Assembly Live Stream (partial)

The House will come to order. Good morning, colleagues. 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, one God, individual, with liberty and justice for all. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Monday, April 27th.

Without objection, so ordered. Today we have a quote by Benjamin Franklin, and the quote says, An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. And these words are by Benjamin Franklin.

Thank you, Mr. Foll. Ways and Means Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's conference room. Ways and Means Committee members, Speaker's conference room. We have no housekeeping this morning. Excuse me. We have several introductions.

Yes, of course. On behalf of Ms. Walsh, the Speaker, and all members, I can't see you behind me up there, but we welcome you to the Assembly Chamber and extend to you the privileges of the floor. We are pleased to be able to have you in our midst today and putting you on the tour rotation. So thank you, Goway Seniors, for being here today. Enjoy our proceedings. Thank you for joining us today.

On behalf of Mr. Burdick, the speaker, and all members, welcome Mr. Sato to the Assembly Chamber, our People's House, extending to you, sir, the privileges of the floor. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you for doing all of the important work that you are doing with the Japanese American Association of New York Thank you for joining us today

Madam Speaker, please welcome Saki Mori and extend to her the privileges of the floor. On behalf of Ms. Lee, the speaker, and all members, welcome Ms. Mori to the Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Again, thank you for all of the important work that you are doing with the Japanese American Citizens League. Very important and wonderful to see you here today. Thank you so very much for joining us. Mr. Gibbs, for the purpose of an introduction.

well as welcoming Mrs. Aubrey back to the chambers. Thank you. On behalf of Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Wright, Mr. Cunningham, the speaker, and all members, welcome Sohini to our Assembly Chamber. And congratulations, ma'am, on all of the wonderful, accomplished work that you have done with City Safe Partners. We definitely extend to you the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Continued best wishes to you as you build upon your previous successes. And I just, a moment of personal privilege to say hello and welcome to Mrs. Aubrey. It's wonderful, wonderful to see you here today, extending to you the cordialities of the house, of course. And please tell your hubby I said hello. Thank you so very much, both of you, for joining us today. Resolutions, page 3. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1214, Ms. Kaye. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 9, 2026 as Yellow Ribbon Day in the state of New York. Ms. Kaye on the resolution.

Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly No. 1215, Ms. Bishat Hermelin, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 28, 2026 as MWBE Advocacy 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 1216, Ms. McMahon, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Esophageal Cancer 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 1217, Mr. Tenousis, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month in the state of New York. Mr. Tenousis on the resolution.

Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1218, Ms. Buttonshine. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 3rd through the 9th, 2026, as Small Business Week in the state of New York. Ms. Buttonshine on the resolution.

Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1219, Ms. Rajkumar. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 26, 2026 as Guyanese Independence Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed?

The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1220, Ms. Lunsford. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 4th through the 10th, 2026 as Banned Books 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 1221, count Mr. Levine, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as pro bono and Access to Justice Month in the state of New York and recognizing the state's pioneer role in expanding access to legal services. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1222, Mr. Tague. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim February 2026 as Career and Technical Education Month in the state of New York. Mr. Tague, on the resolution.

Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1223, Mr. DiStefano. Legislative Resolution, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 14, 2026 as Emergency Nurses Day and October 11-17, 2026 as Emergency Nurses Week in the State of New York. Mr. DeStefano on the resolution.

Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted.

Ms. Speaker, can you please call on the Energy Committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room? Energy Committee members, please make your way quietly to the Speaker's Conference Room. Energy Committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. Ms. Shrestha for the purpose of an introduction.

On behalf of Ms. Resta, the speaker, and all members, welcome our young leaders to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Thank you for the important work that you do every single day doing the thorough investigation, timely information for our community. Make sure you keep that in mind as you move forward. Obviously, we always want to make sure journalism is free, independent. And so thank you so very much for the hard work that you're doing now and in the future and for joining us today. Thank you very much. Ms. Solange, for the purpose of an introduction.

On behalf of Ms. Salaz, the speaker, and all members, we welcome the members of Links Incorporated to our Assembly Chamber. The People's House extending to you the privileges of the floor, hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for the outstanding volunteer service work that you do in our communities every single day. the far range of issues that you put forward really speaks to the knowledge and commitment you have to our communities, very longstanding commitment to our communities. So we thank you very much for that. And thank you so very much for joining us today. Enjoy your day here in Albany. Thank you. On consent, page 39, calendar number 371, clerk will read. Assembly number 9355A, calendar 371, Ms. Paulin, an act to amend the public health law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 9404A calendar 372 Mr Santa Barbara an act to amend the banking law 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. Ayes 133, nays 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 9588B, calendar 373, Ms. Torres, an act to amend the banking law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10032, calendar 374, Mr. Ekes, an act to amend chapter 283 of the laws of 2023. Home rule message is at the desk. 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 Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 114, noes 19. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10163, calendar 375, Ms. Delveen, an act to amend the Veterans Services Law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 60th day. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Levine, explain his vote. Can we have quiet in the chamber, please? Thank you.

Mr. Levine in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 133, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10207, Rule Calendar 376, Ms. Kay, an act to amend the real property tax law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Kaye, to explain her vote.

Ms. Kaye, in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. . Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 133, nos 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10243, calendar 377, Ms. Paulin, an act to amend the social services 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. Ayes 134, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10279A, calendar 378, Mr. Weprin, an act to amend the insurance law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect January 1st. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Weprin to explain his vote.

Mr. Weprin, in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 134, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10307, calendar 379, Ms. Paulin. An act to amend the executive law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10312A calendar 380 Ms Paulin An act to amend the public health law This bill is laid aside Assembly number 10352 calendar 381 Ms Glick an act to amend the environmental conservation law and the agriculture and markets law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10419, calendar 382, Ms. Solage, an act to amend chapter 581 of the laws of 2005. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 135, nos 0. The bill is passed. Mr. Fall.

Health committee members to the speaker's conference room. Health committee members, please make your way to the speaker's conference room. On consent, page 41, calendar number 383, clerk will read. Assembly number 10633, calendar 383, Ms. Hunter, 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, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Simpson, and the negative. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. 3 calendar 384 miss Paulin an act to amend the arts and cultural affairs law read the last section this actual take effect on the 100th day the clerk will record the vote Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 135, noes 0. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10692, calendar 385, Mr. Schiavone, 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 Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 134, nos 1. The bill is passed.

Mr. Speaker, can you please call the Judiciary Committee to meet in the speaker's conference room? Judiciary Committee to the conference room. Judiciary Committee to the speaker's conference room. Thank you. Thank you. On consent, page 42, calendar number 386, clerk will read. Assembly number 10851, calendar 386, Mr. Sterpe, an act to amend the economic development 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. Announce the results. Ayes 135, noes 0. The bill is passed. Mr. Gandolfo for the purpose of an introduction.

Thank you, Mr. Gandolfo. On behalf of Mr. Gandolfo, the Minority Conference, the Speaker, and all the members, we welcome you to the chamber, extend the privileges of the floor, and hope you enjoy the proceedings.

Ms. Glick, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.

The bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10995, calendar 388, Mr. De Los Santos, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 11008, calendar 389, Ms. Hunter, an act to amend the County Law. Read the last section.

The clerk will record the vote.

Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Page 35, calendar number 318. Clerk will read. Assembly number 5850, calendar 318, Ms. Glick, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. Read the last section.

A party vote has been requested. Mr. Gandolfo.

Mr. Falk.

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

Ms. Glick in the affirmative.

Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results

The bill is passed. Mr. Foll for the purposes of an announcement.

Labor Committee to the Speaker's conference room. Labor Committee to the Speaker's conference room. Mr. Gandolfo, for the purposes of an introduction.

Thank you. On behalf of Mr. Gandolfo, Ms. Giglio, the speaker, and all the members, we welcome you to the chamber and extend the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy the proceedings.

Mr. Fall, for the purposes of an introduction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of Member Barrett, we have a special guest from her district who's actually standing right next to her. And the special guest is Columbia County Sheriff Jackie Salvatore. Sheriff Salvatore is a proud graduate of Hudson High School. She went on to attend Columbia and Green Community College and earned an associate's degree in biblical studies from Vision Christian Bible College and seminary. She was elected Columbia County Sheriff last fall and has been leading the sheriff's office and department with a commitment to public safety and justice. Mr. Speaker, can you kindly welcome our wonderful Sheriff to the People's House?

