Assembly Floor Session — 2026-03-10

The house will come to order. Good afternoon, colleagues and guests. Imam tahir kukaj will offer a prayer. Imam tahir kukaj: (Speaking unknown language). In the name of god, most gracious, most merciful, we thank god almighty for his countless blessings; blessings of this chamber, members of this great institution of our great state of New York. We gather during the holy month of ramadan; a time when many of our neighbors are focused on prayer, self-reflection and acts of service. We've been celebrating this holy month of ramadan along our neighbors; jewish neighbors where they were celebrating purim. Our neighbors -- christian neighbors celebrating lent. Our hindu neighbors, new yorkers celebrating holi. So we pray to god almighty to derive from the spirit today as we acknowledge the vital demanding work of this legislative body. We ask for a special blessing upon each member present. Grant them clarity of mind as they weigh the complex issues before them. May they be guided by a spirit of genuine cooperation and the courage to advocate for the common good, putting the needs of the people above the noise of the day. We recognize the immense sacrifice and dedication inherent in this role. We pray that you grant them endurance for their long hours and humility in their authority. May their words in this chamber be used to build bridges, resolve conflicts, and to lift up those who are most vulnerable among us. May their decisions today leave a lasting positive mark on our great state of New York, fostering a future that is just, equitable and prosperous for all. God almighty, bless this assembly, bless their deliberations, and may their commitment to public service always be renewed. God almighty, we bless -- we ask you that you bless our New York state and our country, the greatest country on earth, the united states of america. In your name we make this prayer. Amen. Members: amen.

Madam speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of monday, march 9th and that the same stand approved.

I have a quote today from harriet tubman, and the quote is --

Thank you, madam speaker. The quote that we have here today is from harriet tubman and it says, I wish the conductor of the underground railroad for eight years -- I'm sorry -- I was the conductor of the underground railroad for eight years, and I can say what most conductors can't say: I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger. And these words are from harriet tubman. Madam speaker, members have on their desk an a-calendar [sic]. After any housekeeping and/or introductions we will begin our floor work by taking up calendar resolutions on page 3. We will then consent the following bills: calendar no. 44 by Ms. Tapia, and calendar no. 47 by Ms. Paulin. After that we will take up the following bills on debate: rules report no. 18 by Ms. Glick, and rules report no. 29 by Ms. Rosenthal. I will announce any further floor activity as we proceed. So with that as a general outline, miss -- madam speaker, let us begin with any housekeeping and/or introductions.

Thank you, madam speaker. It is a great honor and a pleasure to welcome and introduce imam tahir back to the people's house. You know, imam tahir has done the invocation during the month of ramadan for the last eight consecutive years, and I do appreciate him making the trip to albany from staten island. And, you know, imam tahir is not only the leader of the albanian cultural center on staten island, but he's also a chaplain for the New York city police department. He serves our community in so many different ways. He always opens up his community center to the public for various events during every part of the year. And he's also a wonderful reflection on, you know, what this holy month of ramadan means. You know, taking care of your neighbors, giving charity and a good amount of self-reflection. So if you would be so kind to welcome imam tahir to the people's house it would be greatly appreciated, madam speaker.

Thank you. Mr. Eachus the purpose of an introduction.

Thank you. On behalf of Mr. Eachus, The Speaker and all members, we welcome our suny orange and cuny york college nursing students as you traveled here today to represent nysna and all things healthcare. Thank you for all of the wonderful work that you do and will continue to do in this healthcare space. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for joining us. Mr. Santabarbara for the purpose of an introduction.

