May 12, 2026 · 20,437 words · 11 speakers · 400 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Music Music Music Music 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 Let get started 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. We be right back Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you do Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Madam Speaker, will 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 the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amen. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Monday, May 11th.
Mr. Fall.
Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Monday, May 11th,
and at the same stand, approved. Without objection, so ordered. Madam Speaker, we have a quote by William Faulkner, and the quote says, Gratitude is a quality similar to electricity. It must be produced and discharged and used up in order to exist at all. And again, these words are by William Faulkner. The schedule for the day. Members have on their desk a main calendar and a debate list. Before any housekeeping and or introductions, we will be calling for the following committees to meet in the speaker's conference room. Ways and means, higher education, housing, labor, people with disabilities, and real property taxation. We will begin our work by continuing to consent where we left off yesterday with calendar 480 on page 42. After that, we will take up the following bills from the debate list. Calendar 391 by Ms. Rosick. Calendar 394 by Mr. Kim. Calendar 90 by Ms. Davila. calendar 92 by Mr Dinowitz calendar 325 by Mr Weprin I will announce any further floor activity as we proceed Majority members should be aware that there will be a need for conference once we conclude our work on the floor today And as always, I will ask the minority on their conference needs. So with that, as a general outline, Madam Speaker, let us begin by calling for the Ways and Means Committee to meet in the Speaker's conference room. Thank you. Ways and Means Committee members, please make your way quietly to the speaker's conference room. Ways and Means to the speaker's conference room. We do have a piece of housekeeping, Bill number A329B on behalf of Ms. Jackson. Assembly bill recalled from Senate. We will move on to introductions. Mr. Ramos, for the purpose of an introduction.
Tariqa, I rise for an introduction that's very personal to me. A little later, we're going to be passing a resolution where we are going to honor the 1,015 American soldiers who lost their lives in World War II on the HMT Rona in the Mediterranean. My uncle, Philip Ramos, who I'm named after, was one of the members of that ship who lost his life. And at that time, it was such a devastating loss for the United States that they classified the information. And my family and the family members who are here of the people who are under Rona were not told until the 1990s. and many of which, like my grandmother, passed away without ever knowing what happened to her son. So today I rise to welcome this distinguished group of guests who have joined us here for a deeply meaningful and historic occasion. We are honored to welcome the members of the Rhone Memorial Association, including President Jason Markowitz, Colonel of the United States Air Force, Vice President Deborah Sanchez, Secretary Janice Pumelia and their deceased board members. We are also joined by Mr. Robert Firstman, by the family of Mr. Robert Firstman, who at 103 years old was one of the last known survivors of the sinking of the HMT Rona. While we sadly lost him earlier this year, we are honored to have his family here today with us. Additionally, I would like to recognize filmmaker Jack Ballow and and Karen Everett, creators of the RONA Classified. This documentary, shortly after this introduction, will be shown in the egg in one of the conference rooms here. All members are welcome to join us to watch it. I would like to thank them for their work in helping bring this long overdue story to light for generations. And among our guests today are individuals who have traveled from across the countries, family members of those who were aboard the Rona who carried not just history, but a deeply personal legacy of sacrifice and
remembrance. Madam Speaker, I ask you to please, you extend in the Gold Star families here, all the courtesies of the House, and please give them a warm welcome. Thank you. On behalf of Mr. Ramos, the Speaker, and all members, we welcome to our Assembly chamber the RONA Survivors Memorial Association extending to you the privileges of the floor and do hope you enjoy our proceedings today knowing in 1943 that the HMT Rona and the over 2 crew members who were on board losing over a thousand American service members British and Indian crew, and for decades not knowing where family members were, not having answers and survivors unable to speak because this information was classified. We are honored that you're here today to be able to tell your story and have some closure, and especially important to honor Mr. Fishman, who just passed in February at 103, as the last living member of the HMT RONA. So on behalf of all of us, thank you for your tireless commitment to getting the answers and for the sacrifice of your family members. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Ms. Septimo, for the purpose of an introduction, Thank you. I would like to welcome the Empire State Golf Alliance, which is a coalition of New York golf associations, superintendents, owners, and lovers of the game, all working together as a unified voice to advocate for the state's golf industry. The Alliance highlights golf's economic impact here in the state and its environmental impact as well. Golf is responsible for $12.9 billion in economic impact each year, preserves 103,000 acres of green space, and is the foundation for 90,000 jobs across New York. The members of the Empire State Golf Alliance and their guests are here to celebrate the first ever golf day in New York and lead important discussions about how to grow the impact, accessibility, and diversity of the game across the state. Madam Speaker, if you could please welcome them to the chamber today. On behalf of Ms. Septimo, the Speaker, and all members, welcome Empire State Golf Alliance to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. thank you collectively for all of the work you do to boost our economy, increase tourism, obviously adding employment, and creating outside activities for all and for generations to come. So thank you so very much for all you do and for joining us today. Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Speaker. How are you today? I'm very proud to introduce to you my nephew, Dr. Raymond Pirazzolo. He is also my godson. He is up here in Albany today doing whatever optometrists do in Albany. I'm not really sure. Maybe he can help us see our way through to a budget, pun intended. But Madam Speaker, if you could please extend the cordialities of the House to my nephew and godson, Dr. Raymond Pirazzolo.
On behalf of Mr. Pirazzolo, the Speaker, and all members, welcome Dr. Pirazzolo to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you get to stay a little while and observe our proceedings. We see you here, and so happy that you are joining us today. Thank you so very much for coming. On consent, page 42, calendar number 480. Clerk will read. Assembly number 10405, calendar 480, Mr. Jacobson, an act to amend the public officer's law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. 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 136, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10411A, calendar 481, Mr. Magnarelli. Enact him in the general business law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10443A, calendar 482, was previously amended on third reading and is high. Assembly number 10497, calendar 483, Mr. Fall, an act to amend the navigation law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 135, nays 1. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10534A, calendar 484, Mr. Burdick, an act to amend the public service law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 365th day. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Assembly number 10714, calendar 485, Ms. Solange. An act to amend the general municipal law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10960A, calendar 486, Ms. Rosenthal. An act to amend the election law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10993A, calendar 486, Ms. Rosenthal. Mr. Steck, an act to amend the public service law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 11005, calendar 488, Mr. Cunningham, an act to amend part U of chapter 65, 56 of the laws of 2018. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. 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, noes 0. The bill is passed. Mr. Foll.
Madam Speaker can you please call the Higher Education Committee to meet in the Speaker Conference Room Higher Ed Committee members please make your way to see Chair Hyndman quietly to the Speaker Conference Room Higher Ed Committee members to the Speaker Conference Room
Mr. Foll, for the purpose of an introduction. On behalf of Assembly Member Gonzalez-Rojas, it is an honor to introduce the Lexington School for the Deaf. They are an entity that supports more than 250 children from infancy through high school across New York City and surrounding counties. They were founded in 1864, and Lexington has over 160 years of experience delivering bilingual, culturally responsive education, and critical support services that center the needs and strengths of deaf students. Madam Speaker, would you please be so kind to extend the cordialities of the floor to the guest of Ms. Gonzalez-Rojas. On behalf of Ms. Gonzalez-Rojas, the speaker, and all members, we welcome the young students from the Lexington School for the Deaf here to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. It's always wonderful to see the students come every year. We love to hear about the game that you will be playing this evening, and I wish you all the best of luck and potentially a win. I think we do have the trophy, though, for you today. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Miss Walsh, for the purpose of an introduction.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings. We have a twofer this morning. We have two wonderful guests that have returned to the Assembly Chamber this morning with us today. We have Joe Giglio, who we all remember from the 148th Assembly District. Joe served from 2005 to 2024 and was incredibly helpful as the ranking member of the Corrections Committee during his time in Albany. We're also joined today by my predecessor, Andy Goodell, from the 105th Assembly District. Andy served not only as floor leader, but also served from 2010 to 2024. So he and Mr. Giglio left at the same time. They're both sorely missed. We have a lengthy debate list that has come out today, and I would like to just put it right out there that if Mr. Goodell would like to take my seat and debate a couple of those bills, that would be fantastic. I would love it. But Madam Speaker, we know that once a member, always a member. We always say that, but it's truly the case with these two gentlemen. We miss them dearly, and would you please welcome them back to the People's House?
On behalf of Ms. Walsh, the speaker, and all members, welcome back, former colleagues, to the Assembly Chamber. You know this is your house, and you're welcome at any time. It is wonderful, wonderful to see you here today. I'm sure you can tell the proceedings have not changed since when you visited with us and you were here before, but it's lovely to see you very, very much. So thank you so much for joining us today. On consent. Page 44, calendar number 489. Clerk will read. Assembly number 11007, calendar 489, Ms. Williams, an act to amend Chapter 548 of the laws of 2004. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 141, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11029, calendar 490, Ms. Levenberg, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. On a motion by Ms. Levenberg, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 141, nos 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11032, calendar 491, Ms. Bishat Hermelin, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 11045, calendar 492, Mr. Jacobson, an act to amend the public service law. On a motion by Mr. Jacobson, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 11167, calendar 493, Mr. Alvarez, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Assembly number 11168, calendar 494, Ms. Hooks, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. One moment.
Mr. Falls. Madam Speaker, can you please call the housing committee to meet in the speaker's conference room? Housing committee members, please make your way to the speaker's conference room. Housing committee to the speaker's conference room.
Read the last section. Okay. I consent. We'll do this all over again. I consent. Page 44, calendar number 494. Ma'am, please read. Assembly number 11168, calendar 494, Ms. Hooks, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Ayes 140, nays 1. The bill is passed.
Ms. Walsh, for the purpose of an introduction. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. On behalf of Mr. Pirazzolo, thank you for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings for this introduction. We're joined by a couple of people from Mr. Pirazzolo's district. We have Kiko Charles and Arlene Jeter, district leader for Staten Island, NYCHA, and community activists. So if you would please welcome them to our Assembly Chamber today and welcome them to the People's House. Thank you. Thank you.