Thank you so much for joining us.

to be vaccinated, potentially saving lives.

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

I will.

Thank you to my friend from the Bronx. Would this, in your explanation, you mentioned that this is exclusive to regulated summer camps. Would it only apply to summer camps, or would it apply to any camps that are offered by a regulated entity like camps during school break periods? It takes in overnight, day, or traveling camps. I believe the time of the year is indicated here. camps that operate between June 1st and June 15th in the case of traveling, in the case of regular camps, and then traveling summer camps between May 15th and September 15th.

Yes.

Would it apply to both public and private entities? I'll use examples. If a municipality offers a summer camp period, would they be mandated to require these vaccinations as well? It applies to all regulated camps.

The camps won't. There are certain cases where the child could be exempt if they have a legitimate medical exemption. But in terms of the camps, it's not a factor as to whether they're public or private.

Yes.

I'll use, for example, I know there's a very prominent camp organization on Long Island, TLC Family of Camps, or the Timberlake Camp, which I know has a very influential owner-operator. Has there been any feedback from them on this mandate that could potentially limit the amount of campers they have? I've not received feedback. I'm familiar with some of those camps, as you can imagine. And in terms of limiting the number of people they could have, I don't know that there would be a significant – The vaccination rates for young children are, like for MMR, probably 95% or more. So the potential limitations would be very limited. But regardless of that, I know if one of my grandchildren, was attending a summer camp. I would not want kids who are unvaccinated and who could be vaccinated to be there. They should get vaccinated. Now, for some children, for one medical reason or another, can't be. And that's why it's so important to have a high vaccination rate. So we do have herd immunity protecting all the kids.

but they still have the ability to receive an education through homeschooling mechanisms. So there is still an option for them to get that required education.

there is a concern that you could effectively punish families for exercising their medical right on the care of their child? Well, what I really would hate to do is punish the child who, for medical reasons, can't be vaccinated, thereby potentially jeopardizing their health or safety. Now, if you've been reading the papers, and I'm sure you have in the past year, you've noticed that measles, which is the most communicable disease on the planet, which was declared extinct basically, I don't know, 25 years ago, has made a comeback. And not surprisingly, the locations where it's made a comeback are the places where the vaccination rates are lower, such as those communities in Texas or Oklahoma or New Mexico or South Carolina. I'm not going to talk about their politics, not really relevant, although actually it is. But the fact is that in places like New York, in part, thanks to the bill that I passed that we all passed, well, many of us passed in 2019, our vaccination rates are higher, providing safety to kids. But if a parent doesn't want to vaccinate their child, and no one can force them to, they do have the right to homeschool them. But in terms of a camp, we still don't want any other kid jeopardized because that parent decides that they don't want to vaccinate their child who has no say in whether to get vaccinated.

You didn't mention New York State as one of them, because you said the reason, because we've already done legislation for this.

I don't have data on that to give you.

because, in your opinion, we have a strong enough piece of legislation already on the books through law for schools, and we don't have any evidence or data to say that we're seeing these illnesses spread in summer camps,

But the fact is, the more children that are vaccinated, not only does that provide a high degree of safety for them, but also for other children, particularly those who are vulnerable because they're not capable of being vaccinated. perhaps their cancer patients or whatever reason.

It's certainly possible.

But the higher the vaccination rate, the less likely it is. If the vaccination rate is 95 percent, and this is according to scientists, not some wacko on the Internet. This is according to scientists. If the vaccination rates are 95 percent or greater, it's extremely unlikely that the measles or some of these other diseases would spread, even if somebody did have it.

Excellent.

there is no alternative option for campers who make the choice to get compromised other than, in your opinion, just don't go to camp. Am I correct in that? You are actually incorrect.

Wouldn't be the first time. This bill very clearly talks about regulated camps. There are some camps that are not regulated, and if the parent or parents want to send their child to such a camp, an unregulated camp, they could do that if they want to exercise that option.

Do you have an example of an unregulated camp that may be in the community, whether in upstate, on Long Island, in New York City? Well, the bill here covers day camps, overnight sleepaway camps and traveling camps. There might be other potential types of camps. I doubt that I would want to see anybody related to me go to an unregulated camp because I want to make sure that they're in a place where they're safe. But if the parents think it's safe for the child not to be vaccinated, I'm pretty sure the parent is going to be okay with this unregulated camp. And just because it's not regulated doesn't mean it's unsafe necessarily.

So you're okay with, if a child isn't vaccinated, you're okay with a child going to potentially unsafe for camp if it's unregulated just because the family chose not to vaccinate their child for whatever reason they choose, just because of that choice? If the parent wants to make the choice to send their child to an unregulated camp, and again, I'm not saying they're unsafe, but if the parent wants to make that choice, because I know some people are all for choice in this regard, they could do that. But to me, the overriding concern is making sure that the children as a whole are safe. And that means not spreading any disease that shouldn be spread It really very straightforward Do you have and I know you mentioned you don have any data on how many of the vaccinated illnesses are currently being spread in summer camps

I do not. Many camps would require the child to be vaccinated anyway, regardless of whether we pass this legislation.

what is the problem with allowing these camps to make the determination on their own and allowing the parents who choose to send their child to a camp to be aware of what the camp procedures are, and if they have an immunocompromised child or they just don't want their child to be in a camp with somebody who is unvaccinated, to allow that personal choice to say, well, I don't want to send my child to this camp, I'll send them to this other camp.

Well, first, the fact that probably most regulated camps do require vaccinations, that's good, but it's not a legal requirement. Some of them may not do that. And in terms of choice, I believe people should be able to make choices. But when their choices impact other people, especially little kids, that's where we have to take a stand on preventing them from doing something that could be bad for other children. If a parent doesn't want to vaccinate their kid, that is their business. They can decide that, but then they can't decide to jeopardize somebody else's kid.

Well, you're putting words in my mouth.

I am saying that if the parent chooses... Okay, I'll give you an example of... It wasn't too long ago that somebody on the street saw me, and it's very unusual for this to happen in my district because most of the people like that aren't in my district, but a person accused me of throwing her kid out of school. And I said to her, I didn't throw your kid out of school. you chose to take your kid out of school, you know, that's a little bit different. If a parent makes a choice because of their own political beliefs, which is what it comes down to in choosing not to vaccinate, you know, fine, be my guest. Just don't let it impact other children. Don't let it – the potential exists for certain – first of all, the vaccine isn't 100% foolproof, but it's a very high percentage, you know, 97, whatever the number is. It's not perfect. And then, of course, there are the immunocompromised kids. They could choose, a parent can choose to not vaccinate their child, but I don't want them, and I don't think most of us want them doing something that's going to negatively impact somebody else's child because they have rights also.

But I am aware of also a lot of folks across the state of varying faith beliefs that choose not to vaccinate on religious grounds. And if a religious institution no matter that faith operates a regulated summer camp but members of that faith choose not to vaccinate for a certain purpose would the state be mandating that religious institutions force adherents to their faith to vaccinate to have access to

Well, first of all, I'm certainly not a religious scholar, but to my knowledge, there are virtually no religions that say don't vaccinate.

That's just not a thing. And in terms of whether it's against somebody's religious beliefs, we debated that already. We resolved it on this floor. We passed a law. There is no non-medical exemption to vaccine requirements for schools in New York State.

That may be true, but nonetheless, it's the law.

So this is the first time I'm debating this legislation or any type of legislation to do with this.

