happens right now for the last 16 years And again I like it and I appreciate it But we already do it for 16 years.
And I presume you're doing that under the federal regulation.
Well, EPA, like you said, the EPA RRP program. And again, it's not a complaint, but we already do all this.
We're passing this legislation for the implementation of that federal regulation because, if I can find my notes here, there are only seven federal enforcers throughout the entire state of New York, and this will help the state enforce not only the federal regulation, but in extension our state requirements here. So we're putting in a mechanism to make sure good contractors like yourself are doing the work. And in so doing, you're protecting your workers and you're protecting children from lead exposure. That's a good thing. But there clearly is not enough enforcers at the federal level to make sure that all contractors are doing the right thing.
That's what this bill is about. I can certainly appreciate it and thank you. I just want to clarify that there isn't going to be some people from the EPA coming down to job sites. So how is it monitored now? And I guess this is just a clarification. What happens now, your insurance company actually asks you for the certification. So this is so heavily monitored right now, we don't need people to come from anywhere else. You don't send in your certification, guess what? Your liability insurance is in trouble and you're not getting your insurance. And so this is beautifully monitored, and I so appreciate this bill, but we've been doing this for 16 years, every word of this. Matter of fact, I'm certified in this. Yeah, I get it, but I'm looking at the notes, and I actually misspoke, but the EPA has only three and a half inspectors. I don't know how we have a half of an inspector, but three and a half inspectors covering New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. That's what we currently have. That's not enough to protect our children. That's why we need this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Sponsor. And I appreciate it, but again, to be clear, so do you understand that the EPA is just going to go to insurance companies and say, can you continue what you're already doing and monitoring it? There are thousands of insurance agents who are asking this exact question, because they could get 100 EPA people. They're not going to be able to cover the thousands of jobs. That's why the insurance company today is the conduit for this exact legislation. And again, it's not a complaint. I just want to give you the knowledge of how this is going to be implemented. Or it isn't implemented. It's there already. Well, with all due respect to insurance companies who are motivated by the profit margins and their investments, I think it's important for us as a state to have a mechanism in place to enforce this for the protection of our children. Thank you, Mr. Sponsor. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, on the bill. On the bill.
As I stated before, I happen to like legislation like this. I grew up as a little kid eating lead paint, and I guess that's why, you know, I guess I have some certain deficiencies I will certainly support this bill My only concern is duplicative issues that may increase insurance costs Again I will certainly support this bill but every bit of this already exists and it actually is enforced beautifully I don't want to give the opportunity for insurance companies to say, you know what, we're going to raise you an extra 10% because there's some old legislation that they think they have to do something that we already did. Again, I'll be supporting this bill, and I want to thank the sponsor for bringing it.
Mr. Angelino.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you ask the sponsor to yield for a question?
Will the sponsor yield?
I think he said for a question, so yes, I'll yield.
The sponsor yields. And my grammar was correct.
And my question, as I've been listening to the debate back and forth, may have been answered. But as I looked at this, I was curious, why is this amending the labor law and not the health law? As I listened, it has a lot to do with construction work, but wouldn't this better serve through the health committee and health law? There's definitely overlap, obviously, with health issues, given the, you know, if you look at the intent of the legislation, it identifies over a four-year period that over 100,000 children had been identified as exposed to lead-based paint. It's specifically in the labor law because we're talking about certification and accreditation of individuals and firms. Thank you. I'll be supporting this, but that was just my A question.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 60th day. The clerk will read the record. We'll record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. The bill has passed. Page 5, Rules Report 117. Clerk will read. Assembly number 4122, Rules Report 117, Ms. Solage, an act authorizing and directing the Office of Children and Family Services to conduct a study. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Solage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill would direct the Office of Children and Family Services, OCFF, in conjunction with the Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive effective, sorry, to conduct a study on the Family Assessment Response FAR program to assess its effectiveness and potential improvements.
Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
Sponsor yields?
Thank you very much. So a few questions. So could you just basically describe the difference between the track of going down FAR, or this family assessment response program, versus a CPS track? One moment, please. Of course. So this would all depend on the CPS investigator. determine which track to go down. So obviously FAR is a more holistic approach. It's looking at the family needs and assessment and determining if there's support that can happen, whereas CPS might involve a more far-reaching responses and needs. Okay, I mean is it true that if you go down the FAR track that there's no investigation, correct? I wouldn't, there's no investigation. So FAR is an approach and it's unlike an investigation approach. FAR is still a child protective response and workers must provide to make sure to protect the child's safety first. So caseworkers and families are both consistently assessed for safety risk and you know there's always communication with the family and the children. So it's working with a family, it's working with a FAR caseworker, and it's ensuring that while working with a family, a FAR caseworker, if they had serious concerns about the immediate safety of a child, then the Child Protective Services would open up an investigation and stop using FAR Okay how does FAR how is FAR distinguished from the offer of preventive services through CPS So FAR is optional The caseworkers can choose the route FAR caseworkers are child protective service workers, so they can identify if there's a need, and therefore they're mandatory reporters. And their primary goal of both approaches is promote child safety, which I think everyone in this chamber will support, but it also looks at what we could do to make an assessment for the progress and build a report. So it's more of a comprehensive, holistic approach to the conversation. So what exactly is the reason for doing this study and evaluation? Is there anything that precipitated it? Just we want to make sure that number one, that the legislature is evolved. So the study will determine if the program has accomplished its goal. As you, I can tell from your conversation, child safety is very important. So as a legislature, we should determine if the goals of FARs are being accomplished. We want to make sure that the program is being operated as designed. And we want to identify improvements to the program. We now as a society have more knowledge about child safety and child development, especially brain development, and what modalities are best for families. And we also know that parents need support at this time. That's something that wasn't a conversation back then. So as we evolve and understand the science of family units, of brain development, of psychology and mental health support, and also substance abuse support, You know, we need to make sure we reassess how FAR is working and study it, and then as a legislature assess whether we need to move to improve the program. It's all about facts and data. Okay. So here's some data. So out of 62 counties in New York State, by my count, there are 18 of them that utilize a FAR program. So according to my records, it's 19. 19. 19, and then including all five boroughs of New York City. All right. But it's optional at this point. It's optional, and different social service districts use different criteria and practices. Okay. Is that one of the things that you want to look at in this study is to see, I mean, if they're all using different practices, then do you want more uniformity with the program? Yeah. We want to make sure that we're looking at all of the best practices and also the pitfalls and see ways that we can improve the program. And this study will allow us to do so. Is there any desire that the program would become mandatory throughout New York State? I cannot speak to that because right now we don't even have a study. We don't know what the different social service districts are doing. So, you know, I can't speak about the future if I don't have the facts of today. I was just concerned a little bit on that issue because I saw in the memorandum of support, it said, quote, while the FAR program is the right direction for the future of CPS investigations, and then it went on. So it seemed to be, from the memo of support anyway, that it was in some ways maybe predetermined that this was the preferred method of handling these matters, and that was a concern of mine. I mean, I think that making sure that we provide families with resources using scientific data facts, making sure folks have access to substance abuse or mental health support, I believe that is the wave of the future But that already is being done through preventive cases within the CPS track And so making sure that we are providing that holistic support and sometimes some of these cases are don require as much touch as CPS requires So you know I you know I also want to make sure that there's oversight and transparency into the system. You know we're talking about vulnerable children and families so ensuring that you know we are protecting