On behalf of Ms. Walsh, Mr. Pirazzolo, the Speaker, and all members, welcome our community activist leaders to our Assembly Chamber, the People's House. We extend to you the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy our proceedings today. We appreciate all of the good works that you do in the community and appreciate you joining us today. Thank you so very much. Thank you. Thank you. Page 35, calendar number 391. Clerk will read. Assembly number 368A, calendar 391, Ms. Rosick, an act to amend the labor law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Rosick. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill would require employees to affirm that they have received notices regarding sexual harassment prevention policies. The employees may submit their acknowledgement either in electronic or written format. Mr. Durso. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Of course. The sponsor yields. Thank you, ma'am. So how does this bill differ from current labor law? This bill is the codification of federal case law, and it includes two additional affirmations from the employees so that they are also invested in sexual harassment trainings. And it's based on, again, federal case law that we are codifying today. So currently in labor law, individuals have to take sexual harassment training, correct, with those companies. The difference in this law that you're proposing now is that there's two separate verifications, you're saying, that the employee received it? No, there's an additional affirmation that the employee has received the training. So currently what is the affirmation process for the employee to receive The employee just has to take the training but I don believe that there anything that they acknowledge that they took the training So now if this law goes into effect, the employee would just have to acknowledge that they took the training. Does any other rules about receiving the sexual harassment training that's in labor law now differ from this other than that? I don't believe so. So now, just noticing in the bill, there's a portion saying that the employer would have to keep this on file for six years, correct? Yes. Is that different than current labor law? That is in line with record-keeping requirements elsewhere in the labor law. And also, more generally, it is in line with the changes that we made in the 2018 budget related to sexual harassment. But currently, in current law, do employers have to keep those records for six years? It's totally in line with other parts of the labor law. So that part isn't changing either? Correct. Correct? Correct. Okay. So is there a fine that would incur, and has that changed if this law is not followed? This bill does not speak to that at all, no. I'm sorry, Mayor Mike. This bill does not include that at all. So there's no fines that would incur for the employers? Hold on. Okay. Let me just... It's in general paper. It's $500 for violation. That's elsewhere in statute, but you can say that. There isn't a specific one here, but there's a general penalty. Okay, I'm being told that there's a general penalty, but in this specific bill there are no penalties related to that. Okay, so the general penalty that's currently there now would still apply? Does not change or does not go up or down because of this bill? Correct. Okay. So really my question is, why is this needed? This is essentially already law, right? I mean, everybody has to take sexual harassment other than the notification to the employee or from the employee, excuse me, that they received the harassment training, right? There's nothing else in this bill that's different? No, and essentially, like, we're trying to make sure that everyone is skin in the game, right, that the employees actually acknowledge that they've taken the training. And I don't want to say share the burden with the employer, but that they acknowledge that they've done the training, that they sign and they date it, and so that everyone is clear that we've done the training, we've put out the notification and the acknowledgement, and that the employer will retain that for six years. Okay, so, and then just to finish up on that, this is still going by at least the model set by the Department of Labor, correct? Correct. It could be more extensive, can't be any less. Correct. Okay. And it's still on an annual basis, correct? Correct. That they have to... We don't change any of the general training. Okay, and now you said generally in the labor law, there's a six years that you have to hold these? My understanding is that there are other record-keeping requirements in other sections of the labor law, and that is all six years. Okay, so this would just add holding these records for six years? The acknowledgement, yep. Right, okay. Now, how is it that the employer can hold that acknowledgement? Can it be electronic and or paper? Yes. It could be either, correct? It could be either. Okay. And then who would this person, reported to? Still at the Department of Labor? I believe so, but this doesn't really specify that. Okay. And is there any change in who would you, in other words, any investigation into if an employer is doing their sexual harassment training or not? Again, this bill does not speak to that. Doesn't change that. So really this bill is just that, the real main specifics of this bill is that the employee receives the acknowledgement or gives acknowledgement to the employer that they receive the sexual harassment training in their primary language, as it does say in labor law currently, but that the employer would have to hold six years of those records, whether it's digital or on file. Correct. Okay. Ms. Rosa, thank you so much for answering my questions. I don't have anything else to ask. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day. A party vote has been requested.
Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will, generally speaking, be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are yes votes, now would be the time to cast them at member seats. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Fall. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber. Thank you.
Clerk will record the vote. Mr. Durso to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I want to thank the sponsor for taking my questions. Again, I understand the reasoning behind this bill, and we want to make sure that all our employees and employers are held accountable when it comes to sexual harassment training. But it seems to be that this bill may be a little redundant. Employees are already required to do this. It could be a little cumbersome on them to hold those records for six years. But again, their employers and employees are already doing this. They're doing it in multiple languages. They're keeping those records. This bill just seems to be unneeded. So with that, I will be against it. but I understand the sponsor's intent. Thank you so much. Ms. Victor Stone, the negative. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 97, nays 44. The bill is passed. Page 35, calendar number 394. Clerk will read. Senate 634B, calendar 394, Senator Liu, an act to amend the insurance law. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Kim. Thank you. This bill would require commercial insurance to provide coverage for diabetes and pre-diabetes screening pursuant to national evidence-based clinical practice guidelines with no cost sharing. Mr. Gandolfo. Thank you for the explanation. Madam Speaker, if I could just go on the bill, please. On the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So what this bill does, it requires health insurance policies to provide coverage for diabetes and pre-diabetes screenings. And on its face, it's a laudable goal, and as a singular mandate, it might not be overwhelming. However, in totality, we have a lot of health insurance mandates that apply to state-regulated health insurance plans. And those costs are borne by small and medium-sized businesses. Where a large company will have a self-insured plan, which is regulated federally, small and medium-sized businesses have state-regulated plans. And what ends up happening is employers and employees may have to purchase coverage that they might not need or want. And it makes it more difficult to find affordable coverage because, again, the sheer number of mandates that we enact in New York State starts to significantly drive up those costs. Currently, New York State doesn't have a process to conduct a fiscal analysis before a new insurance mandate is enacted. 29 other states do have that kind of process. So I think that's where we need to go as a state. Because again a lot of these mandates are coming from a good place It a noble intention to make sure that people have coverage that they need But at the end of the day it is driving up costs for businesses and employers And at the end of the day, consumers, as those costs have to get passed on somewhere. And while we're at that, requiring an analysis of what a mandate would cost, we should conduct a study of what existing mandates on the books are costing employers, employees, and consumers. So I thank the sponsor for the explanation. This is a laudable goal, but I'm afraid as a whole we are putting too many mandates on our small and medium-sized businesses. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
Mr. Fall. Madam Speaker, can you please call on the Labor Committee to meet in the Speaker's conference room? Labor Committee members, make your way to the Speaker's conference room. Labor Committee members to the Speaker's conference room.
read the last section. This section will take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Mr. Kim to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this legislation. It's really common practice by insurance companies now to follow the national standard when screening for diabetes and prediabetes. And this is life-changing practice for so many New Yorkers. When we intervene early, up to 60, we can prevent up to 60 percent diabetes too by instituting measures that foster better care, better health, nutrition, exercise. These are all things that can be achieved if you catch diabetes early. And the return on that small investment early on is invaluable. There is no money that can quantify what it does for families that can save a member from having a life struggle with diabetes. And it's extremely personal for me, as well as my sponsor in the Senate. We both lost our mothers to diabetic conditions. My mom, during COVID, I found out it wasn't just COVID, it was her diabetes that really led to her passing. And, you know, a lot of questions asked, but this is one way to honor her and many others who suffer from diabetes by not making the same mistakes moving forward. So I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kim, and the affirmative. Mr. Dias to explain his vote. I want to say thank you to the sponsor for this bill. Specifically in the African-American community, diabetes is a pandemic. My grandmother was diabetic. Diabetes runs in my family.
And by having these pre-screenings, we can really help save lives in the long run. Diabetes just doesn't impact the African-American community, but you will see across all ethnicities, all races, diabetes is rising. We need to make sure we have healthier eating habits, more education, but making sure people understand where they are, what's their blood sugar, their 1C readings, prior to it becomes out of control, is gonna save us money in the long run. By people being able to know that they are pre-diabetic or diabetic, will help them put them on the right path so that they can stop from having amputation from limbs and other severe issues such as kidney failure and other things that diabetes brings. So thank you to the sponsors for this bill. And as a legislator, we need to continue helping those New Yorkers who are dealing with this major health issue. Thank you. And my vote on the affirmative.
Mr. Dias on the affirmative.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
The bill is passed. Ms. Lunsford.
Madam Speaker, could you please have the Real Property Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room? Thank you. Correction. Could you please have the People with Disabilities Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room?
people with disabilities committee members please make your way quietly to the speakers conference room miss Lunsford for the purpose of an
introduction thank you madam speaker for letting me interrupt our proceedings for a very special introduction those of you who may have walked through the well today may have seen some of our state's robotics teams demonstrating their I want to introduce some of those teams today, both up here in the gallery and behind me. You will find Team 1511, Rolling Thunder from Penfield. The Longwood Robo Lions Team, 564 from Longwood High School. Our Rambots 4571 from the Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics. Team 2789, Paranoid Android on Steroids from SAR High School in the Riverdale Bronx area. Artemis 6621 from Chatham High School. Ossining Obots FRC 4122 from Ossining. And the Novobots 3430 from Forest Hills. With that, I'm going to hand this off to our friends on the minority side to welcome some of their teams as well. Thank you.
Ms. Walsh, for the purpose of an introduction.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So in addition to all the great teams that have already been announced, we've got more. We have more teams. We have the Ulster County BOCES 7718 Dragons, the 1664-63, the Robotic Rams. We have from Hudson Falls Middle School Vex IQ. From my district, from Boston Spa, We have Oxby 4, 41-22. We have from Great Neck, their Rebel Robotics team, 2-6-3-8. And from Hicksville, the Jaybirds, 14-68. I want to welcome everybody. I want to just, because they're near and dear to my heart, from Oxby 4, from Bolson Spa, that team competed at Worlds from April 29th to May 2nd of this year in Houston, Texas. So a big shout out to all the teams that have joined us today. I also understand that there was a team called RoboVines, which is also from my district, but I don't know if they actually made it to the chamber today or not. But anyway, Madam Speaker, if you could please welcome all these great teams. And on my behalf, and I'm sure from everybody here in the chamber, we want to congratulate them on their great work in really bringing steam to life with these great teams. So thank you very much.