Thank you, Mr. Dinowitz, for answering my questions.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I certainly understand science. I believe in science. I vaccinate myself, my children, and I choose to do that, my wife and I. However, when we talk about access to summer camps, what this legislation is doing is taking out all available choice and creating no opportunities for families who, for whatever reason, whether it's religious, whether it's medical, whether it's political, whatever the reason is, to not have access to a part of our society that they currently have access to now. The sponsor brings up the vaccine mandate that's in schools, but there is already an option that is accredited, that is regulated through a homeschool curriculum if parents choose to pursue that. Simply saying that, well, if they don't want to get a vaccine and they can go to an unregulated camp where there may be lower standards of safety for well-being and safety of all campers, I believe, to a degree, is a red herring. We don't have any data on how many incidents of spread of vaccinated illnesses are happening at summer camps. We haven't heard from the entities that operate camps like TLC Family of Camps, the YMCA, towns, villages, counties, cities that operate camps for their constituents and our mutual constituents. And we're creating a two-tier system. When we already have a system in place that is protecting children, that is allowing camps to have a higher burden of entrance and may mandate that all campers have vaccines, and allowing parents to make an educated choice on whether or not they want to send their children to these camps, knowing that there may be other children, whether immunocompromised or actively choosing not to vaccinate, in close proximity to them. Certainly understanding one of the reasons why we passed, even though I wasn't a member of this chamber for this debate, the school vaccine requirement is because school happens indoors, and all illnesses are more transferable in a confined space. When you have a day camp or a summer camp that's predominantly taking place outside, you do not have children or anybody else in that same situation where illness can spread as easily. So certainly I believe in keeping kids safe. I believe in science. I believe in vaccines. However, I don't believe that this legislation, without stakeholder buy-in, without stakeholder involvement, or any clear data to know if we're actually solving a problem that is happening in this state, I believe it is a step too far.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yes, I will.

Thank you, Mr. Sponsor. Just one real question. I do appreciate the sentiment, what you're trying to bring forward, father of seven, grandfather of six. We certainly, as grandfathers, look to protect our kids. Just a point of clarification. You had mentioned a parent or a child shouldn't be sent to a school or a camp or whatever it is. They can make their own determination, but it shouldn't impact other children. A decision of the parent shouldn't impose their will on other kids who may or may not be vaccinated, but they can be independent.

I said parents can decide whether to have their children vaccinated, and that's their choice, but when they expose an unvaccinated child to another child who maybe is vaccinated, maybe is not, maybe is immunocompromised, then they're taking away the choice from other parents and children.

I thought that's what you said. It's that choice taking away the ability for that parent to say, hey, I don't want them near this particular kid.

My opinion is that the chair is undoubtedly going to rule that not germane to this discussion.

We're going to wait and ask and answer questions, please.

My point was, as grandparents, we're looking out for our kids, as you had said.

Why is it any different when a person who is much stronger than a girl, a boy who is much stronger than a young girl, to be allowed to play in a sport, We're putting those kids in danger.

My opinion, regardless of what I think of that, is that a child who is 200 pounds being near a child who is less than 200 pounds has nothing to do with whether they're going to spread a disease. There may be other issues which you feel strongly about, but it has nothing to do with spreading a disease, and that's what this bill is about, and that's what this discussion is about.

but not look after children in all circumstances? Is that what you're saying?

Actually, I did, because, Mr. Sponsor, you had said... What's the sound equivalent of an optical illusion? I'm not sure, but that's not what I said. You had said that it's not fair that one child should not be protected based on another child or parent's decision.

why don't we protect all children, Mr. Sponsor?

We're looking to protect children. I mean there are so many vaccinations and so many diseases and so many children of different makeup Why is the protection of children not important to you Mr Sponsor in that regard So what you actually saying since I going to extrapolate from what you said

and potentially is carrying a disease with a trans child.

To defend children in any regard, no matter what walk of life, I don't think should be offensive, Mr. Sponsor.

Thank you, Mr. Sponsor. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This act shall take effect October 1st.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but if there are yes votes, they may be cast now at the members' seats.

Thank you, Mr. Fall.

Thank you.

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

Mental Health Committee please make your way to the Speaker conference room Mental Health Committee members make your way to the Speaker conference room Page 5 Rules Report 99 Clerk will read Assembly number 9140 Rules Report 99 Ms Rosenthal an act to amend the public health law

This bill would extend existing liability protection for health care providers who issue vaccines in accordance with state or local guidelines.

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

Yes.

I thank our colleague from Manhattan for yielding for some questions. You mentioned this would extend existing protections. What are the current legal protections providers have in terms of administering immunizations or vaccines? Well, as long as vaccines are administered in accordance with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccine providers are fully protected from liability.

No, no. They would be the same.

Well, if they adhere to federal recommendations.

Right now, we adhere to federal standards. So there's no language in the existing statute about state or local law, or state or local standards?

Okay. So what we have reflects the federal standards. However, in the event that the federal standards change, the state could establish its own.

So in the situation right now, or that we're seeking to fix, if a New York-based provider administers a vaccination, they are governed by federal regulations in terms of liability upon any incident of vaccine injury, correct?

So if a patient wanted to have a right of action against that provider,

So right now, a claim like that goes to the federal court of claims.

I would expect if they're adhering to state, it would go to a state court.

Well, state.

No, the legislation says local as well.

Yeah, so, but the legislation says a state or local standard.

it wouldn't remove the existence of a federal standard. So wouldn't a New Yorker still be able to bring a right of action for violation of federal law, even though we have a state standard? Because doesn't federal law have preeminence over state law? Yes. Okay, so wouldn't, it would all be about the jurisdiction that the injured individual brings the right of action against. So even though we're saying that we're granting them state protection or exclusion from liability, somebody could still make the claim in federal court. It depends if if these are recommendations that let's say the state still adheres to. Yes, but if federal law still provides a certain guidance nationwide because, and I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law is that the states may enact a higher burden of law, but that the federal law still exists. So if the federal guidance is still in place, even though New York State chooses to not abide by it, it doesn't erase the fact that the federal law still exists, And it would all be about where the person claiming an injury would file a claim, not necessarily where the provider chooses to defend themselves against the claim. Am I correct in my understanding of the law? This is not about excluding the law. Am I right in my understanding of that? This is not changing, obviously, the federal law or where one can sue. This is about establishing state standards. Okay. Okay. Thank you to the sponsor for answering my questions. From Manhattan. Thank you. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

So hearing from former members of the bench in the bar that the state can have a higher standard, but yet the federal guidelines are still in existence, my belief is this is a simply, this legislation may not have the intended result because it's not the provider who would choose where the claim of injury happens. It would be taking place where the person files claim. and the injured individual would still be able to file a federal lawsuit alleging malpractice or whatever the terminology in vaccine injury would be, already existing that we already have medical malpractice standards. And as we've heard time and time again that the administering of immunizations or vaccines is a medical procedure, which it is, wouldn't these providers still be under protection of their medical malpractice coverage? So certainly I think this is a reaction to a movement that happened four to five years ago and is unnecessary to protect providers in this state Thank you Madam Speaker Thank you Mr Ari Brown Thank you Madam Speaker Will the sponsor yield Will the sponsor yield The sponsor yields. Thank you so much. I try to break it down in different sections. I'm certainly not an attorney, so just for my own edification. First section I call equal protection. So under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the parallel guarantees in the New York Constitution, why is it lawful to carve out a special liability shield for this class of defendants while leaving similarly situated defendants subject to ordinary negligent rules? Like in my industry, we have that scaffold or it's like the reverse universe of this bill. Physicians have liability protections throughout all sections of law. I apologize. I couldn't hear you. I said physicians have liability protections under all different sections of law. I couldn't hear you. So what you're saying is one class of worker, employee, has certain protections and precludes them from liabilities over others? Was that what you were saying? Well, we're talking about health care providers who administer vaccines in this case. Thank you. So the next section I'll call due process. Under the New York Constitution and also the 14th Amendment under the United States Constitution, which, by the way, are you familiar with the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the due process section? Are you? I actually am. So the states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, property without due process. And that's what I'd like to get to with this particular situation. So what's the legal basis for this immunity, I apologize, I don't have a better word, scheme, if it deprives injured New Yorkers of meaningful opportunity to pursue claims that would otherwise exist under normal, ordinary tort law? Yes, so perhaps you don't know that under this bill and under federal guidelines, someone who claims they are harmed through a vaccine can still go for gross negligence and willful misconduct. So the avenue to sue is not closed off. Thank you. The next section, again, I'm not an attorney, it's just from what I read for the bill. We'll call this section, Access to Courts. So under the New York Constitution and the federal constitutional framework, protecting access to judicial redress, which, like you said, there's certain sections that they can go, but not in every aspect of this particular law. How does this bill avoid the argument that it places an unconstitutional barrier between injured people and the courts? In other words, do you think it's legal and correct to take away the practical rights to go to court, effectively bringing, you know, barring injured New Yorkers from getting their day in court, which some aspects of this bill seems to do? Well, as I said in the previous question, it doesn't bar a path to court if the person is suing on the basis of willful misconduct or gross negligence, which is the standard currently under federal law. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill.