On behalf of Assembly Member santabarbara -- dad -- The Speaker and all members, welcome back, michael, to our assembly chamber. It's so wonderful to see you again today. We hope you enjoy the time in our chamber again, as you always do, and congratulations and continued success, chef michael. Thank you for joining us today, chef.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Guess what? We are back, we are bigger and better than ever because we are the bronx. And I have a number of leaders here from the bronx I'm going to have them stand up, but you may know they already, Mr. Speaker. We have our bronx da. We have our bronx borough president, da darcel clark, bronx borough president vanessa gibson. We we also have lisa sorin from bronx chamber of commerce. Robert rodriguez from chase. We have sherlyn santana from bronx community -- bronx community manager at chase. We have jennifer bernstein, also president and ceo of New York botanical garden. These are all things in the bronx. Matt eagle [sic], president, langsam property service corp.; and meg ventrudo, executive director of woodlawn conservancy. And they're all here because today is bronx day. And we haven't had bronx day in over ten years, but like I said we are back, bigger, better than ever, and I hope that they will receive -- oh, I'm sorry, and a bunch of other companies and organizations and corporations that make the bronx who it really is. And I would love if you can give them all the cordiality of the floor, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Reyes for the purpose of an introduction.

On behalf of Ms. Reyes, The Speaker and all members, we welcome our members of the New York black nurses association and extend to you the privileges of the floor. Hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Continued success, and thank you so very much for all you do for being healthcare champions. Thank you for joining us today. Mr. Eachus for the purpose of an introduction.

On behalf of Mr. Eachus, The Speaker and all members, we welcome our guests from dominican university, the national association of social workers, on your lobby day today. We need you now more than ever, so we are so very glad to see you today, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. We hope you had meaningful discussions on your visit today. Continued success to you. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Mr. Slater for the purpose of an introduction.

ON BEHALF OF MR. SLATER, THE SPEAKER AND ALL MEMBERS, WELCOME, OUR NORTHERN WESTCHESTER BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB HERE TODAY TO OUR ASSEMBLY CHAMBER. I CANNOT SEE YOU UP THERE, BUT WE EXTEND THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR TO YOU AND HOPE YOU ENJOY OUR PROCEEDINGS TODAY. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB AND SO VERY PLEASED THAT YOU ALL ARE PARTICIPANT MEMBERS, OUR FUTURE LEADERS. IT'S JUST VERY EXCITING TO SEE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB MEMBERS HERE TODAY. SO THANK YOU UP IN OUR BALCONY FOR JOINING US TODAY. RESOLUTIONS, PAGE 3, THE CLERK WILL READ. <a name="1023"></a> THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 1023, MS. BARRETT. LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM MARCH 1-7, 2026, AS SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK WEEK IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBSERVANCE OF NATIONAL SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK WEEK.

ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED. <a name="1025"></a> THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 1025, MR. CONRAD. LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM MARCH 9-13, 2026, AS CIVIC LEARNING WEEK IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Mr. Destefano on the resolution.

THANK YOU. ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED. <a name="1027"></a> THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 1027, MR. DURSO. LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL TO PROCLAIM MARCH 2026, AS YOUTH ART MONTH IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Read the last section. The Clerk: this act shall take effect on the 90th day.

On a motion by Ms. Paulin, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. The Clerk: this act shall take effect on the 30th day.

Thank you very much, madam speaker. So this third reading amendment make changes to the bill- in-chief to expand the number of members on the rare disease advisory council, and that amendment provides appointments to the minority leaders of the Legislature. So this -- this started back in 2020 when the Legislature established the New York state rare disease working group, and now this bill would serve to make permanent the working group first established in 2020 by creating a standing council to continue the oversight, awareness and advocacy work of the rare disease advisory working group and now that will be a council. So a key change was allowing the minority leader of the assembly and minority leader of the senate to have appointments on this, which I think is really important. Sometimes we do have concerns when we don't get any appointments onto some of these boards, and I'm very grateful to see that the sponsor amended her bill in order to provide those appointments. With that change, my previous reservations are gone. I will very happily support this establishment of the rare disease advisory council. And I'd also like to just note that the als association supports this bill, and that made me think of my good andy gilpin, the former executive director of captain chs in my district who is battling with als right now. I think that working groups like this will really hopefully make a big difference, advisory councils like this will make a big difference. So I'm very pleased to support it and I will be in the affirmative. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

On a motion by Ms. Glick, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Ms. Glick, an explanation has been requested.

MR. SIMPSON.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

It allows for modification, transfer assignment while the leases are still current. It would not allow for it to go beyond the time of the lease.