Thank you. on behalf of Ms. Lunsford, Ms. Walsh, the speaker, and all members. Welcome our young leaders for STEAM Advocacy Day to our Assembly Chamber, the People's House, extending to you all the privileges of the floor. Congratulations on all of the hard work and competition that you have put yourself through. You could be doing anything else, and you chose to volunteer to do this work. it will pay off in the future. Trust me, that will absolutely happen for you. So continued good luck and best wishes academically. Enjoy summer. It's coming soon. Thank you so very much for joining us here today. Page 14, calendar number 90. Clerk will read. Assembly number 2538A, calendar number 90, Ms. Davila, an act to amend the social services law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Davila.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I would like to present a bill that it an act to amend the social services law in relations to finger imaging for SNAP benefits recipients And the summary of that bill provides that no commissioner of social services makes finger imaging as a requirement for applying to Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, SNAP.
Mr. Molitor.
Will the sponsor yield?
The sponsor yields. The sponsor yields.
Thank you. So just so I understand this, Madam Sponsor, this bill would codify in the statute the prohibition against fingerprinting for applicants of SNAP benefits. Is that correct? That is correct.
And New York has not permitted fingerprinting since 2012, right? That is correct. In fact, the federal guidance regarding SNAP has discouraged fingerprinting countrywide. Isn't that correct? That is correct. The federal government, there's no requirements whatsoever to get this done.
And it's my understanding that there aren't any states in the United States that require fingerprinting to obtain SNAP benefits. Is that correct?
That is correct. Up to 2012, this process was eliminated. There were only two states that were doing it, California and New York City.
Okay. Okay. Now, New York has other protections in place, like a centralized statewide system for the reporting of SNAP benefits. Applicants must provide their Social Security numbers. Applicants must provide income and residency verification, and there's periodic recertification. Is that correct?
That is correct. There are so many different ways for them to identify a person other than just fingerprinting. Just like you just inquired, people have to bring in their Social Security numbers, birth certificates, proof of where they live. And it's worked since 2012. It has worked. I believe that when you impose that type of process, it is stigmatizing, and people should not be fingerprinted because they need to eat. So that's where we're at now. Thank you.
It's also my understanding that New York participates in the USDA anti-fraud system that monitors unusual patterns and payment errors countrywide. Is that correct?
Can you repeat that? Oh, yes. New York State is part of the anti-fraud program.
Thank you, Madam Sponsor. On the bill.
On the bill.
So this bill codifies what is currently in place or has been in place since 2012 regarding the prohibition for fingerprinting of SNAP benefits. There are, as I discussed with the sponsor, many protections already in place. And for that reason I think many of my colleagues will be supporting this bill but I could also understand why some may not want to support this bill because fingerprinting provides a greater level of protection against identity theft, and it will also, it adds an extra layer of protection which can discourage fraudulent applications. I personally will be voting for this bill, but I just wanted to lay all that out. Thank you.
Read the last section. This bill shall take effect September 1, 2026. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Davila to explain her vote.
I'm not sure if it's on.
It is on.
This bill, once again, has been, fingerprinting has been abolished since 2012. It has been an imposition on people, and not only that, stigmatizing. Years after someone taking fingerprinting, that database stays with them. And I don't feel, and I don't think any of us feel, and I thank the Republicans for voting on this bill, that that is a fair process for everyone. So because of that, I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Davila, in the affirmative.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 141, nays 0. The bill is passed. Mr. Benedetto.
Yes, please. Madam Speaker, could you please call the Real Property Tax Committee, please, for a meeting in the Speaker's conference room?
Thank you. Real Property Tax Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's conference room. Real Property Tax Committee members to the Speaker's conference room. Page 15, calendar number 92. Clerk will read. Assembly number 2565A, calendar number 92, Mr. Dinowitz, an act to amend the criminal procedure law. An explanation has been requested, Mr. Dinowitz.
This bill would amend the criminal procedure law by adding a new article 695, search and seizure of electronic devices. and electronic communications to clarify that law enforcement agents and agencies are required to obtain a search warrant for both physical and electronic access to electronic devices and information contained within.
Mr. Morinello.
Thank you. Will the sponsor yield for a few questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, I think I will.
The sponsor yields.
I know we've discussed this last year and the bill's been around, and I can tell you that I believe that we do have to address this issue. And the bill is very extensive. But there are a few areas that I would ask that we can inquire about. Number one, there's the ability to determine the location of an electronic device by accessing towers, which they call a ping. and I have researched since last year. Does this prevent a law enforcement agency, if they're looking for a suspect, to check the tower to see if they're in a certain area without a warrant?
Well, I'm not sure what a ping is, but I get the gist of it. I don't see that this addresses that.
I'm sorry, Mr. Dinowitz.
The answer is no, it does not prevent them.
Okay, thank you. If there is an electronic device or a phone abandoned in an area being searched for a crime, is there going to be a warrant necessary to determine the ownership of this abandoned phone or electronic device in an area?
I think the law enforcement is going to certainly want to determine who owns that device. And, you know, when you say abandoned, sometimes abandoned simply means you put something down and then pick it up immediately, as opposed to just, like, you know, throwing it in the garbage or something.
I apologize, please, but your microphone's not on.
Okay.
I was having difficulty. So it might be my age, Mr. Dinowitz. You know, that bill the other day that was directed at me, but it went forward. So anyway. Or no, it didn't go forward. Anyway, thank you. So would you kindly repeat your answer on that abandoned question?
I'm trying to remember the question.
The question was if they locate a phone.
I think they would have to make an effort to figure out who it is, who owns it.
So my question was they wouldn't need a warrant to determine the ownership, but once they did, in order to access, they would need a warrant?
Yes.
Okay, thank you. I was just trying to clarify those two points. Now, if there's information readily available on social media, would they need a warrant for them to just access their law enforcement's own social media account to determine information that has been put out by the target?
You mean like go on to Facebook?
Yes. I mean, anybody can go on to Facebook. But if it's specific for information of a crime, they're looking for a certain person.
So something more specific in their research on, like, Facebook. Well I mean some things are in the public domain So if you on Facebook or Instagram anybody can search those So it doesn affect public domain
Thank you.
No.
Okay. Now it talks about emergency situations. What are some emergency situations that were anticipated when the bill was drafted?
If somebody's life is at risk or if somebody's at risk of serious injury, that would be considered an emergency situation. So they would be able to access their own, that person's electronic device, if it was a life-saving emergency where they might be able to find medical advice or family friends or family advice. Am I correct? Yes. Thank you.
You know, one issue that keeps coming up is sex trafficking, and we've been focusing on sex trafficking. And I think we know that sex traffickers can move their victims, and they have to be referred to as victims, because most of them are not voluntary, to different locations.
Well, if they're being trafficked, none of them are voluntary.
Pardon? I said if they're being trafficked, none of them are voluntary. Yes, the trafficked are victims. So if they received some information that if they pursued it, they could determine if the trafficked individuals were being moved, would they go need a warrant to access where to or how to protect these individuals, which might take some delayed time? Or could that be an emergency situation?
Well, I mean, first of all, I think you're aware that the first anti-human trafficking law in New York was my legislation. And I commend you on that. This is an issue which I care very much about. The fact that there's a serious situation and the fact that this bill would require warrants, those are not like mutually exclusive things. one can still get a warrant when law enforcement is attempting to address various crimes, whether it's human trafficking or drugs or other violent crime. They've got to get a warrant in many instances in order to gather evidence. But I'm referring to a situation where they have somebody's electronic device and they have some information that those people are going to be moved so that they can't act quickly, and let's say it's at night and they can't have a judge, could that be argued as an emergency? I guess anything could be argued as an emergency. And they believe that it can be remotely wiped. can that be an emergency situation, to be able to access and protect and preserve what is on their computer? That obviously would be up to a judge, but that doesn't strike me as being something where somebody's life or safety are at immediate risk, as horrible as that is. Thank you.
On the bill, please. Thank you, Mr. Denowitz. I appreciate it.
You know when we just had telephones it was a lot simpler You apply for a warrant for a telephonic wiretap There was no emergency They could look through it As we moved along, it became very apparent that the rules and laws had to be viewed, had to be changed, had to be adjusted for two reasons, as the bill sponsor has aptly laid out. Number one, we have to protect the constitutional rights of an individual. Number two, we still have to protect the privacy. So this is one of those balance issues that we need to have expediency in policing, expediency in protecting individuals without violating rights. I believe the bill is well intended. I would only add that as we move along and understand electronic equipment, the speed of electronic equipment, the sophistication, that we're open to adjustments on an expedited basis so that we don't impede law enforcement. I am going to support this bill. I think it's well intended. I think it's well timed. And I believe it's needed. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Molitor?
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?
I will.
Sponsor yield.
Thank you, Mr. Sponsor. I'm looking at, let's see, this is page 3, line 41. The paragraph is titled parentheses E. Do you see that? I do see it.
So it's my understanding after reading that paragraph
that if the police find a device that they reasonably believe to be lost, stolen, or abandoned, that their duty under this law would be to contact the, well, first to attempt to identify, verify, or contact the owner or authorized possessor of the device. Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct. Would they have to conduct a limited search of the device in order to find that information?
Not necessarily. What if they did? Let me give you this example. What if they had to go into the phone to figure out who owned it, and while they were looking for the owner, the information for the owner of the phone, they saw information of other criminal activity? Could that be the basis for a further search warrant?
Well, most people's phones, you can't easily go through it in the first place. I suppose some people you can, but ordinarily people have like a password. So I'm not sure how one would do that in the first place.
Okay. So I agree with you. Most people have passwords on their phones.
So how would the police be able to identify who owned that phone without conducting any sort of search? I don't know. Some people might have their name on the back of the phone.
There are different possibilities. Okay. All right. Fair enough. Looking at page four, subsection C there line one So it my understanding reading that paragraph that where the police obtain a warrant the affidavit, which has all of the information that gives rise to probable cause, would have to be submitted to the court and that the court must file it. The judge must actually file that information. Is that correct?
That's what it says right here. Okay.
And wouldn't you agree with me that by filing that information, that would make it a matter of public record?
It depends. I suppose it would, but so what? Okay.