On this bill, Assembly Bill 9140, it seems to expand the liability protections in ways that raises serious constitutional concerns under the New York Constitution and the 14th Amendment It appears to favor one class of actors and restrict the meaningful legal recourse for injured New Yorkers and invite challenges based on due process equal protection access to courts retroactivity and separation of powers The legislature should not be creating broad immunity without clear constitutional footing and compelling public justification. Look, I look at this thing because in my industry, we have that blanket responsibility for one and total exoneration for the other under the scaffold law. I don't know, maybe because one guy swings a hammer and another guy's a doctor, we think we can do it. But for whatever reason, and for that reason, I'll be voting in the negative. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but if there are exceptions, they may be cast now at their seats. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they can do so at their desk.

Madam Speaker, can you call the Committee on Social Services to the Speaker's conference room?

Mr. Foll. Madam Speaker, can we now take up the following bills? Calendar number two on page six by Mr. Hevesy. Calendar number 30 on page nine by Ms. Paulin. Calendar number 53 on page 10 by Ms. Cruz. And calendar number 54 on page 11 by Mr. Dinowitz. Mr. Fall. Madam Speaker, can you call on the Transportation Committee

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

Sponsor yield.

Yes.

Substantively, the bill has not changed, but the amount of money it's going to require is going to increase because we are now, last we spoke, I believe we were at 28 counties that didn't have supervised visitation. We're now up to 32.

OCA has it at $25 million.

I thought it was – I apologize.

We'll check.

You did.

I'm going to stick with the OCA estimate at 25 with room for growth because of the extra counties.

Yep.

It would need to be placed in the budget to support Office of Victim Services that's going to be tasked with developing this program and funding this program at the state level. What progress has been made in terms of getting this as a budget line?

It was in the Assembly one-house.

But I don't believe we're going to achieve success in this budget.

Well, first, we haven't started the numbers game, but considering the number of priorities that we have as a house that are in front of this one, I don't believe this is going to make the cut when we start crunching numbers.

I'm sorry if I threw you off, but okay.

By the way, me too.

But you have intel on this one, so I'm appreciative for that.

So I would be surprised if it passed without funding. So if the governor is going to sign this into law, it would have to be with funding. Otherwise, you're creating a structure without any real teeth to it.

And it doesn't have any provision in it because you're saying that it's likely that it's not going to be in this year's budget. We passed this bill this year though, and in this legislation, it has an effective date of six months.

In what mechanism? How is she going to fund it if the budget's already been passed for this year?

So potentially, hopefully with the Office of Victim Services or in the OCFS budget for now, and then she'll come back more for next year's budget. To make up the difference.

and then next year put more money in to cover what she already took.

It's just if the governor is so inclined to get this up and running, there's ways to do it.

I've been in touch with the executive. They're intergovernmental staff. Like all of our staff here, they are trained never to promise anything, so I give them credit. But my sense is, considering we have Office of Court Administration support, you and I both understand the need for families and kids and how this is creating a backlog in the court system, I'm pretty sure that this will be looked on favorably at some point. I'm frustrated that it wasn't in this budget, but we're relentless.

Thank you.

is that in no event do I want these costs to be shifted upon localities for developing the program.

Because in the bill itself, the bill language, it states that it is the intent of this section to provide state support for the establishment of at least one program in each county, etc.

It doesn't, but I will go on the record and tell you my intent is to have this completely state-funded without a match or anything from the counties. The counties don't have enough money to cover this.

And that was interesting to me because those would be Article 10 cases. Those Article 10 cases right now, at least upstate, the area that I practice, maybe it's different in the city, I don't know, but where I practice, supervised visitation in an Article 10 case would be provided currently through the caseworkers that work for the Department of Social Services.

which would be county money.

So in a way, by creating this program,

That's a great question. So the answer is since it the first time I heard of it I don know but it sounds like a great thing We putting in state monies If that takes some of the burden off of the counties that be terrific It would take if this is the case it would take money or responsibility too off the county because those caseworkers, in addition to investigating hotlines of abuse or neglect, educational neglect, etc., They also, additionally, the caseworkers have the responsibility to act as supervisors, and that would be a significant time commitment that they have each week that they would no longer have to do. They could divert their attention to other tasks that they have within the office, which would be a positive.

when they could be doing all manner of other things to help these kids and families.

is that it essentially tasks Office of Victim Services in consultation with the Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence to establish this statewide supervised visitation initiative, but it doesn't really put any meat on the bones about what that's going to look like.

that no longer have supervised visitation programs available for non-Article 10 cases. And so, but it doesn't really go into much detail about, like, who's going to get it.

will that be sufficient to be receiving free supervised visitation? You know, that kind of thing.

Yes and no. So the yes is we picked the Office of Victim Services, and we've covered this last time because the vast majority, unfortunately, of these cases are domestic violence cases. So we thought that was the appropriate agency.

Oh, of course. I'm so sorry.

So the guidelines that we used to put this together came from the Office of Violence Against Women from the federal government. And they have a number of parameters that each of the localities will have to subscribe to.

But we are leaving the bones to be put on by OBS and the counties. The counties are going to come back and provide a couple pieces of information. I think it's about five or six. and once we get a sense of what they're looking for then I'm comfortable that our State Department

allegations of domestic violence that that would be a very appropriate situation to have supervised visitation but there are also an awful lot of just regular family court cases with parents that are not getting along that will want supervised visits and if the court orders them, they're going to be out there too. Are we going to look to see, like, who is going to be able to get it other than whoever the court orders, but in terms of their financial capability to pay, will it be on a sliding scale? Yeah, we hope so. So here's what we're looking to do.

starting with the programs must comply with the court orders, and then for low-income families, we're going to offer fee waivers. Now, we haven't outlined a sliding scale yet. We're leaving that to OVS. So we're going to keep an eye on what regulations they put into place. And we think

is a whole different animal. Correct. And a lot of times that's necessary if you have

less likely to be able to have a good visit with their child without the help of a qualified therapist of some kind. So that also is more expensive.

there is a dearth of mental health professionals that are available to even provide this service.

Yeah, we don't set the scale. So just for general supervised visitation, what we found is for an hour of visitation one time a week, the numbers range from $50 to, we've gotten up to $300, which is a little crazy, for therapeutic, which is what you're talking about.

Yes.

But if you've got a long list of people waiting to see their child even once a week, would the idea be that you would have a family be able to fully take advantage of that once a week visit or that you're going to parcel it out so that maybe a family might only be able to see their child once a month, but more families could take advantage of a visit? So my instinct is it's judicial discretion. So whatever the judge thinks is appropriate for the family. So what we're trying to do is make sure that the non-custodial parent still has an active part of the child's life, and we're really trying to avoid childhood trauma family separation, right? But I would leave it up to the judge's discretion for how much they want.

And what we're finding is that there are 21 supervised visitation sites throughout the state that recently closed and they need $200,000 to do their startup and get back up and running. Then we have 23 that as you mentioned are on the six to one wait list And they will need less money but they will need money to start providing that supervised visitation so we can get rid of those waitlists. And there's one other group, which is brand-new startups. We're looking for brand-new startups. And I will tell you that one other thing I found interesting I learned today...

Mr. Fall? Madam Speaker, can you call on the Veteran Affairs Committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room?