them and and looking at best practices and the case uses and analyzing as a legislature is something I support. And anything that gives more legislative power, I think, is better. You know, having the legislature have this dialogue and conversation so that we can come out with good public policy more than antidotes is something that would provide measurable results. I mean, I absolutely agree with you that the legislature has a role here. And one of the reasons I wanted to debate this bill is that I think that sometimes in our work here and just generally in society, there's a viewpoint that CPS is in a strictly punitive role, that we're out to make parents feel bad about their parenting, that we're there to judge them, we're there to blame them. But my experience is that the CPS workers that I've worked with, most of them are utilizing very heavily preventive services to try to push in, as the social workers that they are, to try to wrap services around families so that you don't have the need for hotlines and investigations, but to really lift that family up. So, I mean, one of the reasons I wanted to debate the bill is that I think that CPS gets a bad name because I think that they're already doing a lot in terms of preventive services. I agree with that. And I'm also, quite honestly, concerned about some of the headlines that I've seen of child fatalities that have occurred in far cases. One big one, as you mentioned in your memorandum of support, came out of Monroe County, where a mom stabbed and basically decapitated her child, and that was a far case. And then there was one in Albany County, I think it was like last October, which was more of a medical neglect case. I think that the child, I can't remember if that child was 7 or 11, but a young child had some medical issues that were not being attended, but that was also a far case. I mean, are cases like that what precipitated the desire to do a deeper study like this? And, you know, Madam Speaker, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I definitely agree. You know, this bill is not anti-FAR. This bill is not pro-FAR. This bill is just about making sure that we are protecting children, supporting families, and also ensuring that taxpayers understand the full impact of it. So making sure that we are using our dollars wisely. So, you know, I want to make sure that we have a holistic conversation and the best way to do that is to make an assessment of the program, determine, you know, preventative care and also the other care that's happening and then bring forth it to the legislature so we can decide whether we need to change, you know, course. course, but I think there's a lot of factors that come about to why we propose this legislation, and I hope that my colleagues do support it because it's something that I think is smart and protects children for us so that we can analyze this legislation. I think we absolutely share a common goal of wanting to protect kids. I think safety is number one. Safety of our children is far more important to me and hopefully to everybody here than it is at Being, well, I think that is the number one priority. I'll just leave it there. But let me ask you one more question, and then I think that that's about all I have in terms of questions, and I'll just go on the bill. But why are we working in this study with the Inspector General's office? I was interested in that. Yeah, so the Inspector General, for some reason, I knew that you were going to ask me. Did you anticipate my question? Okay, great. Well, we are on the same wavelength, as they say. Yeah, okay. We want to make sure there's independent oversight, and that will strengthen public confidence in these findings. So the Inspector General helps just ensure that there's transparency, accountability, and objective evaluation. And so it's all about that transparency and accountability. And I believe that shedding light on the issues with FAR will improve the program, and shedding light on the best practices will save children and strengthen families. Well, thank you very much for your answers. I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, on the bill?
On the bill.
So I will support this study, and it's really largely based upon the answers that I just received in debate. So if we ever think that debate doesn't move the needle for any of us, you know, I would say that you're wrong. Because I was really worried when I looked at the Membrandum of Support, because it felt to me like there was perhaps a desire to make this FAR program required or mandatory in all counties or that it was kind of a diss on CPS and saying that FAR was the right way to go on all these investigations. I have real concerns about the FAR program because fundamentally, FAR is set up with no investigation that's being done into concerns. So what happens is the supervisors, the CPS supervisors, they've got to figure out when a report comes in or when a concern gets brought in, they need to figure out for every case whether FAR is the proper track to put it on or whether they need to put it on the traditional CPS track and do a full investigation. I think, you know, children, I think, are at greater risk. This is my person. This is my editorial. I think children are at greater risk when a complete investigation isn't done. I think that if an investigation is done and then the result of that investigation are preventive services so that any deficiencies that are in the family structure get corrected and people are properly supported, and then maybe you never get that next hotline or you never get that next concern. That's really, I think, the right way to go. That's me. I think that that's the way it should go. But I know that this SPAR program is out there. There are 19 counties out of our 62 that are doing some form of it. I hope that the study, I was interested that each county might be doing kind of a slightly different version of the program or maybe might have different criteria. I think that that needs to be looked at. I also think that OCFS currently, my understanding is that they don't track which fatalities happen on FAR cases. and those should get ID'd separately in order to accurately evaluate and make sure that we're protecting for safety in these cases. So I think that before we ever go down a path where we say that FAR is some kind of gold standard, I think that we really do need to take a very hard look at it. I don't think it is. I think that maybe there is a place for it, but I think that certainly counties should have the ultimate decision-making authority about whether it's right for their county and whether they wanna do it that way. And I just wanna really put out there to everybody the fact that I already tried to bring out in debate which is that CPS is not they already provide preventive services They are social workers by training. And so the idea that there is blame and judgment and all things bad emanating from CPS, I think, is really a stereotype, I think, that we need to acknowledge. that, you know, there are certainly some families that hold no great love for CPS. Once they get into their business, it's hard to get them out. I will admit that. But if really the point of all of this is to protect children's safety, I think that as we do this study, we do need to take a hard look. I mean, the fatalities that I mentioned that have occurred are very worrisome. And they're not exclusive to families that are on this far track. But I think that I don't know whether that precipitated this study or not, but I'm glad that it will be done. And I hope that it will be done not with any preconceived notion that FAR is the way to go, that it should be mandated, that it should be in every county, because I just don't think it should be. But as far as the study goes, I will support it. I hope that the governor will support it. And I do have trust and confidence that OCFS and the IG's office will do a good job. So I thank the sponsor and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Lunsford.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Economic Development Committee please be called to the Speaker's conference room? Economic Development Committee, please report to the Speaker's conference room.
Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 139, nays 0. The bill is passed. Ms. Walsh, for an introduction.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings for an introduction on behalf of Assemblymember Pier Zolo. we have with us today Guruji Dalit Kumar with Krishna Raj. The Guruji has led us in prayer before and will do so again tomorrow but today he is here as a dear friend to our own assemblyman Pirazzolo and with him is Reverend Raj who is the secretary of the world yogi community. So, Mr. Speaker, if you could please welcome these gentlemen to our chamber today
and afford to them the cordialities of the House. On behalf of Ms. Walsh, Mr. Parasara, and the Speaker and all the members, we welcome you to the chamber and extend the privileges of the floor, and we hope you enjoy the proceedings today. Thank you for joining us. It is a great pleasure. Ms. Lundford.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are going to continue our floor work today by taking up the following bills. Calendar number 283 by Mr. Dinowitz. Calendar number 425 by Ms. Rosenthal. Calendar 428 by Mr. Bronson. And calendar 444 by Ms. Cruz.
Page 27, calendar number 283. The clerk will read. Assembly number 7898, calendar 283, Mr. Dinowitz, an act to amend the civil practice law and rules. An explanation has been requested. This bill would require representatives of companies responsible for administering a contract for employment to disclose the existence of any mandatory arbitration clause contained within the contract and clearly explain what a mandatory arbitration clause is.
Ms. Walsh? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
Sponsor yields.
Okay, thank you. Just a couple of questions here. First of all, and there was a lot going on around here just during your explanation. Who is responsible for having to convey and explain the arbitration clause to the prospective employee?
Well, the company or representative of the company.
Oh, so like somebody from HR maybe or somebody, whatever they've got over at the company.
As long as they get the information. This is all about just giving people information and disclosure.
Yep, I understand. So these are just like a couple of logistical kind of thoughts. Okay. One of the things is that they have to disclose the mandatory arbitration clause to the employee.