I'll get to that. Looking at page 4, line 9, it's titled 6. This has got a number of subsections. So the way I read this section 6 is if the police received electronic communications voluntarily, they would be prohibited from using it in any sort of investigative way. Is that correct?
Well, it says here that if they receive the information voluntarily, they shall seal the information within 90 days and access to it, and that shall be prohibited except in one or more of the following circumstances. And then there are several circumstances that are listed. But none of the circumstances listed are for them to use it for investigative purposes.
Isn't that right? Well, let's see. Yeah, that sounds correct. So let's say a suspect of a crime comes to the police and says, yeah, you can look through my phone, and the police find evidence of a crime on the phone. It was voluntarily given to them by the suspect. this section would prohibit them from using it in furtherance of their investigation, wouldn't it?
I don't see where it says that.
Okay. Looking down at line 31, subsection 7, this section essentially creates an emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which we currently have under the law, but it adds some additional requirements for the police. It's my understanding that if the police needed an emergency exception to a warrant, they could go ahead and seize the evidence and search it, but then within three days they would have to provide an affidavit to the court. Essentially, this would create like an after-the-fact warrant where they've already seized the material, and now they're basically saying to the court, do you agree with us that there was an emergency exception here? Is my reading of that correct?
Well, it says here that in such a situation, the court shall promptly rule on such an application or motion and then shall order the immediate destruction of all information obtained and notification of the targets of a warrant or emergency request pursuant to the earliest subdivision.
Yeah, so that's, I'm reading that, that's if the court finds that there was not an emergency exception, they disagree with the police. They would notify the, they would require the police to notify the target, and they would require that all that information be destroyed. Is that correct?
Oh, yes. Okay.
Looking at page 5, subsection 1, I think we talked, this is line 14. We discussed this last year, that if the police get a warrant under this section, they have to provide to the target of that warrant the nature of the warrant, a copy of the warrant, a breakdown of the information that's in the warrant. They have to provide all that material contemporaneously with the execution of the warrant. And they can get a delay from the court, but it's only for 90 days, and then they can get additional 90 days as the court sees fit. Is that correct?
Well, you said I answered it last year. I should refer you to last year's transcript, but let me answer it directly. Okay. You could always ask the court for a delay. The court need not grant the delay. Right.
It would be up to the court whether there would be a delay or not in providing that information.
That's right. Okay.
And page six, line one, this is subsection three. The top there indicates that if there's no identifiable target, the police have to provide their information to the attorney general, who then has to publish that information on their website. Is that correct?
Yes. Okay, and then farther down, line 18, section 69520, basically provides not only what we can call the remedy section.
If evidence is illegally obtained, the police or the suspect can move to suppress it. The attorney general can commence a civil proceeding against law enforcement. and there's a number of, I guess, individual service providers, recipients of the warrant, or essentially a whole group of people who can move to wash the warrant process to prevent it from being executed. Is that correct? Yes.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Sponsor.
On the bill.
On the bill. So as I laid out last year, I do agree that we should protect electronic communications. We now have smartphones, and those need to be protected, but they are already being protected in New York State. We have some of the most stringent laws for electronic communications in the nation, or even more stringent than the federal guidelines on this issue. And right now the police have to obtain search warrants that are particularly described in order to get that evidence. The problem with this bill is all of the unintended consequences.
This is going to create a lot of confusion for law enforcement. It going to create a lot of situations where I think more people are going to get away with the crimes that they committed Right now, if the police find an abandoned phone, they can search it. There's no privacy protection for abandoned property in New York State, but this bill will create an additional protection for abandoned property. What's the problem with having a search warrant application a matter of public record? Well, suspects of crimes can get that information and they can get tipped off as to what the police are going to do before the police execute the warrant. That's both the problem with filing the search warrant application with the court and also the problem with filing it on a publicly facing website with the Attorney General. As I mentioned last year, giving notice to a target and requiring under the law that you have to provide the information that's the subject of the warrant to the target is crazy. If you have a child pornography case, you do not want the police to turn the child pornography back over to the suspect of the crime. If you have electronic evidence of a murder, you don't want that information being turned back over to the subject of a murder investigation. That could really hamper your investigation. It could cause further evidence to be destroyed, and it can make it a lot easier for people to get away with committing crimes. This bill creates so many additional obligations on the police that it will essentially eliminate electronic search warrants in this state. So for all those reasons, I'd encourage my colleagues to vote no on this particular piece of legislation, as I will be. 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 generally be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but if there are yes votes, now would be the time to cast them at member seats. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Lunsford.
the majority will primarily be in the affirmative on this vote if anybody would like to vote in the negative they may do so from their seats thank you thank you the clerk will record the vote
Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 96, nays 45. The bill is passed. Page 31, calendar number 325. Clerk will read. Assembly number 10030B, calendar 325, Mr. Weprin, an act to amend the insurance law. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Weprin.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill amends sections 3221 and 4303 of the insurance law to require insurers to provide coverage for speech therapy for stuttering with no cost share and without visitation limit. Stuttering can occur in childhood or later in life as a result of an underlying adverse medical condition such as a stroke or a brain injury. It is a serious condition that three million Americans live with every day. Although stuttering has no impact on intellectual ability or capacity, it remains highly stigmatized and misunderstood. Stutterers are often mistakenly labeled as nervous or unsure, creating negative stereotypes, social exclusion, and discrimination. nation in workplaces. Many are faced with enduring challenges with schooling, work and public life as a consequence of misinformation and stereotyping. With the passage of this bill, families will no longer have to choose between their finances and their child's future. By passing this bill, we show that we believe that everyone deserves a chance to be heard. deserves access to the tools that help them communicate, to express themselves, and to reach their full potential. A version of this bill was vetoed last year in 2025, citing cost concerns. This year's version addresses those concerns by only applying to large group health insurance policies.
Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
I'd be happy to.
Sponsor yield.
I appreciate your thorough explanation, and I also did a little bit of research, and I saw that stuttering affects around 3 million Americans, or about 1% of the U.S. population. I also saw that about 25% of children who stutter continue to do so into adulthood. Do you have any data? I was just curious as to whether this is – I know you mentioned individuals who maybe develop stuttering later in life as a result of a stroke, I believe you said, or something along those lines. But would you say it's true that the majority of stutterers stutter from a young age and then that percentage of about 25 percent then carried into adulthood?
I'm not sure of the percentage, but it probably is true that an overwhelming number of stutterers start out in childhood and continue. And then continue.
One question I had is, I know that, for example, one of, well, actually both of my kids needed speech services when they were in school. So for K-12, if a child is presenting in school with a stuttering problem, they would probably be receiving speech services within the school day, correct?
If it's part of their educational plan. Well, generally, insurers would not be asked to cover that speech therapy in school.
And that's my question. So would this, if this is passed, and I'm very conscious as I'm speaking, because I feel like I might be stuttering or stammering as I'm speaking. It's very odd. I'm sorry about that.
But if a child is receiving speech services in school, then that would not be something that the insurance would be covering in this instance.
That's true. What about if, say, and this is often the case, a student would be receiving maybe speech services two or three times a week as part of the school week? Could it be possible that insurance would be required to provide services for the additional days of the week or to increase the number of times per week that the student would be able or child be able to receive intervention My understanding is that insurers would have to cover any supplemental services outside of plans if they are provided upon the referral of a physician
Okay, so it's still, even with this bill, there would still be a need for a referral by a licensed healthcare professional.
Correct. So if that, say, just following the example, if the pediatrician says that's great that the school is going to give 20 minutes a day, three days a week as part of an individualized educational plan, but I'm also going to refer this child for additional services to address this issue two or three or however many extra days in the week.
And if that referral is made, that's it, right? Under this bill, it will be provided with no cost-sharing, deductible, coinsurance, copayment, etc., correct? That is correct.
And there's no durational limit, so it could continue to go from kindergarten right on through school and through adulthood, correct?
That is correct.
Okay. And there's, again, I would point out, although we've been talking about younger students, it could also, there's no age limit to this either. So if you have an older individual that develops a problem with stuttering, that person would also be qualified upon referral to receive services.
That's correct.
Okay. And it also said in the bill that there's a requirement to provide coverage for all costs related to speech therapy for stuttering. And I immediately thought, well, of course you're going to have the cost of the therapist themselves to do this. Are there any other costs related to speech therapy for stuttering that perhaps I'm not aware of beyond the provider themselves?
My understanding is that the insurers would have to reimburse in those cases.
So would it be maybe like mileage or travel? I'm just trying to get an idea of what the universe of what would be covered.
would be? It would just be the actual services, not travel expenses.
Okay. Now I saw that speech therapy is already characterized as a rehabilitative and habilitative service and is therefore an essential health benefit that must be covered. So I'm wondering how this bill goes maybe beyond what is already our current law.
It's basically codifying that into law.
I see. Okay. Under our current law, with it being termed an essential health benefit that must be covered, are there any limitations in our current law for duration or for co-pays or co-insurance or anything else that we've already discussed that this bill will say will allow without any limits?
My understanding is that there is a limitation of 60 visits per year.
60 visits per year. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. Now, I saw, and you did mention in your explanation that the governor had vetoed a similar version of this bill last year, but then I did see that we in a B print and that you made a change to the bill and you mentioned in your explanation that that has to do with the size of the so now it only going to apply to large group health insurance plans correct
Correct.
And a large group health insurance plan is defined as having 101 or more full-time or full-time equivalent employees, correct?
That's true.
All right. And what was the reason why that was done, why it's limited to only large group health insurance policies and contracts?
Well, we've been talking to the governor's office, and this is part of what was generally agreed to. So our understanding is that the governor would sign this bill.
All right. Well, why wouldn't she have just done a chapter amendment?
Why would she? I'm sorry?
Why wouldn't she have just done a chapter amendment then?
I can't tell you what goes through their mind, but that is basically what we discussed in order to be signed by the governor.
Okay. I also saw that in the amendment that was made, the effective date is pushed back a little bit. Why was that done?
So it would be January 1st of 2028. I think that will allow time for the plans to account for this when they're doing their next ratings.
Okay. So are there any cost estimates? There is a concern that's been raised that allowing this could be very expensive or cost prohibitive for those that have to pay for the insurers here.
We don't have any cost estimates at this point.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I believe you've answered all of my questions, Mr. Weper, and I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, on the bill.