Well, I -- I think that's -- that is what is intended, yes. But the transfer --

Yes. The transfer, but the transfer would not restart the lease terms.

We did not get a complete rundown of all of the leases. Some of the -- some of the language also was intended to clarify that this would not prevent plugging of old lease -- old wells because that is a problem. But we -- in some instances there are lots of abandoned wells and we don't have leases that relate to where they -- they are. So knowing the leases that exist, I'm sure there is -- though we don't have that number today for you -- but there are many abandoned wells all over the state and they are probably in the thousands. They're not active, but they need to be plugged. So part of our language needed to be cleaned up so that there could continue to be activity that would be plugging those old wells.

Not in these areas. If you -- as I'm sure you know, we're looking at 30x30. And these are state forestlands, wildlife management areas, areas of unique significance. And currently, like reforestation areas are defined as lands devoted to watershed protection, the production of timber and other forest products and for recreation and similar activities. So it's not necessarily consistent with that to have oil and gas production, which requires more infrastructure then would be consistent with these uses.

Not off the top of my head.

I don't have that in front of me.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

No. There are no -- and the lease terms are 10-year terms, so currently we don't have any applications.

Yes. But in the past they were renewals, and this would at that -- at the end of the lease term in these areas, not everywhere but in these specific areas, once the lease term is expired, then there would not be a renewal allowed.

NO.

No. It -- it -- it's not -- there are no -- there's no statute that bans it. We are doing that in this bill. There is no, to my understanding, any restriction that would prevent dec from -- in these specific areas. Remember, this is just within reforestation, state forest or wildlife management areas. It's those specific areas. Dec is still open to making leases in other areas.

I think all -- (Conferencing). I'm -- I'm more familiar with the absolute mining regulations that do require it. But apparently, yes. In these there are reclamation. And probably one would think that there are also plugging of wells. It's just that lots of wells were abandoned long before there were regulations requiring reclamation.

Oh, yes. Oh, yes. It is a decided problem. There -- we had some federal dollars -- and these are -- these are wells from, you know, decades ago. So the records are a little unclear and they are -- they're in different types of topography. So what -- there's no specific amount that, oh, it only costs x-amount to plug a well. It requires finding them, and then the topography might make it more expensive in one area from another. And so it's an expensive operation. And dec has been working on this, and we did have, from the last administration, some resources so that it wasn't coming out of state dollars. But it -- and they're finding it basically because people say, oh, you know, there's some wells back out there, which is not necessarily the best way to do it. But with old records or non-existent very old records, it's a big job and there are a lot of them.

And some -- and let me just clarify. Some may actually be emitting methane. Some may just be admitting brine. But if they're, you know, near someone's -- not far from a well that somebody has drilled for their water and there's brine seeping out of an old well, that's not a good thing for those folks.

It's not to identify. It's to -- it was cleaning up language that would not -- that might have prevented -- inadvertently might have prevented the capping of wells. So that is -- it's not identifying them. That is not the subject of this. It was just cleaning up language to ensure that we did not inadvertently make it more complicated to cap wells.

Yeah, I would say that's fair.

ON THE BILL.

Thank you. Mr. Ari brown.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

The -- as near as we could tell, there's less than 1 percent of production that comes out of all of these wells, as best as we could gather from dec. So this is not a significant contributor to the gas production. And it is -- it should be clear to everyone that renewable energy is actually now costing less than fossil fuels and creating less pollution. So this is a -- not just a minor bill, but a truly benign bill in that very, very little production comes out of these existing sites. And we are making a decision that our state forests, our wildlife management areas which include, you know, watershed protection areas, should not be the site of industrial oil and gas production. We're not looking at restricting opportunity in other places. This is just those types of areas that the state is trying to preserve for the purposes I previously stated.

I would say that in some of these instances there may be an edge -- I mean, wind has to be -- you're generally on a ridge. You're not sticking a windmill in the middle of trees because that doesn't make any sense. So some of that's a little bit of a specious argument.

ON THE BILL.