Well, if they're signing a contract, wouldn't it have the clause in it or not? Are you concerned it might not?
No, what I'm concerned about is that people don't always know what they're signing.
So this would require that it's disclosed, and it would also require that it's explained.
Okay. So it doesn't specify in the bill like, hey, it's got to be in bold or it's got to be in 14-point type.
I have other bills like that.
That's the next one we'll be taking up? OK.
Well, right now it just says it has to be like, the employee has to be alerted to it.
Like, don't forget, before you sign this, you do have an arbitration clause that's mandatory arbitration clause in the contract. OK. And then it says and clearly explain in plain language what an arbitration clause is OK So plain language makes me think does it have to be translated for the employee What plain language I mean what going to be an adequate what going to suffice as an adequate explanation in plain language
Plain language, like the way we talk as opposed to some, you know, elevated diction or something.
Something that people can understand. Plain language. Okay.
Dictionary, look.
Okay. So the bill doesn't really specify, right, exactly what words have to be used or so magic words or anything like that?
No.
Okay. But try to talk to the person on a level that they can comprehend is what you're saying.
Well, you want to make sure people know its existence and know what it is.
Okay.
It's just that simple.
No, it does sound simple.
All right. So it also, I guess the last part of the bill is it says that if the party is agreeing to a contract electronically
or by mail, the end of the contract must inform the party that they are signing a mandatory arbitration clause and must contain an Internet link explaining what an arbitration clause is. Isn't that a great idea? Yeah, except for what about if it's being done via mail correspondence? How are you going to put a link in there, an Internet link?
Well, you can put a link into something, and then if you want, you can, you try like a piece of paper that you get in the mail. Yeah.
Well, you can include a link, and then you just put the link on your computer. What's so hard? Well, so a link, the person would have to, all right, I guess cut it and paste it and put it into a browser and then pick it up. And that's going to be sufficient. It doesn't have to be like a link that you click on, in other words. Well, there's a clickable link and then there's a copy of link. I mean, listen, even I could deal with that. It's really not a big deal to have to do that. Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate your answers to my questions, and thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be not supporting this legislation, but if there are members who wish to support it, now would be the time to do so at your seats. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lunsford.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative on this bill. If anybody would like to deviate from that very reasonable position, they can do so at their desks. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Clerk will record the vote.
Mr Kim to explain his vote Thank you Madam Speaker I just want to rise to applaud the sponsor of this bill This is a very important bill for many of my workers in my community especially immigrants who often sign on to documents who have no idea what they're signing on to. And they sometimes have the wages stolen, they have employers who are abusive, And they seek recourse but realize that they signed a piece of document that took away some of their recourse and had to settle out of court, oftentimes settling mere cents on the dollar of what they're owed. So this is a very critical piece of legislation that will 100% clarify and explain to many immigrant workers in my community what they're signing on to and what the mandatory arbitration clause means. So again, I thank the sponsor and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kim, in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Ms. Walsh to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So honestly, when I saw this bill come up today, I thought, haven't I seen this bill before? It just it feels like this body takes up so many anti arbitration bills every year. It's hard to keep track of them. And it's been built up as this boogeyman. But really, I mean, arbitration can be a very fast and effective way to resolve disputes between employees and employers on a whole host of issues. And I appreciate the need for transparency, but honestly, I mean, to have people before they, I mean, basic, being basically accountable for yourself as a person should mean that before you sign an employment contract, maybe you read it. Maybe you take a look at it. Do we really need the state coming in and saying that you need to be alerted to the fact that there's a mandatory arbitration clause, and it needs to be explained to you in plain language, and you need to get a link to the site? I mean, I don't know. Come on. To me, it's just a little bit of overkill. I don't really think it's necessary. I can appreciate the previous speaker talking about a community that it represents where there may be some language or translation issues, but this bill doesn't require things to be translated. So I don't know. I'm not going to support it. I don't think it's the worst bill that we have seen this session, and it's not the worst one we're going to see before June 4th or whenever we wrap up. But I just don't – I think in this state there should just be basic accountability, and I think that employees ought to be able to read their own contracts and figure out what they're going to sign and what they're not going to sign. So I'll be a no. Thanks.
Ms. Walsh in the negative. Mr. Denowitz to explain his vote.
I'm going to take your saying that it's not the worst bill as a ringing endorsement, and I vote yes.
Mr. Denowitz in the affirmative. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. 101, nays 38. The bill is passed. Ms. Lunsford for the purpose of an introduction. Thank you,
Madam Speaker. I actually have two separate introductions for us today. On behalf of Ms. Glick, we have Mr. James Halpin. He lives in Tribeca and he's actively involved in many civic and philanthropic activities. Mr. Halpin supports over 70 charitable organizations. He is involved with educational institutions, foundations, including Kids for Kids and National Center for Healthy Veterans, among scores of other groups. We thank him very much for all of his time and dedication to these worthy endeavors, and if you could please grant him the privileges of the floor. Thank you. On behalf of Ms. Lunsford, Ms. Glick, the speaker, and all members, welcome Mr. Halpin to our Assembly Chamber, the People's House. We extend to you the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Appreciate all of the philanthropic endeavors you have done and contributed to our community. Thank you for all of that and for joining us today. Thank you. And on behalf of Mr. Weprin, we have the Partnership for New York City David Rockefeller Fellows Program. This program is a highly regarded civic leadership fellowship for senior business executives in New York City. It was established in 1989 in honor of David Rockefeller, who founded the Partnership for New York City. The Fellows Program prepares senior executives for more active leadership in civic and public affairs. Since 1989, nearly 600 business leaders have participated in this immersive one-year program where they learn how decisions are made, services delivered, and power is exercised in the nation's largest and most powerful city. The program is designed to give private sector leaders a deep, behind-the-scenes understanding of how New York City operates, including government, public agencies, non-profits, infrastructure, public safety, housing, transportation, healthcare, and economic development. If you could please welcome these fellows to the floor Yes on behalf of Ms Lunsford Mr Weprin the speaker and all of our members we welcome you to our assembly chamber This is the People House We extend to you the privileges of the floor. Congratulations, fellows, a very prestigious program you have been involved with for the Partnership for New York City, a boost to our economy for sure. So best wishes for your continued endeavors through this fellowship, and thank you so very much for joining us today.
Page 33, calendar number 425. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 10272, calendar 425, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the insurance law. An explanation, oh, on a motion by Ms. Rosenthal, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Rosenthal. This bill would prohibit discrimination in renters' insurance policies based on the breed of the dog a renter owns.
Mr. Gandolfo Thank you Madam Speaker Will the sponsor please yield for some questions
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes Thank you So we discussed this bill last year and I know, I think back in 2021 this body passed a bill to prohibit so-called breed discrimination and homeowners policies and this would only apply to now renters policies
Yes
And I guess since we're voting on this bill and discussing it, it's your belief that the homeowner's bill does not apply to renters' policies.
You know, it's odd. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. So we wanted to ensure that, you know, it's based in the law rather than someone's opinion that day.
Okay, so now this bill says that an insurance carrier can't refuse to write a policy based on the breed of dog present in the person's home.
Correct. They also can't increase the premium based on the breed of dog. Correct.
And why is that?
Because it's based on the belief that behavior in dogs is... Let me start again. Some people feel that certain dog breeds are more dangerous, in quotes, than others. And my belief in that of many animal advocates and organizations is that it depends on if the animal was trained to be a dangerous dog. It's not inherent in a breed, their behavior.