You're quite welcome.
On the bill. Thank you. Thank you.
So I believe that this bill has had general support from many of our members. I think that last year we only had one no vote, but then we did have the veto. So I wanted to just make the record for exactly what the bill is covering and the fact that, you know, as we've seen already this session and in all of our sessions, as we're being asked to have insurers pay for more and more and more, we know that there's going to be an impact on all of our insurance rates, even if it's limited in this case to large group health insurance policies. that there's going to be a ripple effect as a result. My concern with the bill is that it is pretty expansive what is going to be provided. There is no limit as far as durational benefits. So 60 visits per year, according to the sponsor, is the current limit. This would do away with that durational limit. There is no maximum for benefits, no maximum for services, number of services, number of visits. There is no cost sharing at all that is going to be required under this legislation No deductible no coinsurance no copayments and there no age limit So it is a very sweeping mandate on insurance companies of large employers to cover this And while we don't have any cost estimate, we can assume that the ticket could be pretty expensive. So for that reason, some may wish to vote no. Others will continue to support this legislation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect January 1st, 2028. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 136, nays 5. The bill is passed. Ms. Lamsford for announcement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're going to continue our floor work today with five more bills on our debate calendar. from Ms. Hunter, calendar number 158, then calendar number 63 from Ms. Rosenthal, then calendar number 220 from Ms Simon calendar number 254 from Ms Gallagher and calendar 289 from Ms Bishat Hermelin Thank you Thank you
Page 21, calendar 158, clerk will read. Assembly number 6192D, calendar 154. Oops. Assembly number 6448, calendar 158, Ms. Hunter, an act to amend the social services law. An explanation has been requested. One second, please. We're having technical difficulties. One second. Please stand by. Yes, you should be good now. Okay. Oh, there we go.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 2014, the social services law was amended to dramatically improve the process for public assistance recipients in New York City to respond to an allegation that they had failed to comply with the welfare work requirement. As originally introduced, the bill was drafted to apply statewide, but at the last minute, the bill was modified to apply only to New York City, depriving public assistance recipients in 57 social service districts of a procedure which provides common sense protection against the imposition of unwarranted and unduly harsh sanctions. As it works now, outside of New York City, a social services district determination that a person has failed to comply with the work rule triggers a durational sanction which can deprive the recipient of assistance for as long as 180 days. This bill would require local social services districts outside of New York City prior to imposing a sanction on a PA, public assistance recipient, for noncompliance with work rules to confirm that the recipient is not exempt from the work requirement and that the recipient has appropriate child care, transportation, disability accommodations. This bill eliminates those durational sanctions, allowing the recipient to regain their benefits when recipients remedy the cause for the disengagement. Simply, parity with New York City work requirement that has been in place since 2016.
Mr. Monitor.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
She yields. Thank you.
So as it stands right now, what are the requirements in New York City if a participant fails or refuses to comply with the work requirements?
What they had implemented when this bill was passed in 2016, they created the New York City Social Services, I guess that's what they call it in New York City, HRA, in New York City, had compiled this re-engagement and conciliation notice. Simply this form I have here that they use, that they send for folks who may be out of compliance to have them fill this out send it back in to ensure that they are in compliance to give them a way to remedy if maybe they didn show up for work And again this is only for work Sanction
It's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that in New York City, New York City, if a participant fails to comply with the work requirements, it triggers a process where maybe that social service district in New York City has to then determine that the person is actually exempt from the work requirement for one or more of the reasons that you just stated.
Is that correct? Yes.
Okay. And outside New York City, currently,
social service districts are not required to go through that exemption step. Correct.
Okay. Now, this bill was vetoed in 2019 and in 2021 after passing the New York State Legislature.
Why was it vetoed two separate times? Yes, we submitted the first time, and then the second time we resubmitted the same exact bill. This bill is exactly the same with no changes. The veto message simply stated that they wanted to get information from the New York City HRA, information about how the program was proceeding, and then COVID happened, and the reporting requirement that New York City had lagged, And so now we have plenty of information to show that this conciliation process is working. So hopeful that we have remedied the veto message from the prior governor and are ready to put this forward.
Do we have information about how much this is costing the New York City Social Service District?
We don't have information relative to the cost of mailing this form, but I'm sure you and others would agree that dropping people off of the roles relative to getting this benefit would cost more in the end which could include homelessness affecting employers who always have a hard time finding employment so simply they're creating a form and mailing a form and I understand that that does have costs involved but hopefully working with the local social service districts they submit this plan to outline how they will meet this work participation requirement. Is the in New York City after the form is completed and
returned to the social service district does it require some sort of follow-up
from the social service district to ensure that the exemptions listed by the participant are in fact true? Yes. Okay so there's probably would you agree with me
an additional amount of work that needs to be done by the social service
district in order to maintain compliance for participants in the city? I don't know if I would say additional because it's always a requirement for case workers to be in constant contact with their their charge and so this would be in addition to already conversations that they're having with the person who is on assistance okay do you think is there a way and I guess I'm not entirely familiar with the
city us with how this program is implemented in the city but is there a way for this process to occur in the city before the city determines that someone is non In other words, you know, the way it works outside New York City, someone's deemed non-compliant triggers a sanction. But in New York City, can a participant say, look, I'm struggling to comply with the work requirements and then fill out the exemption form, and all of this can happen before the sanction process occurs?
Well, this is why the conciliation process is so important and why we put this forward, hoping that it would be statewide, is to make sure that people don't fall off the roll so that people can have conversations with their caseworker and be in communication saying, hey, I have a transportation issue, or I have a disability, I have a childcare issue. And the process that they would have had to go in New York City before this would a hearing. And hearings are lengthy. Hearings are costly. And the information that we received back from New York City was that most of the cases where they went to hearing weren't substantiated and that people should not have been dropped off. And so this basically is a cost saver so that ODOTA and others don't have to go through the hearing process.
Okay. Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Sponsor. On the bill?
On the bill.
So, you know, obviously I think it's a great idea to have this exemption in place before a participant who's receiving benefits gets removed from the benefit process. You know, as my predecessor has stated, and I'd just like to read some of what he said, you know, one of our top priorities with our social services departments is to help able-bodied individuals get back on their feet as quickly as possible. And as part of that challenge, our social service departments require able-bodied individuals to attend educational classes, sometimes get a GED, which is a prerequisite for 90% of the jobs, or arrange some sort of training program. And all of this is designed to help people who are on welfare to get off welfare and maximize their independence and self-sufficiency. Sometimes, of course, an individual cannot attend a training class or an educational program or job placement because of issues involving child care, transportation, or disability. Under our current law, if an individual can't attend, it's the responsibility of the individual to advise the Department of Social Services that they have a child care issue or a transportation issue so that Social Services Department can try to help them. And they help them by providing child care, transportation voucher, or otherwise help them address disability. You know, I think what we want in this process is we want both the participant and their social service provider to be in communication with each other constantly so that these issues can be addressed before there's a sanction. My concern with this bill, and I think a number of people have a concern with this bill, is that it's going to shift the focus off the participant to the social services district. And the social services district is going to have to basically prove a negative that, you know, these participants, you know, are exempt for one or more reasons. And they're going to have to hire a lot more staff. And, you know, there's a lot of concerns in many of our rural social service districts that the costs are out of control. And we can't afford to be hiring more people in order to implement programs which may be perfectly suited to New York City, but not well suited to the rest of the state of New York. So, you know, unless there was a way to ensure that costs wouldn't increase or a way to implement this program without any sort of investigation by the social service districts, at this time I'll be voting in the negative, and I'd encourage my colleagues to do so as well.
Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect April 1st. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons just stated during the debate. The Republican conference will be generally in the negative on this piece of legislation, But if there are yes votes, now would be the time for members to cast them at their seats. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Lemford?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The majority conference will be generally in the affirmative on this bill. If you would like to deviate from that vote, you may do so at your desks. Thank you.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Hunter to explain her vote.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to explain my vote. I would like to ask all my colleagues to vote in support of this bill and would like to thank the prior chair of the Social Service Committee, Mr. Hevesy, who for many years when we worked through this bill, were trying to find pathways forward and felt confident that after we had spent time working through the veto, after COVID, trying to make sure that folks are not dropped off of services, especially now when people are in crisis. But there's been proven statistics to show that the cost of turnover is one of the highest operational costs for employers in the country, and this would continue to contribute to that. We want to make sure that we are able to keep people in the workforce that they can continue to contribute, this bill would be able to do that. We will be able to shorten the process in order to alleviate sanctions. And again, I ask all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill. I vote in the affirmative. Thank you.
Ms. Hunter in the affirmative. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 96, nays 45. The bill is passed. Page 10, calendar number 63. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1563A, calendar 63, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the real property tax law. Explanation has been requested.
I would like to ask for rent-regulated landlords to include information regarding screen injury on all new and renewal leases and on any rent bills, including any rent bills via electronic communication.
Mr Brown R Brown Thank you Reverend Dr Speaker Will the sponsor yield Will the sponsor yield Yes.
Sponsor yields.
Thank you, Madam Sponsor.
How many notices, disclosures, and inserts are landlords already required to send?
That was up to somewhere like 25 so far, but do we have like an exact number? No. Are you familiar with so many of them? I know you've written most of them, but I was going through, it was really extensive. Are you familiar with the annual lead paint, the window guard one, the DOB postings, the FDNY postings, the good cause eviction notice postings, the rate stabilization postings, which have so many in those, federal disclosures? I'm just trying to get a good count. Thank you. My next question, if the law already requires annual notice, why is this other bill necessary? Well, actually, that was based on the bill I sponsored in 2015, and it required annual notice on a rent bill. This just makes it every month. It'll be printed at the bottom. You know, it's a standard form. All the forms you mentioned are one time. They're generated, and then they're just attached. So it's not additional work every month.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm really concerned with the smaller landlords. So could these small landlords face penalties over technical notices? I hate to say it. It's almost like a legal trap. Like a late notice or a wrong font size in the disclosure or a translated version error that's disclosed.
This bill does not have a penalty attached nor any of those circumstances are addressed.