Ms. Walsh. If I could just continue. Yeah, so it's my understanding that in Nassau, Suffolk, Jefferson, and Orange Counties,

Thank you, my counsel. I wanted to give you a moment to have that conversation. By the way, if you get a judge to counsel, you can't interrupt. All right. The bill appears to be silent, so I wanted to ask you about whether it's envisioned that these visits will all take place in a building versus – I know that sometimes when there are visits that are being done in Article 10 situations, caseworkers might – over time, the goal being to have them in as natural a setting as is safe.

It is, and I think the brick-and-mortar is really important because there are security protocols that we need in particular. So part of what I hope the regulations become will be staggering of visits so certain people don't come at the same times and don't see each other.

So I would argue that the brick and mortar is the core of this.

So short answer to the question is, yeah, we want the brick and mortar. Well, I think there's a real, it's a balancing act, really. I mean, there are some cases, like I would argue domestic violence cases, where security would be at a premium. That's a primary consideration. In others, where the parents appear to be fairly competent parents, they don't appear to have mental health or addiction problems,

buys it and orders it and says okay, I think that when I served as an attorney for the child, I mean my goal is always to try to have the most natural normal kind of visit that you could possibly have with a parent So but I can appreciate that if this is and it sounds to me from your answers that the needs of families who have allegations of domestic violence and their safety and security is primary

Including the supervisor. Unfortunately, yeah, I agree. And unfortunately, those are the overwhelming majority of the cases. And since we are essentially building up a structure with bare bones from before that wasn't really working,

Okay. But it doesn't say in the bill, I mean, it states as a goal that we want safe visitation, but it's not in any way limiting supervised visitation to cases involving domestic violence.

Yeah, yeah, in any of those cases. Okay. And will there be any, will there be guidance given to the judges as to what, how there's, what they're to consider when figuring out or exercising their discretion?

Okay. I think that you have very completely answered the questions that I've got. I thank you. And Madam Speaker, on the bill.

So I really want to say up front again that there are definitely – there is definitely a need all around the state to be able to have more and better supervised visitation. Back in the old days, back when I started to practice in this area, there were still, in the counties that I served, there were volunteer organizations, either through churches or just that popped up that had a pretty low price point per visit that were out there as a business model.

So I find it, the price tag, I think, is a huge question mark to me. We've all seen what's happened with child care slots, right?

While I don't dispute the need to have supervised visitation, more of it in our state to allow kids to be able to see their parents as they try to get through their matrimonial matter or their family court matter, I really think that this is an extremely expensive proposition. And for me, personally, I think that this bill just has a lot of holes in it. I think this is a good example where we are indicating our desire and intent as a legislature, but then we are completely, I think, abdicating any role, and we're just putting it all on Office of Victim Services to develop this program. It's going to be a big program that will have a big impact on the state, on our state, on our litigants, on our kids. And I just think that when the price tag is very questionable, when the need is great, and when we just don't have a lot of details in the program itself, the way it's laid out right now, I think that the sponsor and the people who support this bill have every good intention, and I applaud it. I just think that this bill needs work. I think that we need – and not for nothing, but this is not the first time that we've taken up this bill, and we continue to not have support from the second floor for this bill. We don't have money in the budget right now for this initiative, and I think it's going to be a lot more money than what is currently being budgeted. Last year, the sponsor indicated $25 million. This year, he indicated $25 million, but he also said that there are more counties who have had their programs fold and will need them. So I just think until we have more detail, I'm going to continue to vote no on this piece of legislation. I would encourage my colleagues to think hard about it and perhaps join me in voting no, not because I don't think that there is a need for this service, but just because I think that the bill is not ready and the financial support is not there. So, Madam Speaker, that's it. I'm going to be no on this, but I do appreciate the sponsor's persistence, and I do hope that someday a program like this gets over the finish line, but I just think that the bill needs more work. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Speaker. My beginnings in advocacy life were way before I got this job and way before I was the executive director of an agency that serves battered women. It was to advocate for a supervised visitation program in Westchester County. And that need came from not only the domestic violence community, but from the judges who didn't have a place to put cases where they really needed to separate the parents because of the danger to one of the parents. So this program will benefit those situations where they're really hardcore, where you need two entrances in order to have the parent who's being victimized separated from the parent who's doing the victimization. So I applaud the sponsor for putting forward a bill that will begin to address this statewide. We're very fortunate in Westchester that the county has picked up that burden of cost and that they continue to fund those two places that we put in place so many, many years ago. But the rest of the state is not as fortunate. I understand the need to balance cost with the program. I just believe that this could help a lot of families maintain those relationships with those children. Thank you.

Yeah, just very briefly, and I want to thank the previous speaker. I just want to make it very clear that when there are supervised visits involving in a domestic violence case or a case involving domestic violence, you are not going to have the mother and the father having a visit at the same time or in the same building or anywhere near at the same time with that child. There is going to be separation anyway. So the idea of them crossing in the hallway or something is just not a thing. That's not what's going to happen. I think one of the things that's really absent from the bill, though, and I might be more supportive of the bill if it was specifically designed only for those types of cases. That would be a much lower price tag. They are the most needy cases, and I absolutely agree with that. This bill, though, doesn't say that. This bill says that anybody in a family court or matrimonial case, in state supreme or in family court, can ask and be granted supervised visitation. That's a much bigger universe that we're talking about here. That's, ergo, the bigger price tag. So I just wanted to point that out. I completely agree that those DV cases are some of the very toughest ones. Those and just parents that have big addiction or mental health issues, those are the hardest ones. But they're also the most expensive ones to properly staff and have the visits. But I would rather put the eggs in that basket and do pilot programs around the state to address that issue before we take on something as big as this bill. So thank you. I'll continue to be in the negative.

Yes. The bill would require the Department of Health to examine heat-related deaths in the state and publish an annual report of heat vulnerability and heat-related deaths in the state.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. would the chair from Westchester County yield for some questions?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Into the terms of this legislation, who would be responsible for getting the information on these deaths to the state DOH?

ones to convey the information on deaths to the city. Is that correct?

So for being able to classify something as a heat-related death, would the counties and the city of New York, would they have to provide all deaths within that jurisdiction over a certain period of time and all the other underlying issues that are happening at that time so that DOH could make the determination whether or not it is a death that was exacerbated by heat? or would the counties and the city have to make a determination that a certain death may have been a heat-related death and only forward certain incidences to the Department of Health?

So if it is the latter of the question I asked, it would be that only a certain subset of deaths within that certain time period would be passed along. But certainly, and I guess I don't know what the mechanism is now, but my understanding is that not every death is reviewed by the county medical examiner to determine the cause of death. that somebody may die at home, somebody may die in a hospital setting or a health care setting, somebody may die in someplace else. And so there may not be always a clear determination of death. And so if somebody dies and they don't have an autopsy, what would be the mechanism for a county to determine whether or not that incident of death would be something that would have to be reported to the Department of Health?

So with the current, and neither of us representing the city of New York, in our constituencies, since 2020 when the city code began requiring hospitals submit this data has New York City Council or the City Department of Health have they done anything whether regulations or statute to respond to the data that they were given

But do we really need to have reports and all this data given to the Department of Health for information to know, like, hey, the summers are warmer. This is a building that's been unrenovated since 1963, and the temperature is in the 90s, maybe we should put fans or air conditioning in it. Do we really need data collection and raising administrative burdens on counties in the city and DOH to make a recommendation that I would say is somewhat common sense, especially when it may only be an advisory opinion from DOH to the governor and the legislature saying, hey, take these issues seriously? So I'll just point out to the last debate that we just had with unsupervised visitation. And that, you know, my honored colleague was talking about putting in too much money for a program that, you know, maybe needed to be narrower. Here, we're identifying the narrower examples to know maybe it's in three libraries. Maybe there are pockets of the community that don't have access to a public facility. Maybe we're talking about, in the city I'm making this up, just the Bronx, where we need to put resources. So it'll enable us to put resources and tailor those resources to very specific areas so it'll be less costly to have a bigger impact. Is there an appropriation attached to this piece of legislation?

So I know in, I've seen press reports in New York City and I know in Monroe County and I'm sure in Westchester County as well that when the temperature does rise, local government or the county government is saying, hey, you know, temperatures are going to be dangerously high. We're setting up cooling centers. They're doing that already without having this data. So why would we need to submit all the data to DOH when counties may already be taking steps on their own to address some of these concerns?