Okay, it might not be inherent in a breed, but we discussed this last year as well. If there's a dog present in one apartment that is a Yorkshire Terrier, and in the next apartment over there's a German Shepherd, let's say they're equally unlikely to ever have an incident and attack or bite anyone.
But if they both do, the larger dog is probably going to cause more damage to a human and therefore require a larger insurance payout.
But you're assuming that that dog will do something that would require, you know, payout.
I'm not assuming it will happen, but if you're an insurance company and you're pricing in risk, it no secret that dog bites are a big liability for a lot of homeowners companies They usually require large settlements or payouts where you know the German shepherd will probably you know maul my arm and the chihuahua might be annoying and yappy and nip at my heels but it not going to seriously injure me You know, they could charge more if not based on breed, but based on bite history of that animal, for example.
Okay, but that wouldn't really help an insurance company price in the risk of the damage of a potential bite. That would only help after the fact, after they've already paid out, which could be a substantial claim. But that's based on the assumption that that German shepherd will be biting somebody or tearing off someone's arm, as you say.
Well, I don't think it's an assumption that it will. It's just that if it does, what's going to happen?
And it's like if I bought a house next to a dormant volcano, I'm sure the insurance company wouldn't like it. But maybe there's a chance that in 100 years that volcano goes off. And that's going to melt my house. We're not saying it's going to happen, but if it does, it's catastrophic.
Right.
So the attack from the German Shepherd, even if it never happens, if it does, don't you think it could hurt a person more than a much smaller dog like a French bulldog?
But if you're basing it on the breed.
Okay. So that's not allowed. Okay, so is your assertion then that insurance companies are not using actuarial science, not looking at statistical modeling, history, they're just looking at a breed and arbitrarily saying that that's not a good dog to own?
That's generally the case. And what, you know, we hear a lot, oh, that's a pit bull, which actually isn't a breed, but a mixture of different types of dogs. Oh, pit bull is dangerous. And you can't ascribe that to a particular animal based on, well, it's called a pit bull.
Okay. Is there any concern that if an insurance company can't price, raise the premium or adjust the premium based on the breed of dog, that they'll just price it into everybody's premium and now everyone's going to pay a higher premium for renter's insurance?
You know, I think the bill extends protections that homeowners already have. And so if a dog is dangerous, then you can up the premium, but not based on breed. And many, many, many people have dogs in this state. Listen, I grew up with dogs. I know that temperaments can vary within the same breed, across breeds, obviously. My concern is that I think most dogs are probably going to live their whole life without incidents of biting. But if it does happen, I just would like to see insurance companies better be able to price that potential damage and payout of, however unlikely it is, a bite into their policy.
But I appreciate you answering my questions. I'll just go on the bill now, please, Madam Speaker.
On the bill.
Madam Speaker, I think this chamber is probably full of animal lovers and people who grew up with dogs, who own dogs now, and we all love our dogs, and we don't expect them to ever bite another human or a child. But I think most people can acknowledge that the bigger the dog, if there is an incident, no matter how unlikely it is, it's going to do more damage to a human being, hopefully not, hopefully not a child. But what insurance companies see is when a dog... Okay.
Mr Gandolfo Thank you Madam Speaker I am on the road. This is my case to impeach Daniel Marcel, and if you're not willing to do that, then get It comes out of his crosshair! Thank you.
We stopped the timer for you, Mr. Gandolfo, so please finish. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We haven't had one of those in a while, so we're back in normal order here. Yeah.
unfortunate use of props, but I'll just close and say my concern would be that if insurance companies can't price in the potential risk of a particular breed and factor that into a policyholder's premium, that cost is going to be spread across all policyholders, which will increase the price of renter's insurance premiums, which could make renters less likely to have the proper insurance to protect themselves. Or, hopefully it doesn't happen, but insurance companies will just stop writing policies to renters who own any breed of animal, which again could leave some New Yorkers underinsured. Again, I thank the sponsor for answering my questions. I'll be voting against this bill, and I would recommend that my colleagues do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you. Ms. Giglio.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?
Oh, one moment. Ms. Lunsford?
Madam Speaker, if you could please call the Energy Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. Energy Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Energy Committee members, Speaker's Conference Room, please.
Sorry about that. Ms. Giglio.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yields.
If we could be quiet, move quietly, please. We're still on debate.
Thank you. Thank you. So my question is, for a larger apartment building complex that has several tenants in it, is there anything that prohibits the landlord from requiring a renter to obtain rental insurance to cover themselves and other tenants in the building? I've seen that happen.
I, it depends on the municipality whether the landlord requires them to, but in some places they are required to. I think if they're market rate or you know, outside the city, they could be, but it doesn't Address that in the bill.
Okay, so right now there is nothing that prohibits landlords from requiring tenants to obtain rental insurance if they have a dog, any dog.
It's a more complicated answer in certain rent-regulated buildings. If it's not in the initial lease, then it can't be, and so there are different circumstances, but nothing at the state level as far as I know.
Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will be not supporting this legislation, but if there are members who want to, now would be the time to vote yes at your desk. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative on this vote. If you would like to deviate from that position, you may do so at your desk. Thank you. Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Click, to explain her vote.
Thank you. To briefly explain my vote, I applaud the sponsor for bringing this bill forward. I carried a similar bill for homeowners many years ago, and we have not seen any increase in insurance specifically related to this or denial of insurance. And I believe that the issue is that you could have a very seemingly mild breed that the dog has been, you know, ill-treated and becomes, you know, a bit of a biter as opposed to some very large dogs that people think the breed is dangerous, but in fact is quite placid. So this is really about making certain that you aren't discriminating simply on the basis of a breed of a dog, but rather allows for individual animals to be restricted. So with that, I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative.
Ms. Glick in the affirmative.
Ms. Lunsford to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, over the years as an attorney, I handled a number of dog bite cases. And whether it is a Rottweiler or a Chihuahua, it really depends on where the bite is. A bite in the face is a bite in the face. And I don't think that from an actuarial perspective, the size of the dog really does matter. I've seen some horrible incidents from smaller dogs, especially involving younger children. Considering that in New York State, what we say is the first bite's free, a dog has to show propensity to a bite, There plenty of ways to limit liability and in fact sometimes I think wholly exclude certain rate payers if they fail to disclose prior bite status That would much better address the underlying issues than discriminating on breed I actually think that that gives people a false sense of security even ensures that a smaller dog isn't going to cause you the kinds of losses that you may expect. I could show you some horrible pictures on the phone. So I think that this is a solid bill. I applaud the sponsor, and I vote in the affirmative.
Ms. Lunsford in the affirmative. Mr. Norber to explain his vote.
Yeah, I just wanted to thank the sponsor for the bill because I've heard of many instances in my area where I live that people were denied even receiving any type of insurance because they just had a dog, a small dog, a medium dog, or a big dog. I think this is very arbitrary for many tenants. And, yeah, you have big dogs that are very gentle, very small, and that are very aggressive. You cannot really know, and I don't think it's the job of the insurance companies or the landlords to make any decisions like this, because dogs are really the part of the family and always should be. Thank you very much.
Mr. Norber in the negative. You have to push your button, Mr. Norber. It says no next to your name. Mr. Norber in the affirmative. Thank you. Ms. Rosenthal, to explain her vote.
To explain my vote, New York City in particular is the home to many, many, many dogs. And for renters, it's a good idea to get renter's insurance. To think that a renter could be denied insurance because of the breed of their dog, that would leave them in a quandary. They don't want to give away their dog. Many dogs are needing homes or are in shelters, and it's hard to find a good, affordable apartment. So in order to keep people who love their animals, want to get insurance, this bill will make it easier for them to comply with that. We didn't talk about ferocious cats, but maybe next time. I vote in the affirmative.