Thank you. Mr. Bologna.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

I can't guarantee a whole a lot more than what comes out of my mouth. I believe that, as I said before, that it's possible that there is a ridge line that is within the state forestland that is an appropriate location because it is the ridge line where there is wind and where there are no trees. So I don't want to categorically say that there would be no renewable energy on a ridge line and that that land is not state forest land. So I -- I can't guarantee that. But I would say that it does not make sense for most of these areas, which are largely forested or reforested, to have either oil and gas or renewables because of the infrastructure needed to support either. But it is possible that there is a ridge line that is state forest land that is appropriate for a -- for windmills.

I agree that ores, which has to go through a siting process, should be more responsive.

ON THE BILL.

Thank you. Ms. Glick on the bill.

Thank you. Read the last section. The Clerk: this act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will, generally speaking, be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are members who wish to vote yes, now would be the time to do so at their seats. Thank you.

Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be supporting this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they can do so at their desks.

Thank you, madam speaker. So, I appreciate the dialogue and the debate that occurred. I just want to make a couple of points for the benefit of -- of us all. Last year when we took up the bill-in-chief we had bipartisan opposition. We had 48 no votes. This was a chapter amendment that was insisted upon by the Governor as a condition to her signing this piece of legislation. So I do take it -- I -- I did think it was important to note that while the Governor has signaled that she's looking for an all-of-the above approach, this chapter amendment does the opposite. It -- it does not -- it -- it curtails any development of a certain kind of energy that -- so it's not -- it's not looking at an all- of-the-above approach. It's actually limiting production. Now, we know that fracking is already banned in New York, and some industry folks have said that even if it wasn't, industry would not lease in these particular areas. But still, just based on just the principle of it, I think that to basically allow an organization like ores to trample on local control and to put solar and wind in sensitive areas if it's their idea, but then at the same token on this chapter amendment further restrict where other kinds of energy development can occur just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, if you just look at the adirondack park, it's not just a state forest. It's a six million-acre patchwork of public and private land. And I -- I can't say that in that entire area of over six million acres you couldn't responsibly have some kind of development occurring some place at some point in the future. So I -- I just can't support this. And I really think that the Governor needs to kind of get her story straight if she's for it or against it. I'll be voting no.

Thank you, madam speaker, to explain my vote. First of all, I -- I can't support something that makes the lives of new yorkers less affordable. New York is facing a growing energy crisis. Too many new yorkers are paying hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars per month just to keep the lights on and their homes warm. Natural gas remains the cleanest and most reliable large-scale energy option available to our state today. It produces far fewer emissions than coal and oil, and it can power our homes and businesses at a much more affordable rate. While we continue developing renewable energy -- and no one is against it -- natural gas must remain part of the solution to keep energy reliable and affordable for new yorkers. Once again, I cannot support something that makes the lives of new yorkers less affordable. Thank you, madam speaker.

Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to explain my vote as a negative. You never know, new technologies might mature that might make it even more efficient. Even though fracking has been in the technology for decades, but even prior to that a useless well became very, very useful. And -- and you never know that we have therm -- geothermal energy that might be in those -- in those leased land that we can utilize that. Until we get commercially-grade [sic] fusion energy, we must maintain all sources of alternate energy, all sources, to keep our energy affordable. And my constituents are complaining about why our electric rates is [sic] up, and are also questioning about renewable energy as being affordable because there's a lot of tax credits, a lot of energy -- renewables energy company always asks for the state for some subsidies. So really, I think there's a lot of accounting tricks that would account for affordable. Gas and -- and fossil fuel is a mature industry, over 100 years old. Do you know what the pricing would be and do you know how to get that? So I really question about what's affordability on renewable energy. Let the market forces dictate. Let the market force understand where we want -- where we need our energy. And I explain my vote as no. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

Thank you, madam speaker. I just cannot believe the hypocritical nature of this bill. While we are using up hundreds of thousands of productive, tillable prime farmland in upstate New York, people in this body supported that. Today we're taking up a bill not to use property for natural gas. I -- I just do not get it. I just do not get it. While people at home have went from $150 electric bills up to $500 in the last several months because of the policies that have come out of this chamber, that chamber, and the Governor's office, our people are struggling. It's really a shame when we have these resources right here at home in New York state to take care of the people that we represent and make their lives more affordable, and we do this. Again, I vote no.