Do we know whether or not the State Department of Health has the staff available or an office that would be able to effectively process this data, have the development of recommendations to send back to the legislature and work with the governor or the legislature to determine potential legislation? Does DOH have the ability to actually do something with this data?

Would entities that may be in need of capital investment, like colleges where heat may be hotter than it is in other places, be part of the recommendations for?

So is it exclusively deaths? Because isn't there, you know, because this is focused solely on heat-related deaths, but doesn't other heat-related incidents, dehydration, heat stroke, sunburn, don't those heat-related afflictions or solar-related afflictions also have an impact on overall public health. So why are we exclusively limiting the data to just heat-related dust when we know that it could be enhancing comorbidities that lead to-

Okay, fair enough. You like how I was advocating against the bill and I was like, let's make it bigger. Yeah, right. Just try to throw a curveball in there, Madam Chair. Thank you very much to the health chairwoman for answering my questions Thank you Madam Speaker Thank you

Madam Speaker, can you call on the codes committee to meet in the speaker's conference room? Codes committee members, please make your way to the speaker's conference room. codes committee to the speaker's conference room.

Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they can do so at their desk.

Mr. D.P.H. Trout to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think, just my opinion, but I hope I'm wrong, but I think there's going to be an increase in fatalities from heat this summer if it A if the climate if the heat that they predicting this summer stands true but also because most people it happening around the state they can't afford their electric bills which means there's gonna be a lot of people that aren't going to put on their air conditioners because they can't afford their electric bills from what has happened with the climate act so I'll be voting no and I'll be hope I'm wrong on my prediction and we'll find out in the fall thank you thank you mr. DPA true in

The bill is passed. Mr. Fall, for the purpose of an introduction. Thank you Madam Speaker On behalf of Member McMahon as part of the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence we are joined today by students from the SUNY Buffalo School of Law Family Violence and Women Right Clinic and their professors, Kelly O'Mell and Judith Olean. The students are Sandy Sparks, Allison Calendrio, Lennon Greco, Gabby Slowinski, Lily Leffer, Kaylin Lane, Skyler, Rabine, Gabby Baker, and Sarah Trikhoff. These students provide free legal representation to survivors of family violence in divorce and child support proceedings as part of their legal education. On behalf of Member McMahon, I'd like to thank them for the important work that they do, and if you could be so kind to welcome them to the People's House.

Ms. Cruz. Thank you, Madam Speaker. New York is a linguistically diverse state, and some New Yorkers are not fully proficient in the English language. In the criminal justice context, this becomes an issue when a New Yorker who is not fully proficient in English seeks to report a crime. How can a person who is not proficient in English relay facts of an evidentiary character to law enforcement officials if he, she, or they cannot speak or write English? The solution is rather simple. Require that law enforcement officials use qualified translators who can translate the deponent's accusations into English, and then require that these individuals submit affidavits affirming what they did as well as their qualifications. The proposed legislation would ensure that deponents have their allegations accurately translated by someone who is qualified to translate them, while also putting defendant on sufficient notice of the facts giving rise to factual allegations levied against them.

Will the sponsor yield for a few questions?

I will.

I reviewed the transcript of last year's debate, and I'm not embarrassed to admit that we missed the point. Okay? On our side. At least I did. So what I'd like to do is state that as a retired judge, I truly understand the intention and the need for this particular piece of legislation. My questioning will focus more on the implementation and the financial aspects, okay, and as to the degree that we can go forward. Would it be a fair statement to say the bill seems to address prior to engaging the court system, but ultimately those documents will form the basis of what the court and the judges have to look at when they go forward? That's correct. Okay. Do you envision the Office of Court Administration being involved on implementation? No. The time when the court administration is involved is at the time when the case would actually go to court, and there is already a process for all of that to happen. This is prior to. Okay. Have they been consulted on this, though? No. No. Do you envision any ability for them or need for them to be involved only because there is a process now where there are centralized interpreters that the courts can utilize telephonically? And this would seem to be something that could be dovetailed into and resolve the issue for those that are not proficient in the English language. Well, I mean, so a couple of things. There's already a system not just with the courts, but with other agencies and even localities to use a centralized interpreting system. But judging from past times that we've debated this bill, there are counties where those two may be one and the same. So there might be a need to have those conversations, but generally there's already a system in place in both the court system as well as outside of it. The difference is that in the court system, you are already, whether it's in front of a judge or signing, you're certifying that you are an interpreter qualified to interpret whatever conversation is happening. Outside of it, it's just providing the interpretation, but there is no requirement that you as an interpreter certify that what you're interpreting is accurate or that you're qualified to do so. Are you saying that there's no rule or that these interpreters would have to be certified? I'm trying to which degree and at what point. That's correct. So right now, a state agency, there is under the law, and before that it used to be an executive order, state agencies are required to provide interpretation up to I believe it's 12 languages and an additional four if they so chose, depending on the language need of their area. And so, for example, in Ithaca, for the Ithaca Police Department and in Tompkins County government, there's already policies in place saying, we are going to contract with these two particular entities to provide translation when someone comes in and needs it. The difference is that in those instances, there is no requirement that those interpreters sign or attest in any way that they're A, qualified, and B, that what they're interpreting is exactly what was related to them. So if there's no need or rule or legislation in place, then you could almost have anybody do this interpretation. So my question would be, would it not be more prudent? Because one of the issues we always have is, where is the money going to come from? And that's one of the issues why we're still here without a budget. Where is the money going to come from So my focus is more would there be any merit in at least looking to merit the two different systems so that we have a uniform interpretation system so that this would be utilized with the accuracy so that we do not have misinterpretation at the initial stages of involvement of the police and therefore the courts? So there is, the best way I can explain it is there is a centralized requirement. It comes via the language access plan that the state has. But there is not necessarily a centralized system because one is used by the courts. They might use the same interpretation company that is used by local county government or state agencies. I understand what you're saying. This bill has nothing to do with that, so I'm going to leave that perhaps for a side conversation that you and I can have about efficiency. I'll leave it at that. But it would just seem that moving in this direction, if we're going to protect the rights of both victims and defendants or the accused, dealing with those that are not proficient, that maybe the discussion could lead to that. For example, a centralized interpretation center that could be utilized both rural and courts within the city limits that they can call up on or do it visual so that there's uniformity in the interpretations. Because isn't it my understanding that this whole purpose is to administer justice in a fair manner to all parties, doing it in the most efficient? So you are correct that this is about ensuring justice and ensuring that whatever the deponent is saying to the police officer or where they're making the complaint, that it is translated so that they can, at the end of this, get justice. The conversation about efficiency, it's not contemplated by this bill. I understand what you're saying. But what this bill contemplates is the legal requirements so that whatever is being interpreted can then later be used in court. So let me ask you this as a hypothetical. You have a non-certified interpreter at the initial stages of an information, which then moves to an accusation or deposition. Okay. And at the court, once the court becomes involved, what if there's a difference between the interpretation of the court interpreter and the initial information which led to the allegation? How does that get resolved? Now you've got, you're not serving justice, it would seem. In your example, would it be before this bill passes or after the bill passes? Pardon? In your example, are you contemplating? After the bill passes. So in an instance like that, an individual, perhaps a friend or the sister or brother of the deponent who came with them, would be allowed to serve as an interpreter if it's an obscure language. For example, in many upstate counties, you might not have access to an interpretation system right away. there may be an issue getting access to someone, that person who making the interpretation would still have to sign an affidavit saying that what they interpreting is accurate and that they have knowledge of that particular language Does their bill take into consideration dialect differences from different areas of a particular country or a region? Because dialect differences can have different meanings. So that is where a centralized would possibly avoid that. So the bill takes into account the qualifications and certifying or self-certification by the interpreter that they are qualified to interpret that particular language. I would assume that if they're going to sign an affidavit that says that they are knowledgeable and they're doing so accurately, it would take that into account. Okay. But I don't think that addressed the issue of dialect differences within the same language. So the person who's interpreting it at the initial stages certifies that, yes, they are doing it accurately, but they also are not versed in all dialects. So there could be... We have no way to know that. Yeah. Well, I think that's why the bill prefers that it be certified interpreters because generally those type of individuals are trained on the dialect and the different interpretations of a particular word. The only way you would be able to use a family member is if it's an obscure language that there's no access to for an interpreter. But generally, that's why the bill opts to use a certified interpreter. And I apologize. I did ask this, and you may have answered it. Has there been any consideration of a centralized interpretation center that can be accessed 24 hours a day? Let's take rural counties. I have a very rural county, and I have a number of H-2A workers in the summer. Okay? And should they have a problem either as a complainant or as an accused, they're brought to a local criminal court, sometimes to the judge's house because the distance from the courthouse. So to facilitate that, there's no way they're going to have an interpreter at that point. That's why I asked, was there ever any consideration? It's not a trick question. It's like to have a centralized 24-hour accessible so that all of these rural courts can dispense justice for those that aren't proficient in the English language. The state language access plan already contemplates that and creates a hotline or a sort of centralized system. That would be a perfect way of assessing it, a hotline. It already exists. Pardon? It already exists. Yes. Has there been any discussion when the bill was coming together? There was no need to do that because it already exists. Well, where does it exist? You said the court system is different than what you're doing here. It exists in the court system, but this is different than that. So this has nothing to do with the actual system to access the interpreters because the New York State Language Access Plan already takes care of that. So there is a plan that began as an executive order and it's now law and already ensures that agencies have access to an interpretation system. Generally it two to three vendors per agency that they given whether it the police department the Department of Labor they can call those hotlines and are able to access those interpreters in this bill the only thing this bill does it contemplates the qualifications that an interpreter's putting forth in an affidavit so that that affidavit can then be used as part of a accusatory instrument. Okay, thank you. Oh yes, and requiring each law enforcement agency to do it. Because right now, it's a May situation. We want to say will or shall. Thank you.