Ms. Rosenthal in the affirmative. . Oh, yeah. It's not a bite. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 103, nays 37.
The bill is passed. Page 33, calendar number 428. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 10365, calendar 428, Mr. Bronson. An act to amend the labor law.
An explanation has been requested, Mr. Bronson.
For many years, both state and federal courts have recognized that the New York labor law, like the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, was always intended to achieve broad remedial purposes to benefit workers and that it should be interpreted in line with those purposes. This bill expressly sets forth the original intent of our labor laws to be construed liberally for the accomplishment of their remedial purposes.
The courts would also be directed to interpret any exceptions or exemptions narrowly to deter
unlawful conduct by employers.
Mr. Durso.
Madam Speaker, would the sponsor yield for some questions?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, I will, madam.
That sponsor, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Bronson. So this bill we actually did last year, correct?
We did a version of this bill last year that was vetoed, and this bill is our approach to address the veto message.
So, thank you, sir. So in the governor's veto, part of her statement stated that this was vague and wide-sweeping. So can you explain to us how the bill differs from the bill last year that I supported? But I just want to make sure that, you know, it's hopefully will not get vetoed again.
So the bill narrows the approach to expressly stating what the intent of our labor law is So it an expression of that intent that we now offering to the court system while they are making determinations under the labor law Okay thank you sir And then you know, going back to our discussion on it last year and reading through some of the bill, does this bill not only protect the employee, but certain parts of it would protect the employer? Yeah, the bill will also have protection for employers who are abiding by the law and following the rules against those employers who are willing to not follow the law for their own benefit.
benefit. Okay, thank you sir. And then a question I asked last year and I just want to ask it again was does this bill in its past form or the current form really sidestep or go around any federal labor law that's already in place? No it
does not. The bill only addresses labor law similar to what we did in 2019 under the human rights law here in New York State. But the federal laws, courts can continue to interpret them as they wish.
Thank you, sir. And my last question is, in regards to the governor's veto and the changes that were put into the bill, do you think that this bill now meets some of the concerns of the second floor and why they vetoed it?
It is our intent that this addresses the veto of last year.
Thank you, Mr. Bronson. I appreciate it.
Madam Speaker, on the bill.
So, again, Madam Speaker, I supported this bill in the past, and again, I thank the sponsor. Anything that we could do to protect our working men and women of labor, but also our employers, I think is vitally important. My concern is the governor's veto message, and hopefully this time that some of the wording in the bill will be to her satisfaction. Unfortunately, her last veto message in the beginning says, I am a champion of New York workers and have consistently prioritized creating good jobs, supporting unions, increasing safety, and providing for financial relief for workers of New York. Unfortunately, I believe that the workers of the LIRR, the nurses, and the corrections officers may differ with that. So I hope that this is up to her standards, and she'll actually sign in until law this time to continue protecting our workers. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Read the last section.
This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote.
Thank you. Thank you. . Ms. Walsh to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I think that, you know, I know that we have three branches of government. We have the executive, legislative, and judicial branch, and I think that we have the power here to make the laws. I think that we really ought to leave it to the judiciary to interpret what the laws mean. So I don't like the idea of a liberal construction clause. I think that we give our judges discretion to be able to decide what the laws mean, and I think I'd rather balance it out that way. So I'll be voting no on this bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Walsh, in the negative. Mr. Brown to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. This bill seems to be another example of Albany moving New York further away from clear laws and closer to government by lawsuit. Instead of requiring courts to follow the plain wording passed by the legislature, this bill encourages judges to broadly reinterpret labor laws based on vague goals and intent. And that's exactly how the bill reads. It creates uncertainty for contractors, developers, municipalities, and small businesses already struggling on some of the highest construction costs, insurance rates, and litigation exposure in the country. Worse, it could ultimately hurt the very workers it claims to protect by driving up project costs, delaying development, reducing job creation, and pushing employees, employers, and investment out of New York altogether. Now, some of us still believe that laws should mean what they say, not what activist courts later decide they were supposed to mean. And for that reason, I'll be voting in the negative. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Brown in the negative. Mr. Bronson to explain his vote.
Yes, Madam Speaker, I rise to clarify the record. this bill is actually informing the courts of what the intent of our labor laws are. It's letting the courts know that the intent of the labor laws are to secure workers' wages, ensuring workers' rights to recover those wages, remedies protecting workers from retaliation, securing equal pay for equal work, and defraying the harms of unemployment, while also informing employers that you need to follow the laws in order to be part of the system for workers. It is an explanation to the courts of what our intentions are under our labor laws. So it actually clarifying for the courts to facilitate their interpretation and the implementation through the courts of our labor laws Thank you Madam Speaker Mr Bronson in the affirmative
Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 132 nays 8 The bill is passed Page 35 calendar number 444 Clerk will read Senate 3561, calendar 444, Senator Cleary.
An act in relation to requiring the Empire State Development Corporation in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Markets. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Cruz.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill would require the Empire State Development Corporation in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Markets and the Office of New Americans to conduct a study and report on the economic impact of optimizing and expanding kitchen incubators in New York State, including establishing and or expanding such opportunities at public or private locations with appropriate kitchen preparation space for kitchen incubator that ESD may identify.
Mr. Gandolfo. Thank you Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor please yield for a few questions. Will the sponsor yield? Yes, sponsor yields. Thank you. So first, what is a kitchen incubator? So it's generally a space that already has industrial type kitchen space set up that
often will provide per hour or per day a space for a small business owner, an entrepreneur, to be able to use all of the equipment that's located within this particular kitchen because it already comes equipped with everything that an industrial or a restaurant type kitchen would often have. And many of these folks don't have access to that type of kitchen in order to prepare the items that they sell, often selling in turn to other bakeries, to supermarkets, to specialty stores, etc.
Okay, so it's almost like how some entrepreneurs will operate almost like a ghost kitchen out of another restaurant that will rent them their space.
Yes, I think that's a good way to put it. But generally, the only thing that these incubators do is, as opposed to the example that you're giving where it's in a restaurant and you rent a few hours, there is a ghost kitchen. This one completely operates by the hour to whatever entrepreneur is getting it for that particular time and date.
Okay.
And now, so some of these facilities already exist. So this study would look into how to create more of them or how to better support the existing facilities? There are many, many already in existence. Generally, they are through a non-for-profit in the community where they exist. There's one in Astoria, Long Island City, run by the Queens Economic Development Corporation. There is one in Cypress Hills in Brooklyn, another one in Flatbush. There's one in Harlem that's pretty famous. It's called Hot Bread Kitchen. It was one of the first ones with that concept in New York City. There's also one out of Buff State University, which was previously a completely empty dormitory, and they refurnished the kitchen to be able to allow people to train and then cook their products to now be able to sell it at the Bill Stadium. And then there's another one in Seneca Lake that's actually managed by ESD. And I'm sure there's many, many more, but those are the ones that I can think of But to finish to your question I think the idea would be to figure out what private partnerships can happen what public locations like the dormitory could be then turned into something that could be used for this type of economic development project and what support if any would any of these need from state agencies
Okay, so would you anticipate this study could recommend opening more state-run incubators, maybe subsidies for existing ones?
I mean, I would love to hear anything and everything that comes out of the study. I would envision, as often happens with studies like this, the agency would tell us, the three agencies would tell us how to improve existing systems, how to create new ones. if there are to be any grants from the state, but I don't think that it's a must that they provide that.