On a motion by Ms. Rosenthal, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Ms. Rosenthal, an explanation as been requested.

MR. BOLOGNA.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Well, there's a -- there's a whole process, yes.

Yes. Mr. Bologna: -- the creditor must pause activity on that debt, correct?

OKAY. SO, YES.

Okay. So in that one form of documentation allowed under -- under the bill, is a sworn statement from a qualified third-party; is that -- is that correct?

Okay. And just so I understand, is that individual who is the qualified third-party, do they -- is there a requirement that they have to have been present for the coerced debt?

Okay. So it's just a written statement. It could be a written statement or hearsay?

Okay. But again, to clarify, they did not have to be physically present for the coercion?

Okay. And if I'm reading the bill correctly, during the creditor's review of the claim, the bill restricts the creditor from contacting the individual accused of the coerced act; is that accurate?

Okay. So now we have the creditor that has to make a determination of coerced debt without necessarily having been there or talking to someone who has been there, in addition to which now they can't talk to the people that they're investigating.

Okay. So the creditor has to make a determination based on -- based on legally-defined relationships from witness transactions, and they're prohibited from contacting people that are accused of coercing the debt.

So how -- how can a creditor be reliably expected to make a determination of whether that debt was actually coerced?

Okay. So respectfully, we're asking a private creditor to make determinations that would normally be made by a court or a social service agency in pretty much any other circumstance, right?

I mean, do you see any flaw in that?

Flaw in that thinking.

And I'm not necessarily refuting the -- the pathway that you're trying to create. I'm trying to point out -- you know, again, this is a chapter amendment and these things were not necessarily amended in this chapter. So from a practicality standpoint, I'm just trying to gain clarity on what we're actually trying to accomplish here.

I would disagree.

Okay. If -- so if the creditor suspends collection upon receiving documentation but they can't fully investigate the claim, are there any safeguards that exist to prevent the misuse by individuals seeking to avoid legitimate debts?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Did you say that never happened?

All right. So aside from general perjury laws, the bill itself does not create any type of new -- new laws or consequences for somebody who would fabricate a claim, correct? Outside of general perjury.

Well, we'll get there. I'm still focusing on the potential of fraudulent claims and what is -- what is being done in this legislation to prevent that. Because I'm not an attorney, but from my understanding perjury charges in a civil case are very rare. So again, I ask just to clarify, there's nothing in this legislation outside of the reliance on perjury to prevent dishonest behavior, correct? There's no extra punishment, no other crimes?

To be very clear, I am not talking about people who are the victims of domestic violence or coerced debt. I am talking about people who are not victims of any of those crimes or any of those situations who would use now this mechanism to get out of a perfectly real and, you know, a legitimate debt that they owe. So there's no scenario in which you could see that someone would ever abuse this?

Okay. So with that premise, then, under section 604-ee of the bill, the individual who allegedly caused the coerced debt is held financially responsible for that debt; is that accurate?

All right. So that means that a creditor, and possibly the debtor if they've already made the payments, could file a lawsuit against an individual to recover that money assuming it's within the statute of limitations. Is that also an accurate statement?

Okay. So to put this in real life terms, if I'm a lender and I make a cost-benefit analysis to determine if it's cheaper for me to just eat the cost of a -- a debt that I lent out because someone may not be able to pay it back. And my other option is going to court, filing litigation; court fees, legal fees. Is it not possible that as a lender my response to this piece of legislation could be tightening my credit standards and limiting my willingness to -- to make loans or making it more difficult to get loans?

Well, I -- I guess what I'm talking about is the implement -- im -- the implements -- the implications of the chapter amendment. Is it not possible to conceive that lenders, based on this in the scenario that I just laid out, would -- would not make credit harder to come by?