On the bill.

As I stated initially, initially, I think the debate prior focused on a need, which I think was misguided, and we missed some of the points that could have been accomplished over the last year. It's not the need or the concept. What it is is the implementation. And I still fear that because of dialect differences, timing, justice courts in rural areas, that it should be focused more on adapting or opting into the state system and put together a system that has centralized access to it. Because the other side is going to be the economics to this. And as we stated, New York State right now is struggling to find ways to fund their budget. And this has been one of the reasons why there's no budget at this time. So I would suggest that, yes, we need this. Yes, it's good. Yes, it's different than the court system. But if we're going to start worrying more about those that do not have proficiency in the English language, that maybe we start looking to how do we accomplish it statewide with only one system that accomplishes all the needs. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor please yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes.

Good afternoon. Luckily, we did this same debate last year, same people, and I read through that. But I was only going to speak on the bill until you said something that was a little different. Because while my colleague from Niagara Falls mentioned mostly court proceedings and in court, I think last year you and I talked mostly about law enforcement out in the field. And you said, I remember last year I said, can't a trusted family member be the interpreter or translator? And last year I don't think you said they could. I don't remember. It's last year. Okay. So that was a concern, and that's the only reason I'm asking questions now is because you said that a, when I asked, you know, in a rural area it's hard to find somebody. Generally, a police officer is talking to a victim, and there's usually family members there. Would one of those family members suffice? So what the bill intends to do is that in an instance like that, the only time an officer should be using a family member is if the language, if they attempted to access interpretation, they couldn't because of a number of reasons. Language is not available, it's obscure, et cetera, et cetera. then they should be able to use a family member that's there who will still have to go through the process of attesting to the interpretation, and to their skill level in the language. Okay. And was there an incident or several or just one, something that happened where translation was lost and something bad happened to somebody? I mean, it happens all the time. I don't have one specific, but I could tell you it happens all the time. Okay. Thank you. Madam Speaker, on the bill?

So last year, I think we don't need to rehash everything, but without getting into detail, because it will dox somebody, but this situation happens time and time again. I have a big rural district. English is 99.9% of the people. When we do encounter somebody that does not speak English, it's mostly Spanish. And we get through that pretty well from Spanish speakers. But it's not exact. I mean, my high school Spanish is terrible. So we usually rely upon a family member. And we're talking supporting depositions here. And just so you know, at 2 o'clock in the morning, when two cops are at a bar fight, one is trying to talk to the victim. They don't speak English. Usually it's going to be Spanish. A family member stands there. These supporting depositions are taken on a cop's lap on a piece of paper using a pen. We're trying to get that supporting deposition done quickly because no victim incident is ever the same. We're trying to apprehend somebody. We're trying to prevent further damage from happening. We're trying to get a supporting deposition as a basis for probable cause to make an arrest. And if you waited 10 minutes, somebody now is 15 miles away. It just makes our job more difficult. I don't know what would really happen if we had to rely upon that supporting deposition to go through court. and if that weren't prima facie enough for the court as it is now, a lot of these cases would get thrown out basically on a technicality that it wasn't a certified translator. So I was happy to hear that in an urgent situation, a family member could do that, because we're all trying to get justice here. And it's not very often that the actor of a crime that caused damage, stole something, comes to us first and wants to confess. We have to rely upon victims of these. I'll be voting no just for the cumbersomeness of this and how it's going to impact rural law enforcement and metropolitan law enforcement. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