Okay. And there's language in here specifically to examine the impact of potential optimization on minority communities, immigrant communities, women-owned businesses. Is it specifically tailored for them, or is that just one component of the study?
The idea is that it's one component of the study. More often than not, the incubators that are operating, especially around New York City, the type of entrepreneurs that they're seeing are the ones described, the MWBE-type entrepreneurs. And so that's why we mention it. But I think, you know, depending on where in the state there is a need, the study may recommend something different. And frankly, it should, because it should be based on the population of that particular community that the agencies recommend what steps to take to optimize one there.
Okay. Excellent. Now, a version of this was vetoed last year. I believe the governor vetoed it among a package of study bills. Has anything been done here to address the governor's concerns in the veto message?
Well, two things. One, we don't necessarily agree with the message because we believe that this study can be conducted with existing resources. But we did add additional agencies. The original bill itself only asked SUNY to take a look at optimizing the existing programs and how to create better ones. but we have now added other agencies to make sure that it's a more holistic approach at looking at incubators, but also to share, I guess, the burden of conducting the study.
All right, and just one more question here. Looking at the language, there's language here that says using available appropriations. Is there currently an available appropriation for this study?
Not for the study, but for many other things in the particular agencies, and I think that is the legalese in saying we don't need new money.
Yeah, we don't have the budget yet, so fair enough. All right, thank you, Ms. Cruz.
Thank you. Madam Speaker, on the bill, please. On the bill.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to be supporting this bill. I think anything we can do as a state to encourage more entrepreneurs to be able to get off the ground with a potential culinary business is a good thing. Quite frankly, I don't know how many of these we have out in my neck of the woods, but I'm sure a lot of people who would like to start a business would be interested in taking part in one of these incubators. So hopefully we can get an appropriation to actually get a program like this off the ground, even though we don't have the budget yet, so there is no current available appropriation. Maybe the governor will sign this one if there's funding in the budget for it.
So I thank the sponsor for answering my questions, and that's it for me.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Read the last section.
This act shall take effect immediately.
The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Cruz, explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to add a couple of locations throughout the state. But before I do that, I want to make sure that I am mentioning how beneficial this has been in the communities where it exists. I want to use Queens Economic Development Corporation as an example. The folks who use that incubator, many of them started as street vendors and then were able to get the skills, the space, and become somewhere between a brick and mortar and a street vendor. but also using that to support their families, to be able to make sure that they're contributing to our state, to our community, and becoming business owners. And so I think that this is going to be a great thing if we as a state can say, here's what we need, and here's how we get it done, and hopefully come back and fund programs like this in many other communities. But I do want to mention that there is one in Rochester called the Commissary. There's one in the Catskills, in Sullivan County, called Catskills Kitchen. There's cook space in the Bronx. There's food business incubator in Long Island and Stony Brook. And there's mangrove and flatbush in Brooklyn. And so my hope is that after we have this study, we can make this 10 times over in many of our communities. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Cruz, in the affirmative. Ms. Giglio, to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. I want to thank the sponsor for this bill. It is a great bill. I have the Stony Brook Incubator in Calverton in my district, and there are hundreds of companies that have benefited. They started out in their kitchens just baking cookies, baking breads, baking donuts, and North Fork Donut Company is very famous. They now have three locations, and it really is just a great spot with a commercial kitchen that is shared amongst many that are in there, and those businesses that I've seen graduate from there have all been very successful. I think it's a wonderful idea, and we need more incubators in the state. So, again, thank you to the sponsor. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Ms. Giglio. In the affirmative, Mr. Morinello to explain his vote.
Thank you. On the bill, or I'll explain my vote, it's going to cover both. I like this bill. I think it works well. But what I would really like to see is expanding this to teaching kitchens. And what I mean by teaching kitchens is we have so much food insecurity. And I think one of the issues is the general public at this point, the younger individuals, they don't know how to cook. They don't know how to put inexpensive ingredients, ingredients that during the Depression they would be able to put together, wild dandelions, gardoonies, potatoes. And I think that we could move forward by utilizing these for more of a source, a training source in the communities. So with that being said, I do vote yes. I support the bill. But I think that it can go further. Thank you.
Mr. Morinello in the affirmative. Are there any other votes?
Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0.
The bill is passed Ms Lunsford Madam Speaker could you please recognize Assemblymember Clark for an announcement Ms Clark for the purpose of an announcement Thank you Madam Speaker I here to announce Majority Conference in the Speaker Conference Room
Right now, immediately Majority Conference, Speaker's Conference Room.
Immediate Majority Conference, Speaker's Conference Room, Ms. Lunsford.
Madam Speaker, could you please place the House at ease?
On Ms. Lunsford's motion, House stands at ease.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. So Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Music Music Music Thank you. Thank you. So Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. We be right back Thank you Thank you. Madam Speaker, can you call the house back to order?
The house will come to order. Miss Lunsford.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. We're going to continue our floor work today with three more bills. Calendar number 447 by Miss Gonzalez Rojas, calendar number 456 by Miss Solages, and calendar 481 by Mr. Magnarelli.
Thank you. Page 35, calendar number 447. Clerk will read.
Senate 3460, calendar 447, Senator Guarnades, an act to amend the labor law.
An explanation has been requested. Ms. Gonzalez-Rojas.
Thank you. This bill's purpose is to ensure that all laborers in the state have a fair opportunity to review their personnel records and are notified when a negative report is filed against them.
Mr. Durso.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, sir.
The sponsor yields.