Ms. Rosenthal --

With all due respect, this isn't a hypothetical.

The chapter amendment does not address the business practices of a creditor. But this is similar to protections that other states have implemented. So the -- you know, the lending community is similar and this is not unfamiliar to them.

I already answered.

YES.

Okay. So there have been discussions about that and it's something that we'll be talking about addressing after this chapter amendment.

No, it would be a new bill.

It's inconsistent, yes.

As I said, we're going to address that, and -- yes.

I don't know. You voted for it in Committee.

I think you're losing sight of what this chapter amendment does. I already said it's inconsistent. We will fix it and that remains my answer.

Okay. Mr. Bologna: -- on the basis of the chapter amendment. What I am disagreeing with you on is the fact that this -- this was an oversight that was not fixed, and yet we are still here expected to vote on it.

Fair enough. Madam -- thank you very much, Ms. Rosenthal. Madam speaker, on the bill.

Financial coercion and exploitation is a very serious issue, and victims absolutely deserve protection. However, this bill places creditors in a very difficult position. A, it's wrong. But, b, it asks lenders to determine whether coercion occurred within complex family and intimate relationships defined across multiple statutes. We are asking lenders and creditors to essentially be a court system and a social service system. At the same time, creditors have to rely on documentation that may not relate to the transaction itself, and are restricted from having the ability to investigate those claims. These determinations are typically made by courts and social service professionals, not by creditors. And for that reason -- and again, it's wrong -- I will be voting in the negative. Thank you.

Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield, please?

YES.

Thank you so much. So I just want to just run through -- I feel like it helps me to understand the bill a little bit better by running through an actual concrete example. So let's say that there -- I guess -- let me start -- before I get into that I just want to clarify that the domestic violence that is involved could be the result of a number of different kinds of relationships, correct? So it could be child/parent, it could be elderly person/caregiver.

Yeah. And the gender is irrelevant, too.

So let's just say there's an individual who goes to a member of their clergy and sits down with clergy and says, I was coerced into applying for a credit card.

And I was coerced into using that credit card and I racked up a lot of charges on that credit card, but I wouldn't have done it had I not been coerced into doing it.

Okay? And then at that point the -- the -- that person who is going to try to make a case that -- that the debt was coerced, and that member of the clergy would then do some kind of a sworn affidavit saying -- and what would that affidavit say? Like, what would be the proof in that affidavit?

And -- and under the bill, if the -- they only have to -- there's a list of things that can be produced in support of the idea that it's coerced. Only one is required.

So that -- that affidavit by that clergy member could be the only piece of evidence supported to document the coercive debt.

Okay. So let me just direct you because I do wanna clear this up for myself. On page 4 of the bill, starting at around line 9... Okay. So I see what you're saying. So a sworn or notarized statement by you, the alleged debtor --

-- under penalty of perjury.

Okay, that's required. And then -- and then it says,"... Provide adequate documentation of coerced debt -- I'm on line 13 -- one -- "... Provide one of the following documents", but you may provide more. And the one I'm looking at is a notarized statement, line 21, from a qualified third-party that you reported the coerced debt to.

So those are the two affidavits that you're referring to --

-- that would be sufficient to document the -- or potentially sufficient to support the coerced debt. Okay. But isn't that clergy member -- just following up on the example -- isn't that clergy member just reporting hearsay? Aren't they just saying, the debtor told me that this was coerced debt? Aren't -- isn't that person just reporting hearsay from the -- from the allege -- from the debtor?

SURE.

But -- and I'm not impugning any of their reputation at all, but all they -- you've already established from prior debate that the individual who's providing that affidavit didn't have to be there and actually be a witness to the coercion. All they have to be a witness to is that the debtor went to them and said, this debt was coerced. They're just reporting what they've been told, which is what hearsay is. Is -- isn't it being -- is it -- how is it being offered? Is it being offered for the truth that this was actually coerced debt? I mean, that's the definition of hearsay. Why are we even allowing that to bolster a claim by -- by a debtor that this was coerced debt?