Okay, thank you. Does every tenant communication now need legislative oversight? It seems like every minutia of when someone wants to rent out an apartment. And again, I'm really concerned with the smaller landlords. It just seems we have to get involved. And from what I've seen and noticed, it really chases investment out of New York City because most of the supplies or all of the supplies to New York City. Do we really need another level of oversight, no matter how small? Because it's always, well, it's only one more piece of paper and one more thing. I think people have just thrown up their hands.
Well, this – landlords don't lose out. In fact, they get a tax write-off when their tenants are receiving SCRE or DRE. This is not something they're opposed to. It's something they already have to do once a year, so they just have to put it on every rent bill. It's really no more effort. And it increases awareness of the program, which benefits both tenant and landlord. Thank you.
On the global notices that the landlords have to disseminate, can we agree that most of these regulations discourage investment in New York City?
No, I do not agree.
Do they encourage investment in New York City?
I don't agree, but it really has nothing to do with the specifics of this bill, which is just to create awareness of senior citizen rent increase exemption and people with disabilities rent increase exemption.
Thank you Madam Sponsor for answering the questions On the bill Mr Baker while this bill may appear minor it reflects a broader problem in Albany the constant addition of new compliance mandates and administrative requirements on property owners without addressing the root causes of New York housing and affordability crisis It always one more piece of paper and one more regulation and one more inspection and it there for the betterment of everybody but it seems like we have a major exodus of investment into our city. Many of us are concerned that legislation like this continues a pattern of government micromanagement, increased liability and bureaucratic expansion that ultimately, as we see, discourages investment in housing and places additional burdens on landlords, particularly small property owners. New Yorkers, as we all know, are struggling with skyrocketing rents, taxes and certainly utility costs. The focus should be on reducing costs, streamlining government, not creating additional technical notice requirements. That certainly chases business out of investing in New York City. And for that reason, I will be voting in the negative. No matter how good this may appear to be on the surface, it's just one more burden and regulation that's just chasing investment away. And thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, sir. Read the last section. This section will take effect on the 120th day. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be in the negative on this piece of legislation. Affirmative votes may be cast at members' seats now if they wish. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Foll? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The majority conference will support this legislation. For those that would like to vote, know they can do so here in the chamber. Thank you.
The clerk will record the vote.
Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Rosenthal to explain her vote.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to explain my vote. Scree and Dree is a life-saving benefit program that helps keep older tenants and people with disabilities in their units. The average age of a recipient of SCRE is 77, and for a degree, 64. Landlords get tax credit, tenants' rent is frozen, and it's a wonderful way to keep people in their homes. When their rent keeps rising, their payment doesn't rise. Once the tenant moves out, what the original rent is, is what is charged to the next tenant. So it's all around a great program. In 23, an estimated 158,000 households were eligible. However, less than half actually knew about the program and received the benefit. So this bill will ensure that more people know they could be eligible for SCRE or DRE, and they can worry less about having to pay the rent because their rent will be frozen if they are found eligible. And I vote in the affirmative.
Member Rosendahl in the affirmative. Ms. Jackson to explain her vote.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation. I live in unofficial senior housing. I live in Concourse Village. And if you know anything about Concourse Village, Those buildings have been there since 1968, my grandfather being one of the first residents to move in there. A number of the residents are now aging out. And Dree and Scree is something that we constantly work on with them in my office. And this will help them not have to go through so many hoops and hurdles. And some people not even knowing about the program, it will help them with their rent stabilization. the rising cost of housing is happening every day DreamScreen will help our seniors and our disabled and so I am affirmative on this piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues does the same
Ms. Jackson in the affirmative
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you
Mr. Yeager to explain his vote.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this bill were to require that with rent renewals or even once a year notification be sent out to tenants telling them how to apply for this, it would make a lot of sense. But the burden on property owners to provide this every single month with every single bill, to the exclusion of requiring that the government send out such a notice every single month to every single New Yorker who might possibly be entitled to this, I think is overly burdensome, unnecessarily so. And it's for that reason that I'd vote no. But if the bill just had send this out with the notifications, just like in New York City we send out a smoke detector and window guard notifications, will require landlords to do that, it would make sense. Again, this is just a little bit more than what is necessary to achieve the purpose of making sure that people in New York know that they can apply for this. Thank you.
Mr. Yeager in a negative. Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 94, nays 47.
The bill is passed. Ms. Walsh, for an introduction.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings. For an introduction, on behalf of my colleague, Assemblyman Jake Blumenkrantz, I rise to recognize a special guest visiting us in the Assembly Chamber Assemblyman Blumenkrantz stepbrother Caleb Snyder Caleb is a proud Air Force veteran a former White House staffer and a dedicated public servant who has devoted his career to strengthening communities and advancing public policy. Through his work with the President's Council of Economic Advisers and on the American Rescue Plan, he witnessed firsthand the impact that passionate state and local leadership can have on people's lives. He currently serves as a city commissioner in Minnesota, is pursuing a Ph.D. in public policy focused on economic policy, and is most importantly a proud husband and father to three wonderful daughters. On behalf of Assemblyman Blumenkrantz and the New York State Assembly as a whole, we thank Caleb for his service to our country and his continued commitment to public service. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in welcoming Caleb Snyder to the New York State Assembly and respectfully request that you extend to him all the cordialities of the House. Thank you.
Thank you. On behalf of my colleague, Mr. Blumencross, Mr. Snyder, we welcome you. And all the members, we welcome you to the chambers, and extend the privileges of the floor, and hope you enjoy the proceedings. And thank you for your service to this country and continued success, and hope you enjoy the proceedings today.
Thank you. Thank you.
Page 28, calendar number 254. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 2300A, calendar 254, Ms. Gallagher, an act to amend the mental hygiene law.
An explanation has been requested. Ms. Gallagher.
This bill is about ensuring that individuals receiving treatment understand the rights they are afforded to them under New York state law.
Ms. Walsh?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor please yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
Thank you. So I just have a few questions because isn't there under current law already required a patient bill of rights to be provided to patients and posted?
Yes, but this is requiring the posting of the bill, of the law.
Well, it requires posting and being given to patients or the representatives, so it's both, right?
Yes.
And how is that different than what we already require as far as the patient bill of rights, if you know?
It's a codification of the existing bill of rights.
Okay, but is it specific to mental health or substance, I'm sorry, substance use disorder treatment?
Yes, it's a codification of the Bill of Rights that OASIS is already using.
Okay, so OASIS is already using it, and is it currently being given to substance use disorder patients, like handed to them, and now it's going to be posted? or I'm just trying to get an idea of what's different.
Yes, I believe it is that it is to be posted in a visible location in every facility, and it's really just underlining that we want every patient to know the kind of care that they should be getting
and you know a way to make sure that it uniform across the system So will this be a second posting Because if we already are posting the patient bill of rights the more general one then is this one for substance use disorder bill of rights? Is that going to be a separate second posting that we're going to have up?
No.
Or is it going to be instead of?
It'll be instead of.
Oh, instead of.
Okay.
Very good. And I noticed that there were a few things listed. You mentioned, and I didn't know that, that OASS is already kind of using this already. But I noticed that it talks about the right to courteous and fair treatment and that is appropriate to the patient's individual needs. And also it talks about the right not to be coerced into treatment.
I mean, were those, those are concerns that a patient may have, that they're going to be coerced? Yes. You know, if there is a court order, then that obviously stands. But this is to make sure that individuals know that they have a say in the way that their care operates. And this is actually based on real experiences of patients who have been in different facilities who expressed need for these kind of rules.
Okay. Is there any enforcement mechanism? I didn't see any real enforcement mechanism. I guess one for failing to post it.
Right.
or to give it to the patient, or second, failure to follow it. Like, I know that it looks like there's a grievance procedure if the patient doesn't care for the way that they're being treated or something that's laid out in here. But other than a grievance process, are we conferring any new rights that could lead to, like, a discrimination lawsuit or something like that that isn't already available in law?
It doesn't create a cause of action.
So it is not creating any new situation like that. So would it be fair to say that it's really just trying to raise a level of awareness with patients of a certain manner to which they should be treated?
Exactly.
Okay, very good. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
No problem.
Yep. Mr. Speaker, very briefly on the bill.
On the bill.
Yeah, so I thought this was interesting, especially following on the heels of a couple of prior debates that we've had where, you know, we're requiring, you know, more postings and more things that are that are out there. I see that the last time that we actually the last time I see that we voted on this bill was back in 2011. I think there were only maybe a few of us here today who were around then. There are some. But we did have 20 no votes back then. there isn't a Senate companion bill, but this did have support when it went in front of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Committee. So some of us might feel like, oh my gosh, here we go, here's another posting, do we really need this? And others may feel that there's nothing wrong with letting patients know what rights to the kind of treatment that they should be expecting. So I'll be supporting this bill, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same, especially now that I've gotten a little bit more clarification from the sponsor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. Read the last section.
This act shall take effect on the 180th 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 Thank you. Thank you.
Are there any other votes?
Announce the results. Ayes 139, nays 2.
The bill is passed.
Mr. Fahl for the purpose of an introduction. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
About five minutes ago, I became the second tallest person in the room. And that is because former Speaker Pro Temp is in the House, Mr. Jeff Aubrey from the 35th Assembly District. Can you be so kind to welcome Mr. Aubrey to the People's House, Madam Speaker?
Yes. Mr. Aubrey, Mr. Aubrey, on behalf of the Speaker. Welcome back, Mr. Aubrey. Once a member, always a member. You are amazing. Huge shoes to fill. Miss you so, so much. Thank you so much for coming to visit with us. Wonderful to see you. Page 30, calendar number 289, clerk will read.
Assembly number 3524, calendar 289, Ms. Bichotte Hermelin, an act to amend the criminal procedure
law. An explanation has been requested, Ms. Hermelin.