Thank you very much. So what is the, with the current law, the way it's written, what do employers have to do now when it comes to personal records for their employees? They are not required to allow people to request access, and they're not required to provide information to the employee when there's a negative information placed in the record. But they can if they so choose, correct? If they so choose, yeah. They are welcome to. It's just not required by state law. So now with this, if this bill was to pass, it would be required, correct? Yes. Now, is this for any type of record keeping? So in other words, if an employee is late to work and there is a record kept of that, or an employee has some type of claim against them, or from a fellow employee or a customer, let's just say, in the store, is it for every type of record that is going to be kept on an employee? It's only for the personnel records, and there's two conditions. So an employee can request to review the personal records up to two times, or at minimum two times a year. So if the employer wants to provide more time, that's welcome, but the minimum is two times a year. And the employee would have to make that request in writing and will be provided that access to records in five days. The negative information, once that information is placed on their record, they're required to inform the employee within 10 days. And some examples are, you know, like things that would impact hiring, promotion, transfer, raises, compensation, discipline, termination. So anything that would impact any of those areas would be, the employer would be required to inform the employee within 10 days of placement in their record. Okay, so it's going to lead me to two other questions. You're saying anything that would be negative? Negative, yep. Who makes the determination if it's negative? Yeah, so there is language here. Give me a moment. Yeah, at the core, it's about records that can be used to affect their qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or disciplinary action. So anything that would harm them in any way in reference to those areas, it would be considered negative. So again, it's really what we may construe as negative. So in other words, if an employee is late to work five times that week and know there's, for lack of a better word, punishment for that employee or anything like that, just keeping record, would that be considered negative? If it would impact their employment, yes. But how so how would an employer know if that's going to affect your employment going forward at another? If if if they're not having an issue at work and the employer doesn't care that they're late five times, who deciphers if that is negative going forward? The next employer, if there is a next employer. Yeah. In other words, they may stay at that company for 30 years. Yeah. How is an employer supposed to decipher what another company may find is negative? If in doubt, the employer should notify the employee. So it's really simple. And, again, this is just notification. The employee has just access to review. If they want to rebut that information, there could be a mutual conversation. And if they agree to remove that from their record, then that's okay. if the employee feels that the employer wants to maintain that information on the record, the employee is welcome to issue a statement that will also go on the record as official part of their personnel record. So really for the safety of the employer, right, so they don't get in trouble essentially, anything that goes in an employee's record really should be reported. Yeah, so something about lateness, right? If lateness can impact their employment, but they have a disability that has caused them to be late, they can rebut that, and perhaps the employer could remove those claims against the employee. But it creates an opportunity for a dialogue, and that's the ideal situation, that the records are kept for purposes of promotion, information about the employer, employee, and then if someone has a challenge to that, that there's an opportunity for them to address that. Okay. So if for some reason with this legislation, let's say I have an employee and I write in their personnel file that employee X is very efficient at their job, works very hard and is very fast at their job, So much so that they get compliments along the way, but that is in their personnel file and they go for another job And another employer looks at that and says it seems like you rush at your current job Let say the wording in it isn to what the next employer likes or they're concerned about the employee's manner in which they work. It may be a positive for one industry, but a negative for another. Does that open up that employer for liability? I don't think so because, again, you know, the way someone else judges a record is different. If the employee gets to review the record and is satisfied with the language, has no concerns, then it stands, then it's included in their record. So the employee will have two chances at least per year to review their records if they'd like. They have to make written review, written request for that. And if they see that comment and they're happy with it, they're welcome to keep it there. If they have concerns that it might impact their, they're welcome to have that conversation with their employer to see if they could amend the way it's framed, perhaps, so that it wouldn't be misperceived at another job opportunity. Well, and understanding that, and I understand what the intention of it is, is to make sure that if there's a negative piece of information in your file, that the employee has the opportunity to rebut that, understand what's in their file. It's not saying somebody has to remove it. It's just saying, and they have two opportunities per year to look at that. At least. At least. But now the problem that I see with this, again, is if I'm the employer and I find something to be a positive attribute of that employee, and the next employer, if there is one, finds it to be negative, right? But now what I'm understanding the way I read this and the way you're explaining it is that anytime anything goes in a personnel file, whether it's good or bad, they're going to have to inform the employee that something's been put in their personnel file. No, no, only if it's negative. Right. I think, again, if it's positive, it can remain in their file. And, again, if the employee wants to review it, to look for accuracies, et cetera, they're welcome to do so at those two times per year at least, or more if an employer allows for that. The perception or understanding of that language by another employer is something that is not controlled in this bill. But is there, and thank you, but is there specific language in the bill that outlines what exactly is considered negative? Because again, my concern with it is you may think it's negative, I may think it's negative, but the employer might not think it's negative because it's not outlined. And if they don't inform the employee that a negative piece of information was put in a personnel file, what is the, who's in charge of that? Again, there's a fine associated with it, correct? If the AG decides to pursue action, it could be $500 to $2,500. Is it per incident or is it? Per incidents. So the AG is really the one deciding whether or not something is negative or positive. Yes, but it has to be flagged for the AG. So, and again, the language is really about impacting on hiring, promotion, transfers, raises, compensation, discipline, and termination. So if someone says you're wonderful and you work rapidly and you get things done, I don't think that'll harm your promotion, hiring, transfer, raises, and put you at risk of termination. So it the way the employer treats that information is how we looking at the bill I agree with that But again someone like myself who came from the sanitation department right And it was literally the faster you work the quicker you can go home But we would end up having a lot of injuries on our trucks because again, it's a demanding job, physical job. But if I had something put in my personnel file by one of the bosses and said, Mike Durso is a great worker, probably works too fast, causes himself a lot of injuries. Right. That's not negative. But my next employer may construe that is negative. So therefore, then isn't my employer, my former employer, then liable for not explaining those what now somebody else may say is negative to that employee? That because only because, again, it's it's really the AG because of this bill is deciding what is negative or positive. If it's not a positive outcome for that person looking for a new job, wouldn't it be considered negative then? Yeah. I mean, the AG would make the determination if it rises to that level. Again, it's really about the impact of the employee under that employer. So this is really about how any information that's placed in their personnel record would impact their ability, under those clauses I mentioned, to remain an employer, employee, and not be negatively impacted. Thank you. So two more quick questions, ma'am. I appreciate answering the questions. If collective bargaining is in place, so obviously if it's a union that has collectively bargained, how things go into personnel files, it gets reported to a shop steward. Does this impact anything with collective bargaining at all? It's here in writing. If an employer places any information in a personnel record which such employer knew or should have known to be false, the employee should have remedied through collective bargaining agreement, other personnel procedures or judicial process to have such information expunged. So there is a reference to the collective bargaining agreement as one area where they can pursue remedy. So again, so then it would be internally done? So in other words, you know, if you go to an arbitrator, We sit down for hearings all the time with employees and we get representation from our shop stewards or local representatives. That would supersede this because they have collective bargaining. Yes, it would not impact the collective bargaining. Great, thank you. And then also, does this affect all businesses? Yes. Does it affect municipalities? Yes. Yes. So this is across the board in any industry, in any job, no matter the size of it, the scope of the job. if you have something that has to be put in a personnel file and it could be construed as negative in any way, shape or form, it has to be reported to that employee. Within 10 days. Within 10 days. Yeah. So it gives some time for the employer to do so. Great.
Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez.
Thank you so much. I appreciate you answering my questions.
Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill.
So I appreciate the sponsor putting forward this bill, and I understand the intention of it. again, protecting our workers, the employees from anything negative, again, that could hurt them going forward and them not knowing about it. I do understand that and I appreciate that. Unfortunately, the way I look through this bill and read the language is it's not carved out specifically enough and the language isn't said enough to be specific on what needs to go into that personnel file and what the AG may be looking for in regards to being negative. Again it what you may construe as negative I may see as a positive or vice versa And again I feel like this may open up especially our municipalities including the state and our local municipalities to some kind of lawsuit Again, if the AG comes back and says, well, that should have been a negative connotation of that employee, or could have been positive, maybe somebody, an employer was putting it in as a positive write-up, and then the next employer does not hire that person because they don't like the information that was in that file and the employer or the current employer thought it was a positive thing, now they're liable not only for a fine which could decimate some small businesses, a $2,500 fine for each incident. If they put in something monthly to say how great this employee is and then they don't get a job because of something that was written in there that they thought was a positive, we're talking about thousands upon tens of thousands of dollars that could decimate a small business. Again, I believe the intention is correct. I just don't think the language in the bill is there yet to protect those employees and the employers. So in such time, I'll be voting no, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Ms. Lunsford.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
If the Health Committee could please make its way to the Speaker's conference room.
Thank you.
Health Committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. Health Committee members, Speaker's Conference Room, Ms. Bailey.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the sponsor just yield for one question? Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yields.
Thank you. I was just reading the text of the bill, and I just need some clarity. On page 2, line 35 into 36, where it's talking about the statement that the employee can place in their record, and it indicates the statement shall be included when said information is transmitted to a third party, what constitutes a third party with transmitting the personnel records? Who would that third party be? Which line is it again? Page 2, line 35 to 36, I believe. Yes, 35 to 36. OK. Yeah, I think this is like reference to a union or other, because remember I referenced collective bargaining and other personnel procedures. So if there's another personnel process, that might engage a third party. OK, so it doesn't necessarily delineate who that third party is. Or the AG themselves if it rises to that level. Okay. Because some information in a personnel record would not be available to some third parties. Is that accurate? That is correct.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Read the last section.
This act shall take effect immediately.