And -- and I don't have any question that the individuals that you named are all important people in the community who could provide wonderful support to a person who was a victim of human trafficking or domestic violence. I don't question that in the least. What I'm questioning, though, is why we would allow -- or actually require a -- a statement, a hearsay statement from one of those individuals to bolster what the person is alleging as the debtor? Why do we even -- we wouldn't allow that in court. We wouldn't -- we wouldn't allow that. So why do we -- why do we allow that here?

Okay. So let's jump to that, then. Let's say that that is the creditor's decision --

-- that this -- we don't find this credible. This doesn't need a preponderance of the evidence for us.

So they deny it. And then -- and then what is -- what's the next step in the process then?

And is that appeal to the creditor? Is it --

Okay. So it's not to, like, a court or anything like that.

Okay. Okay. So they can -- they can ask for reconsideration.

And -- and then if it's still found to be not credible by the -- or doesn't meet the standard of proof by the creditor, then the creditor can just continue to go ahead and collect the debt.

Okay. Is there any -- anything else after that that can happen, or anything beyond that or does it just end then?

Can the -- can the -- the debtor go into court against the -- the -- the creditor and say they made a big mistake, they didn't --

That it was coerced.

And then if that happens --

I believe so. The -- the debtor may be entitled to attorneys' fees.

(Indiscernible/crosstalk.)

(Indiscernible/crosstalk) something the court --

I'm sorry. But that would be something the court would decide whether to award attorneys' fees.

YES.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the court would determine that.

NO, NO.

YEAH.

CORRECT.

Right. And -- and in most cases the survivor is -- is receiving the volun -- the services from a social service agency, for example. So it's probably not some high-powered white-shoe law firm, but, you know, an agency that -- that -- whose mission is to help survivors of domestic violence.

Okay. If -- it it's -- if they are going after the abuser, then they get attorneys' fees. Not if they're going after the -- the sur -- the survivor, the alleged debtor.

If they're going after the abuser, the coercer, then they may be entitled to attorneys' fees. If they're going after the alleged debtor, or the survivor, then they're not.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ms. Walsh: -- the creditor or the -- the alleged debtor.

Okay. All right. Do you have any idea -- I was just curious about this -- how many people this could impact? I mean, do you have any data or anything that shows how much coerced debt you think is out there?

OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

Well, thank you very much for answering my questions.

Madam speaker, very briefly on the bill.

So I think -- I definitely think that this bill comes from a place of good intention. I -- I really do. I -- I think some of the saddest calls that I have gotten in my office are from elderly -- elderly folks that I represent who have been taken advantage of by family members or by caregivers. People who are vulnerable anyway. I -- I -- I had the greatest amount of sympathy for them, and I do think that this bill comes from that place. My problem, I guess, is really -- was with the original bill, and its -- and also this significant, very significant rewrite in this chapter amendment. Because I think as was stated in the previous portion of this debate, there are some problems with the way that the bill is currently written, and I really -- I don't -- I -- while I do credit and feel enormous sympathy for those who have truly been taken advantage of or have been abused, I do think that the sponsor's statement that nobody would make this up, you know -- and -- and I'm paraphrasing -- but the gist was that nobody -- you know, nobody would lie about this. I -- I just don't agree with that. I think that this could be something that could be taken advantage of. So I think that the bill needs some work. I do think, like I said, that it comes from a good place, but I can't support it in its current form. Thank you, madam speaker.

Thank you. Will the sponsor yield, please?

YES.

Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. The -- the debtor and creditor have to be in residence or a location in New York state?

If we're only applying for state law, what happened [sic] if the creditor is across a different state? Would this have an application for this coerced debt?

Okay. Now, what happened [sic] if the creditor sold that paper to another party, let's say to a collection agency or some other third-party in a different state, would this be apply [sic] them?

If they're not?

Okay. So for this -- I appreciate what you write the bill [sic], you know, especially for domestic violence and -- and I have heart for that and we need to protect the innocent and being coerced. But we need better language for this. Because I -- because debt can be easily sold to commercial widely and freely. They don't need to hold this. And what happened [sic] if they go out to a different state and sold it and -- to another collector. So they could ignore with coerced debt.