Okay. So this bill protects a defendant's right to personally address the court at sentencing, also known as the right to allocution, by ensuring that its right is not denied. The defendant can still raise the issue on appeal. It reinforces the due process by making sure a defendant's opportunity to be heard at sentencing is preserved and reviewable. and just a little bit more in-depth explanation. On May 6, 2021, the New York State Court of Appeals, in a very short memorandum decision concerning a criminal case, affirmed an appellate division order holding that the defendant in that case was not entitled to challenge the denial of his right to speak at sentencing. This was in the case of People v. Brown. The basis for this decision was that the defendant's claim under Criminal Procedure Law 380.50 was not revealable on account, that the defendant has waived his right to appeal when taking a guilty plea. And in this particular case, the dissent, Chief Judge Wilson noted that the right of allocution dates back all the way until the 17th century and is longstanding in New York. Chief Wilson reasons that a defendant in a criminal case must have an opportunity to address the court at sentencing, to give the person an opportunity to speak on his or her behalf. And the dissent's position is consistent with the plain text of criminal procedure law 380.50, which unequivocally states that the court must ask the defendant whether he or she wishes to make such a statement. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that a defendant's right under criminal procedure law are preserved. Mr. Molitor. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the
sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields. Thank you. So under the current law, I think you already stated the defendant has the right to speak or he's supposed to be afforded the right to speak before being sentenced, right?
Correct.
And, in fact, the defendant's counsel has the right to also speak on behalf of the defendant. Is that correct?
And typically the prosecutor has the right to speak as well.
Is that correct?
Correct.
I'd like to just talk a little bit about that case that you referenced.
Sure.
I think it's People v. Brown.
Is that right?
Yep.
Okay.
Okay. So in that case, the defendant had agreed to a plea deal, right?
Had agreed to a what A plea deal A plea deal yep Yeah so it an agreed sentence Yep And there was nothing that was going to change about the defendant sentence
Isn't that right?
Well, yes, but we don't know that.
Well, okay.
But the defendant in that case was being represented by an attorney?
Correct, yes.
And the attorney was present at sentencing?
Yes.
Okay.
And the remedy in that particular case had, you said Judge Wilson gave the dissent, right?
Yes.
Had Judge Wilson's argument prevailed in the Court of Appeals, the remedy would have been that the case would have been sent back to that local court for the defendant to be resentenced?
No. The defendant would go back to the court so that the defendant can speak before being sentenced.
Before being sentenced, right?
And then also it would be case law. It's case law, right?
it would set a precedent so that the courts cannot take that right.
I mean, waiving your right for a plea deal
was not supposed to take away the right of a person's freedom of speech
to speak before they get sentenced.
So that was convoluted. But the right to speak in a court proceeding is not absolute, right?
I mean, for example, if the defendant started making threats to the court or started disrupting the proceedings, the court could have the defendant removed from the courtroom and have the defendant sentenced in absentia.
Couldn't the court do that?
Yeah, but we're not saying that in this particular case.
We're just saying that a defendant should just have an absolute right to speak if they chose to before their sentence.
And I should say that the right of allocution dates back 17th century to 17th century. This is a longstanding right that goes way back.
Well, the things are a lot different in the United States of America now than they were wherever in the 17th century. I mean, for example, when a defendant pleads, the court has to go through a lengthy allocution with the defendant, advising the defendant of all of his or her rights. And then prior to any sentencing, there's a pre-sentence investigation where the defendant is permitted to give a statement to the probation officer. And all of that information is compiled and provided to the court at sentencing. And I'm not trying to minimize the defendant's right to speak under the statute. I think what I'm trying to do is sort of show you that there's a difference between what you're saying is an absolute right and one that we say is a procedural right. Would you agree that there is a difference between those two things?
There is a difference between absolute and procedural.
but in this particular case absolute right should be given to someone to speak freely right before their liberty is taken away It their last chance to just say something And what harm does it do to anyone for someone to just say something You know a defendant may be of remorse or something that
comes out of their mouths could really change how harsh the sentence can be. Sure. So it's very important. I agree. I mean, I represented defendants as a defense attorney, and sometimes I would advise them not to speak at sentencing because I was concerned that they might say something that would make their sentence increase. So there are good reasons sometimes not to say anything at sentencing. But it is at the defendant's will and choice. And if that's, again, their last opportunity to exercise that last will and choice before their sentence, it should be granted. Now, in that People v. Brown case,
the defendant also waived his right to an appeal, right?
Yes.
Yes. So the appeal of so waiving an appeal does not include taking away the right to say something. Well, an appeal appeal when you're waving an appeal, you're appealing the whole case. You're saying, hey, I'm guilty. I mean, I'm not guilty. I want to appeal it. I want to prove that I'm not guilty. This, the right to allocation, is not that. Okay? All it is is just allowing the defendant to exercise their freedom of speech and just say, I'm sorry, or I feel that I'm still innocent, or anything. It could be anything, but it gives them the right to speak. But the way your bill is written, if the defendant waived his or her right to an appeal, and for whatever reason they weren't given an opportunity to speak prior to sentencing, they would still be able to appeal.
Even though they've waived their right to appeal, they'd still be able to appeal.
So you're confusing, too. There's a right to appeal the conviction, and there's a right to appeal the ability or the freedom to speak before sentencing.
So that right to appeal—
Well, I don't think I'm necessarily confusing them. There's a difference between appealable rights and non-appealable rights. There are some things that you always automatically get the right to appeal, like a jurisdictional defect. And there are some things that we say under the law, you have the right to waive your right to appeal. And the Court of Appeals has said, you know, if a defendant is not granted the opportunity to speak at sentencing and they've waived their right to appeal, that is not a right that they can – or that's not a violation of their rights that they can appeal because they've waived their right to appeal. But your law would change that, right?
No, the law doesn't change that. The law changes this. First of all, anybody who, or a defendant who is waiving their right of such, whatever they doing they doing it knowingly voluntarily and intelligently When they chose to waive the right to appeal a particular case that is probably done voluntarily knowingly and intelligently But the right to appeal for
getting denied to make a statement is not done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently,
which is why we want to codify the law to make sure that the courts cannot take that right away from them. We want to make sure that the court opens an opportunity for them to say something. So in the case of People v. Brown, if this were the law, your bill was the law,
The defendant in that case was sentenced to a seven-year prison term that he agreed to. He pled guilty, waived his right to appeal, was sentenced to a seven-year prison sentence. But if an appellate court found that he didn't adequately receive his right to speak at sentencing, the case would come back and the defendant would get resentenced, first would be granted his opportunity to speak, and then would get the exact same sentence that he had before?
You know, possibly. We don't know.
But the point of the matter is, you know, this would be precedent.
So you appeal, there's a decision that's made, and then going forward that becomes the law of the land. And that's the most important thing.
In this particular case, if Mr. Brown was found or if the appellate court overturned the decision of the lower court, I don't know what would have been the procedural rights. But we know the procedural rights would be intact for the next person who waive their rights to a lower conviction or a lower sentencing. I have to ask, because of what's been recently reported, but is this a Chief Judge Wilson program bill?
No, it's not. It's not a Chief Judge Wilson program bill. This is a bill, right? It's not. I don't think we mix, you know, these different...
Well, he has been advocating for particular legislation.
Well, I'm not advocating. I'm advocating the decision and the dissent. Okay, that's what I'm advocating. I'm advocating a defendant's right, a person's right. I'm advocating for anybody that you may know who might just want to have something to say before they're sentenced. I'm advocating for the people's right in the state of New York.
I understand. Thank you.
On the bill?
On the bill. So, of course, I believe the defendant should have the opportunity to speak prior to being sentenced. It's in the law. It's a statute that we have. In New York State, the defendant is afforded many protections. First of all, the court has to go through a lengthy colloquy explaining exactly what the plea offer is, has to explain what rights the defendant is waiving, and has to explain what sentence the defendant is going to receive. And at the At plea allocution, the defendant allocutes and admits to the crime. The sentence is usually adjourned out six to eight weeks, and in that intervening time period, the defendant is interviewed by probation. Probation prepares a lengthy pre-sentence investigation report, and the defendant has the opportunity to explain everything he or she wants to explain about the crimes that they were convicted of. In addition to that, the defendant is assigned an attorney, usually one paid for by the state, who zealously advocates on behalf of the defendant and who also has an opportunity to speak at sentence and issue a sentence memorandum. My concern with this bill is I think it's going to create hard and fast rule where any little mistake that's made at sentencing will turn into an appealable right? For what? I mean, for what are we trying to accomplish here? If the remedy is that the defendant's going to be taken out of state prison, brought back to the local court, and then sentenced to the sentence that they were originally sentenced to, what are we doing here? Why does this make sense?
So, look, it's a procedural right.
I'm not minimizing it, but we have a lot of protections in place, and I think this bill is unnecessary. I'll be voting in the negative and encouraging all my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.
Ms. Bishat-Harmelin?
On the bill.
On the bill.
This legislation protects a basic due process right by making sure that every defendant has the opportunity to personally, personally address the court before sentencing. not their probation officer, not their attorneys speaking on their behalf, but personally addressing the court and the public. And that that right can be very meaningful and forced if it's denied. A person's right to be heard at sentencing should not disappear because of procedural technicality. This bill makes sure that the right is protected. Sentencing is one of the most important moments in the justice process. Defendants should have the chance to speak for themselves, not just through their attorney. And it reinforces a basic principle of our justice system. Before the government takes away someone's liberty, that person should be heard. And even when there's a negotiated sentence as part of a plea, the appellate division may rely on the mitigating circumstances identified at sentencing, including the defendant's remorse in deciding whether to reduce the defendant's sentence in the interest of justice. So again, not allowing the defendant to speak and then justifying that decision by denying them the right to appeal on that basis directly chips away at those mitigating circumstances, which can impact a defendant's length in sentence. Lastly I would like to say that this bill does not eliminate appeal waivers It creates a narrow exception for one specific right the right of a defendant to personally address the court before sentencing In other words, this bill protects the right to be heard at the most critical moment of their case. It does not undo plea agreements. It doesn't open the floodgates. It does not eliminate appeal waivers. Again, it creates one precise safeguard for one fundamental right. And at this core, this bill asks a simple question. Should a person have the right to speak before their sentence? And should they have a remedy if that right is denied? Will the court in People v. Brown said no? Judge Wilson said yes. This legislature now has the opportunity to answer the question. We believe justice requires that every person should be heard. And I'll be voting in the affirmative. because we say yes to justice.
Read the last section.
This act shall take effect immediately.
Party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican Conference will be voting no on this legislation, but if there's anybody that wishes to vote yes, they may do so now at their seats. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fall. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this piece of legislation. for those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote.