A party vote has been requested.
Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican Conference will not be supporting this legislation, generally speaking, But if there are any yes votes, now would be the time to cast them at their seats.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lunsford.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative on this vote. If you would like to deviate from that, you may do so at your desks. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Gonzalez-Rojas to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm proud to sponsor this legislation because everyone, every worker, deserves a basic right. The right to know what is being written about them in their personnel file and how it may impact their livelihood, their future opportunities, and their reputation. This bill follows a model established in Massachusetts and creates a common-sense standard of fairness and transparency in the workplace. Employees should not be left in the dark about reports or evaluations that could impact whether they are promoted, transferred, disciplined, or even terminated. At its core, this bill encourages open communication between employees and supervisors. It creates a process for workers to review their records and seek correction if knowingly false or defamatory information is included. because no one's career should be jeopardized by misinformation they never had the opportunity to address. Importantly, this legislation also provides accountability. Personnel records should never be weaponized to retaliate against workers, discredit whistleblowers, or punish employees who stand up for themselves or exercise their rights. Personnel files were intended to help and support and improve employee performance, not to serve as tools of intimidation or humiliation. As a legislature, we have a responsibility to protect basic labor rights, ensure transparency, and promote fairness in the workplace. I'm proud to vote in support, and I hope my colleagues do so. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez-Rohas, and the affirmative.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 95, nays 46.
The bill is passed. Ms. Walsh for the purpose of an introduction.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings. For an introduction, we all know how special it is when we have family come to visit us and break up our days here. So on behalf of Mr. DiPietro, we're visited today by his wife, Teresa, and his daughter, Ava, who have come up. I guess they make a yearly surprise visit, and today is the day. Ava just finished her freshman year at the University of Dayton in Ohio and made Dean's List with a perfect 4-0. She was tops in her class for Air Force ROTC as well, and she's enlisting in the Air Force this fall. So, Madam Speaker, if you could please welcome Mr. DiPietro's family and afford to them all the cordialities of this house.
Of course. On behalf of Ms. Walsh, Mr. DiPietro, the speaker, and all members, we welcome you, Teresa and Ava, to our Assembly Chamber and extend to you the privileges of the floor.
We're always wonderful to see family members here visiting with us.
And Ava, congratulations to you on your wonderful academic, successful career at university. And welcome to the 1% of people who will be enlisted in the United States military. Congratulations and best wishes to you. Thank you both for joining us today. Page 35 calendar number 456 clerk will read
Assembly number 5786B, calendar 456, Ms. Solange, an act to amend the public service law.
On a motion by Ms. Solange, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced.
An explanation has been requested.
Ms. Solange.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill will establish requirements to protect residential customers from terminations during extreme temperature forecasts.
Mr. Lamondes.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, Madam Speaker.
Sponsor yields.
Thank you, Ms. Lodge. I understand the explanation, but could you go into further detail on how this would impact current law, policy, and regulation and identify where they fall short, thus creating the need for this bill? Yes, so extreme weather is no longer rare, and we're seeing more days with dangerous heat indexes and severe cold weather across New York State. And utility shutoffs during those periods are becoming continually life-threatening. So why we need this bill is because terminations during extreme weather events can put vulnerable customers at risk, And so we're creating parameters around the terminations and just creating a framework so that irrespective of where you live, whether it's Buffalo or Montauk, there's a standard for shutoffs.
Thank you. I understand your perspective on that. I want to read something, if you don't mind.
While safety in extreme heat conditions is vital, it could be argued that the requirements and prohibitions of this bill are unnecessary because the PSC currently mandates that utilities pause the termination of service during extreme heat and implement consumer protections during these conditions. Therefore, meaning it's already covered. So having said that, why would we pursue and implement this bill on top of what's already in place? So as a Long Island member, I don't know if you've recently read articles about a PSEG employee who basically was saying that they think people are better in the dark and was laughing about shutoffs and saying that we are going to shut off people and they were creating their own standards of shutoff. So in this bill, we actually create parameters around shutoffs. So we have triggers. So if there is 85-degree weather or above or 32-degree weather and below, individuals' utilities can't get shut off. It creates scope. So that means that every resident, irrespective of where they live in this state, has these protections. It creates a duration. So whether it's before, a uniform standard. So it's the day before, the day of, and two days after. And then it also cites that it can't be just a random measurement. It subscribes to the National Weather Service. So we have a standard that's applicable. And so at the end of the day, we're just creating a uniform standard across the state for all utilities to abide by so that we can prevent decision on individuals or whether to shut know utilities at their discretion Thank you I understand that But where I having trouble is my own daughter who was handicapped
We lived in three different states, to include New York, and I have personally found that it seems that this is already covered because they have been very good in notifying us when things would happen or were about to happen or were concerned about our ability to keep power on for her devices. So having said that, I am struggling with what I think you referred to as hearsay by employees. I can't – my experience – my personal experience is only good. I can't imagine any employees, directors, or leaders actually making jokes about terminating somebody's power. I think that's a very serious thing. So, Madam Speaker, if you don't mind on the bill. On the bill.
Thank you.
So since the current law already covers the contingencies that we've discussed, this bill would only serve to confuse ratepayers and utility providers through its duplicitous points and duplicitous nature. It's additionally opposed by multiple utility providers for the aforementioned reasons, and as such, is unnecessary. The public service law already covers, in my opinion, what this bill is intended to do, therefore additionally making it unnecessary. I would urge everyone to vote against it on the premise that it's already covered, and we don't need to choke our system with yet another unnecessary bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Palmisano.
Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Thank you very much. I kind of want to just take off where my colleague left off. If I may do that for a few minutes here. I just want to make sure I'm doing it on time. Give me one second. So you might just set the set parameters and guidelines right now, right?
Yeah, we just want to create a clear floor and a standard that utilities can adhere to across the state.
Don't utilities already have both cold and heat related protections in place that now are part of the existing rates? Don't they already have those plans in place that must be reviewed and approved by the PSC?
So there are different frameworks and patchwork that do exist, and we want to make sure that we're creating a floor so that, you know, if a utility wants to go above and beyond, you know, I'm not going to poo-poo that. but this would allow us to make sure that irrespective of where you live in your zip code there's a floor and a standard and and a specific framework that that utilities have to abide by. Where did the temperature 85 degrees come
from? Because I think there's 19 other states that do this and it's my understanding most of the temperatures are between 95 and 105. New Jersey's 90 from what I understand. Why did New York settle on 85 degrees? Why did you come up
with 85 degrees? When I produce a piece of legislation it's all about compromise and having conversations. And so we looked at what other states were doing, including Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, and they have protection that recognize extreme weather events. And in our state, we only recognize the cold. We don't recognize the extreme heat. And if you think about today, In May, this is actually the warmest day in May, in 30 years. So we have to think about extreme heat and how we ensure that we're protecting the most vulnerable New Yorkers. And so we just looked at the legislation and we took the best estimate and we produced it in this document with the input from different stakeholders.
On that note, and I mentioned you mentioned how right now we deal with cold. and under the current public service law, it authorized the PSC to establish special procedures during periods of cold weather to identify vulnerable individuals and pause termination of utilities, served by utilities and municipalities as they move forward. Is that correct?
I'm sorry. Can the gentleman repeat the question?
I can. I can. So, Colonel, I know you were talking about how right now in New York we have it just for cold weather, and like I said, the public service law right now authorized the Public Service Commission to establish special procedures during periods of cold weather that allow the PSC to identify vulnerable individuals and pause the termination of services by utilities and municipalities. Is that not correct?