But only if it's New York --

But you say only they do business in New York state. They can go to different states and sold [sic] the paper. And how would that solve this problem to -- to the -- to the debtor? How does the debtor have some protection? If it's coerced if you have, you know, that language only for -- for business in New York state?

But it's not -- see, you're based on debt collection. All right? They [sic] doing collection for the -- for the creditor. We're talking about selling the paper. Selling the paper to a new ownership.

Then how does [sic] the debtor able to communicate to the -- to the new creditor and the new creditor may be in a different state and doesn't have any business in New York.

DOES THAT --

But that's only for doing business in New York. For the person -- for the creditor. So there's no protection if -- if all that transaction is done outside of New York or outside the country.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you.

ON THE BILL.

In the current form it's flawed, but thank you. The sponsor is trying to do protecting the debtor itself for coerced debt. But it needs some work on -- on the bill. As my fellow colleague Ms. Walsh said, that it needs -- it needs some work and I will vote no on this, this current form because it creates too much conflict. If the bill does pass, it creates too much conflict for -- for lawyers and -- and the court to figure out what's -- what should be a clear path. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you. Mr. Fall.

Thank you. The Clerk will record the vote. Ms. Rosenthal to explain her vote.

Ms. Rosenthal in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. The bill is passed. Mr. Fall.

WE DO HAVE A PIECE OF HOUSEKEEPING. ON A MOTION BY MS. WOERNER, PAGE 38, CALENDAR NO. 240, BILL NO. A09113-A, THE AMENDMENTS ARE RECEIVED AND ADOPTED. WE HAVE A PRIVILEGED RESOLUTION BY MR. MEEKS. THE CLERK WILL READ. <a name="1036"></a> THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 1036, MR. MEEKS. LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2026 AS HARRIET TUBMAN DAY.

Thank you, madam speaker, for an opportunity to speak on this resolution. Whereas, harriet ross tubman was an american heroine and patriot who faithfully served her country and liberated her people; her tireless efforts to attain freedom for those enslaved and her dedication to stop the inhuman -- inhuman practice of slavery should be recognized and celebrated. It is only fitting to pay tribute to an american heroine who sacrificed everything for the well-being of people and her country. And whereas, in june of 2003, legislation to make march 10th a day of commemoration was signed into law; march 10th recognizes the lifetime achievements and the historical legacy established by harriet tubman and her many accomplishments throughout the state of New York. And whereas because of her color and her status as a slave, harriet tubman was denied the opportunity to learn and to read or write. Nevertheless, she was able to rise above the limitations which were placed on her as a slave and as a black woman. And whereas, in the mid-1850s, harriet tubman made the acquaintance of united states Senator, secretary of state and former New York Governor, Governor william h. Seward and his wife frances in auburn, New York. In 1857 the sewards provided a home for her in auburn, which she sold -- which they sold to her later. And whereas, this home will become the new base of operations for the underground railroad. When the civil war began, harriet tubman was able to liberate hundreds of her people to freedom through this efficient network. She was proud to claim that she never ran her train off the track and never lost a passenger. Whereas, during the civil war harriet tubman served in the union army in south carolina, first as a cook and a nurse, and later as a scout for raiding parties and a spy behind confederate lines. After her service in the union army, she returned to auburn, New York, where she lived the remaining years of her life. In 1903, she transferred ownership of her property to the a.m.e. Zion church. And whereas, harriet tubman's death on march 10, 1913, the church developed and managed her home and adjacent -- adjacent property in order to sustain her memory. She was buried in the fort hill cemetery in auburn, New York, with full military honors. Currently, the harriet tubman home and property are registered as a national historic landmark in auburn, and the site is also part of the national park service freedom trail. Thank you, madam speaker, for this opportunity to speak to our great ancestor harriet tubman, the great work that she's done to free her people and to serve the united states of america. Thank you.

I now move that the assembly stand adjourned, and that we will reconvene at 11:00 a.m., wednesday, march 11th, tomorrow being a session day.