Ms. Walsh to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to rise and explain my vote. I believe that we already have ample, ample protections for defendants in our criminal justice system. I think where this body needs to do more work and should be more refocused is to recognizing and protecting victims' rights, victims who are seeking justice in the criminal justice system. And I think we have different bills that would, for example, when a defendant has been found guilty and is coming up for a parole review, that a victim's impact statement must be either written, recorded, or live, must be incorporated into that parole hearing, must be considered before that parole board makes a decision. And I'd love to support a bill like that. I think that we're already doing plenty, as I said, to protect defendants procedurally and all of their rights for all the things that were discussed during debate. So I'll be voting no. I think that this is just one more example of just the focus being on the defendants as being victims instead of really focusing on the true victims of crime. Thank you very much.
I'm in the negative. Thank you, Ms. Walsh, in the negative.
Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you.
Ayes 98, nays 43. The bill is passed. Four hands, please, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Fall.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of our Majority Leader, Crystal People Stokes and the Buffalo Delegation, I would like to introduce Rohan Marley, son of Bob Marley, and Stephen Acevedo, both from Manhattan, but with the businesses located in Buffalo and Jonestown, that is the first minority-owned, vertically integrated cannabis business in the state. If you would be so kind to welcome the guest of our Majority Leader.
Yes. On behalf of Mr. Fall, Ms. People Stokes, the Buffalo delegation speaker, and all members, we welcome you sirs to our assembly chamber extending to you the privileges of the floor we see have seen you back there so hope you've enjoyed our proceedings today but more importantly thank you for the important work that you are doing in this emerging cannabis space we'll be looking forward to seeing all the continued great works that you are doing thank you so very much for joining us today
Thank you.
26 as golf days in the state of New York. Ms. Griffin on the resolution.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the resolution. Golf strengthens New York's fiscal health, generating $12.9 billion in economic impact statewide. The industry supports nearly 90,000 jobs and provides $3.8 billion in labor income for New Yorkers. New York ranks fourth nationally in golf participation, with 1.6 million golfers across the state. Major events like the Ryder Cup and US Open bring international attention and millions in direct economic impact to New York. With 72% of courses open to the public, golf remains accessible and affordable for communities across the state. These courses host thousands of charitable events each year raising more than million for hospitals veterans programs schools and youth initiatives New York golf industry preserves more than 103 acres of green space and promotes responsible environmental stewardship Golf drives tourism, recreation, small business growth, and local economies in both urban and rural communities. Declaring golf days in New York recognizes the game's lasting contributions to the state's economy, communities, and quality of life. Lastly, I want to thank members of the Empire State Golf Association for traveling to Albany, some of who were in the chamber earlier with us today. I appreciate their advocacy and welcome them to our chambers earlier today. Thank you.
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1325 rules at the request of Ms. Solange. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 12, 2026 as Fibromyalgia Awareness Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. I oppose. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1326 rules at the request of Ms. Casse. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 22, 2026 as Long Island Sound Day in the state of New York. Ms. Casse on the resolution.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of this resolution memorializing Governor Hochul to proclaim May 22, 2026 as Long Island Sound Day in the state of New York. The Long Island Sound is one of our state's most important natural resources and a defining feature of our coastal communities along the north shore of Long Island. It connects New York City, Westchester, and Long Island with this incredible body of water. Stretching more than 100 miles and going from New York to Connecticut, it's a vibrant estuary where fresh water and salt water meet to sustain rich and diverse ecosystems. The sound plays a vital role in the lives of millions of New Yorkers. It supports commercial and recreational industries, strengthens local economies, and provides local families and visitors with opportunities for fishing, boating, swimming, and tourism. It also is home to a remarkable array of wildlife, including sea turtles, seals, diamondback terrapins, horseshoe crabs, which we work to save, as well as river otters and more than 100 species of fish. These coastal habitats also support bird species, such as piping clovers, ospreys, snowy egrets, bald eagles, all of which depend on the health of the Long Island Sound. Like many of our natural resources, the Long Island Sound faces ongoing challenges. Pollution, habitat loss, and climate change continue to place pressure on this long-term health. These challenges extend beyond the ecosystem and affect our communities, our economy, and the quality of life for those who live along the Long Island Sound. This resolution also recognizes the important work of organizations such as Save the Sound, which has led efforts to protect and restore the Long Island Sound through advocacy, research, and community engagement. Their work, alongside many, many, many, many others, continues to advance cleaner waters and healthier ecosystems. For these reasons, I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and in recognizing May 22nd as Long Island Sound Day. I also invite my colleagues who may not be familiar with the sound to visit its shoreline and experience for themselves the remarkable communities and ecological habitat that it supports. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
On the resolution all those in favor signify by saying aye Opposed No the resolution is adopted Assembly number 1327 rules at the request of Ms Lunsford Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Brain Tumor Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1328, rules at the request of Ms. Warner. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Beef Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1329, rules at the request of Ms. Tapia. memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 10, 2026 as FSGS Awareness Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1330 rules at the request of Mr. Durso. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 15th through the 19th, 2026 as Sanitation Workers' Week in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1331 rules at the request of Ms. C. Wright. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as Internet Safety Month in the state of New York. Ms. Walsh, on the resolution.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the sponsor for bringing this important resolution forward. I think it's really important for us to focus on Internet safety. I mean, the Internet is particularly a dangerous place for children. It's rife with sexual material that is harmful to minors, and the ease of access to this material is really scary. I'd like us to work on legislation that prioritizes the protection of children by requiring pornography websites to verify the age of its users. The website could also enable password-protected accounts that would require age verification and password resets monthly to ensure that the correct person is accessing it. Upon verification that a user is 18 years of age or older, access to the site would be given. And, you know, 24 other states have passed or signed into law similar versions of this with bipartisan support. I am happy to see that there have been a number of bills passed in this chamber recently aimed at children's Internet safety in particular, such as the Safe for Kids Act and the Child Data Protection Act, which I was very proud to support. But bills like this should be considered beyond even what has already been done. I think that there's more room for improvement. So I'm grateful that this resolution has been brought forward as just a way to raise awareness that we have done some important things, but there is more to do in order to protect our children and really all of us who are using the Internet. So thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm very happy to support this resolution.
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1332 rules at the request of Mr. DiStefano. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 2026 as Children Eye Health and Safety Awareness Month in the state of New York Mr DiStefano on the resolution Thank you Madam Speaker for allowing me to speak on this very important resolution
Children's Eye Health and Safety Awareness Month is an important time to recognize the role vision plays in a child's growth, education, and overall well-being. Healthy eyesight allows children to learn in school, participate in sports and activities, and safely explore the world around them. Since many eye problems can go unnoticed, this month helps parents, teachers, and communities focus on prevention, early detection, and proper eye care. Vision is closely connected to a child's success in school. Children rely on their eyesight to read books, see the classroom board, use computers, and complete assignments. If a child has difficulty seeing clearly, they may struggle academically or lose confidence in the classroom. Unfortunately, some children do not realize they have a vision problem because they assume everyone sees the same way they do. Warning signs may include squinting, headaches, sitting too close to screens, rubbing their eyes frequently, or trouble concentrating. Regular eye exams are essential in identifying these issues early so children can receive proper treatment. Eye safety is equally important every year. Thousands of children suffer eye injuries from sports, household accidents, and unsafe toys. Many of these injuries can be prevented by wearing protective eyewear during sports and recreational activities. Parents should also keep harmful chemicals and sharp objects away and dangerous toys out of the reach of young children. Teaching children safe habits, such as pointing objects near their face or looking directly into bright lights, can greatly reduce the risk of injury. Technology has also become a growing concern for children's eye health. Many children spend hours each day using tablets, phones, computers, and televisions. Excessive screen time can cause eye strain, dryness, and headaches and fatigue. Experts recommend taking regular breaks from the screens following the 20-20 rule, which means for every 20 minutes a child should look at something different 20 feet away or at least 20 seconds. Encouraging outdoor play and limiting unnecessary screen use can help protect children's vision. Nutrition also supports healthy eyesight. Foods rich in vitamin A, C, E, along with omega-3 fatty acids help maintain strong and healthy eyes. Carrots, spinach, fish, eggs, and fruits are all beneficial for eye health. Combined with regular exercise and healthy habits, good nutrition can lower the risk of future eye problems. Children's Eye Health and Safety Awareness Month is in August and reminds everyone that protecting a child's vision is shared responsibly. Parents, schools, health care providers, and communities must work together to ensure children receive regular eye exams, practice safe habits, and understand the importance of eye care. By raising awareness and promoting prevention, we can help maintain healthy vision and enjoy a brighter future. Thank you, Madam Suka.
On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1333 rules at the request of Ms. Paulin. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 2026 as Ambulatory Surgery Center Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1334 rules at the request of Mr. Brabenek. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 2026 as Swiss American Heritage Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1335 rules at the request of Ms. Zinnerman. Legislative resolution memorializing... I'm advising Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 5th through the 11th, 2026 as Active Aging Week in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Mr. Fall.
Madam Speaker, do we have further housekeeping or resolutions?
We have both. Bill number 88675B on behalf of Mr. Bronstein. Assembly Bill recalled from Senate. Clerk will read the title of the bill. Act to amend the penal law and the general business law. Motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed the House. Clerk will record the vote. Clerk will announce the results. Ayes 141, noes 0. The bill is before the House. The amendments are received and adopted. Bill number A329B, on behalf of Ms. Jackson, Assembly Bill recalled from Senate. Clerk will read the title of the bill. An act to amend the mental hygiene law. Motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed the House. Clerk will record the vote. Clerk will announce the results. Ayes 141, news 0. The bill is before the House. The amendments are received and adopted. We have a number of resolutions before the House. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed? No. The resolutions are adopted. Mr. Fall.
Madam Speaker, can you call on Ms. Clark for the purposes of an announcement?
Ms. Clark for the purpose of an announcement.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to announce majority conference immediately following session. Majority conference immediately following session in the speaker conference room Majority conference speaker conference room at the adjournment of session Mr Fall I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we will reconvene at 11 a.m. Wednesday, May 13th, tomorrow being a session day.
11 a.m. tomorrow on Mr. Fall's motion,
the House stands adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you.