Thank you. Just a few questions about, or some questions about the implementation of this particular law. What types of accusatory instruments will this law apply to? I'm sorry, can you say that a little bit louder? Yeah. What types of accusatory instruments will this law apply to? Any that would be used to ensure Give me one second Oh you want I could read all of them All right An information a simplified information I just am I reading prosecutor info and misdemeanor Okay So it would apply to an indictment, an indictment order to reduce pursuant to subdivision one of section 210.20, a simplified information, a prosecutor's information, a superior court information, a misdemeanor complaint, or a felony complaint. Why would it apply to an indictment? If there was a deposition that occurred prior to getting to court, and there was no certified translation provided as it would in court, then it would apply. But in an indictment, there's a grand jury proceeding. And in that grand jury proceeding, if someone spoke another language besides English, there would be an interpreter, and that interpreter would have to be sworn. That's correct, yes. So why would this apply to an indictment? It would be for anything that was communicated prior to stepping into court. So this law would require, let's say misdemeanor information was filed in local court, and the facts that are relevant to this particular scenario occur. You'd have to go through this whole process in order to have a sufficient misdemeanor information, right? Yeah, correct. Right, and then you provide notice to the defendant that the case is going to go to grand jury, and once there's an indictment, you would have to go through this process again in county court or supreme court? You'd also have to ensure that the indictment is translated to the person's language. To the defendant's language? Both. Yeah, both. Where in the language of this bill, maybe I missed it, but where in the language of this bill does it require or does it say that the indictment needs to be converted to the defendant's primary language? Do you have it in front of you because I can point it? So it would be where it says notwithstanding any provision of the law to the contrary, where the factual allegations of the accusatory instrument and or any supporting deposition filed in connection with the instructions consist of statements made by the deponent to a public servant. So that section right there. That says deponent though, not the defendant. you're talking about this bill is about a witness who maybe speaks a different language. Yes. It's not about a defendant who speaks a different language. Sorry, maybe I misheard you, and I'm going to ask that either you speak a little bit louder or get closer because there's like noise around us, so I want to make sure that I'm hearing you as best possible. Okay. So just to be clear, is that better? Yes, much better. Just to be clear, this law, this proposed law, does not apply to an indictment. We said that it does, yes. Yeah, it does. Well, your bill is amending section 100.40. Well, no, no, no. It applies to making sure that we interpreting that information and that indictment for the defendant I sorry not for the defendant for the deponent Right but you amending Section 100 of the criminal procedure law which doesn't apply to indictments. It applies to local criminal court accusatory instruments. An indictment is not a local criminal court accusatory instrument. Hold your thought for one second. Hold that thought. We don't read it. I had to consult with counsel. We don't read it to not include an indictment. We read it to actually include it as it is also an accusatory instrument. Well, if you look at Section 100.40 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it's titled Local Criminal Court and Youth Part of the Superior Court Accusatory Instruments, semicolon, sufficiency on face, and it lists the instruments, an information, a simplified information, a prosecutor's information, a misdemeanor complaint or felony complaint. Those are the first four sections of that law. You're seeking to add a fifth section, which, and we'll get to how that applies to the other four sections here in a minute, but you're seeking to add a fifth section that does not seek to change the requirements for an indictment, because that's under a separate criminal procedure law section. What I'm looking at, we're going to have to, I guess, agree to disagree on that. Okay. All right. All right. So looking back at the language of the bill, this bill would require basically some extra steps for the filing of the accusatory instruments that are listed in that section. When will this actually be required? When will this happen, let's say? Well, let's take an example. It'll be a lot easier. The police file a misdemeanor alleging an assault, a misdemeanor assault. What are the facts or circumstances that are required under this bill for it to be sufficient on its face? The deponent would be someone whose primary language is not English, requires an interpreter, and an interpreter is provided. and the information that comes out, and when I mean information, I don't mean the document, the facts that come out, lead the police to think that a crime has occurred and to then take the next steps. If that's part of the example that you are putting forward, then in an instance like that, you would need the deponent's statement to be accompanied by a certification from the interpreter. And there's two ways that it can be done. It's either a statement provided in the language of the deponent along with a translation and a statement that says it's accurately translated, or the statement completely in English with a certification that says this has been translated from the deponent original language and I am a certified interpreter to do so So to use my colleague example just to make this easy you have a bar fight let say between John and Paul And the police show up, they take a deposition from Paul, who's, let's say, the victim in this particular circumstance, and they file an accusatory instrument charging John with assault. at what point does that accusatory instrument get challenged to if, let's say, Paul's primary language was not English? At what point does that mean? So let's walk the example back. When the police show up, they determine that John or Paul do not speak English or well enough to be able to communicate with them. The majority of police departments have an I speak card. and the majority of police departments already have a system in place to be able, or an interpretation system contracted to be able to call. They call, someone picks up, and then they're able to relay the facts, and that factual information is then used by the police to file charges, not to file charges, I'm sorry, to then arrest someone, and that could result in a misdemeanor, et cetera, et cetera, at the point where they decide that there's factual information that could lead them to think that a crime has occurred, that interpreter, I would guess that what should happen is that interpreter is then informed that they need to submit a document showing their qualifications, et cetera, et cetera, or the two statements that I gave you, a translated statement or a statement in English and certification of the qualifications of the interpreter. So if the police show up in this scenario and Paul says to them, that guy punched me in the face, and they take that down, they write it down on a supporting deposition, Paul signs it, and they file, the police file an assault third in the local criminal court, then John's attorney, and John finds out, John's attorney finds out that Paul's primary language is not English. John's attorney can move to dismiss the complaint. It's what's happening now a lot of the times. It's actually one of the basis, an accurate interpretation is actually often the basis for appeal. Whether the appeal succeeds or not is a whole different conversation, but it's often now, and what we're trying to do is make sure that we are avoiding that basis for appeal by creating a system where it happens basically automatically. So what if that exact same scenario occurs, but the police also get a witness from somebody else whose primary language is English, and they have it on the bar camera that John punched Paul, Can the defense attorney still move to dismiss for lack of sufficiency? If the police are using this additional witness's statement as part of the facts for the accusatory instrument, and they failed to get a certification or an interpreter, then yes. The answer is yes. Okay. Okay. And just to be clear, in the language of this bill, there is no definition of interpreter. Is that correct? That's correct. So anyone who sufficiently speaks that language could be used as an interpreter? Okay. Under the language of this bill? That is contemplated by the language access law and plans of the state. That's a completely different section. Where who is a certified and not a certified interpreter and is used for the purposes of meeting the requirements of state agencies and city agencies. That's a separate section. But this doesn't reference those laws, right? references someone being able to certify that they're an interpreter. I think the part that is often missed is that a lot of this is already happening. The only piece that's missing is that certification. Because a lot of agencies, a lot of law enforcement agencies are already using many of the phone line

So I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of this bill. I think that if the police are going to file charges, they should be accurate in the allegations. And when I speak to the police or when I did speak to the police in my former career, I know that many of them, if not all of them, wanted to do that. I think that this bill lacks some definitions that would make it a little bit clearer and easier to implement. And I think one of the major problems we have in the criminal justice system right now in the state of New York is a lot of confusing laws that don't actually work. And this, I think, will be another one of them. I'm a little bit concerned that the sponsor's interpretation of this bill includes indictments, when the language of this bill does not include indictments, and the section that's referenced also does not include indictments. An indictment is a completely separate proceeding that has its own safeguards in place, and if it's part of this legislative record that indictments are included, it's going to create a lot of confusion across the state of New York. So for all of these reasons, I would ask all of my colleagues to please vote no on this bill, and I will be voting no as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a couple of questions? Of course, Mr. Riley.

Thank you so much. So the question I have is, let's put this into a real-world context before it reaches the courts. Yes. Say a police officer or another law enforcement officer respond to a scene, and they're interviewing someone, and this officer speaks Spanish, but English is his primary. And there's a spontaneous utterance by one of the individuals. And the individual, his primary language is Spanish. He creates a spontaneous utterance admitting to a crime in Spanish. The officer now places that individual under arrest. When the accusatory instrument is drawn up by the district attorney's office, will that officer have to be a qualified interpreter under this bill? So in your example Mr Riley would the excited utterance be used as the basis to arrest the individual It would be included in the accusatory instrument So in that instance, and I'm gonna use actually a statement by one of your colleagues, I think it would be in the interest of justice in this bill would want it to be an independent interpreter that then is able to certify that statement. The reason why, especially in Spanish, he might understand it, but as we heard one of your colleagues earlier, there's different dialects. In Spanish, one word can mean five different things depending on the country, and so we would want to make sure in the interest of justice that the person has their statement interpreted by someone who is certified so that six months later the case isn't thrown out. So if there's a shooting and the police are involved in the shooting and now they step in, nobody's hit. And they step in and it's the person that was shooting at them and they were shooting at each other. And the police move in. Nobody got hit. And they move in. They apprehend the suspect. They place him in handcuffs. And he says, I was looking to kill you. And he says it in Spanish. And there's a Spanish speaking officer that's there. cannot be used in the accusatory instrument. Mr. Riley, if I also remember correctly, in an instance like that, the arrest is also occurring because the officers themselves viewed the crime in progress, correct? Yes, but I'm going to... But they are going to use a spontaneous utterance that that individual implicated themselves. According to this legislation, if this is passed and signed into law, defense attorneys would be able to throw that out immediately because of this. Is that correct? Sorry, someone's phone went off. This bill doesn't contemplate allowing that case to be thrown out. I suspect that there are going to be times when something like that could happen, and there's other protections in the law to ensure that that case is not thrown out. Now, I also suspect that after the person says that, you're going to proceed to arrest them, you're going to proceed to question them. The excited utterance piece aside, anything that they say to you after should be through an interpreter that then gets certified, etc., etc. So we're not contemplating here allowing that excited utterance not to be used in court. But if it's interpreted by the police officer who speaks Spanish and English, but they're not a certified interpreter, it automatically will be thrown out according to this legislation, correct? The spontaneous utterance by itself. We're not changing that process. But you are if you're asking for the initial complaint to be filed, the accusatory instrument. Spontaneous utterances are often used in the initial complaint where it rises to probable cause. So I want, if that's the case, this legislation would say that, it would allow them to say that the police officer is not a certified interpreter and therefore it would jeopardize that, correct? So no not correct There two ways to look at this The first one again I will repeat we are not contemplating changing the instances where a police officer would be able to use an excited utterance translated or not to begin that process of questioning arresting etc I suspect that at some point in that interaction with the suspect, the officer would continue to question them about everything else that happened. That continued to question and process would then have to be translated through an interpreter, certified, etc. I'm going to check with counsel for one thing. Okay. It also occurs to me that in the same way that a family member with an obscure language in a small town in upstate New York would be able to certify, I understand the language and I actually can interpret them, there's going to be an opportunity for the officer to be able to do the same thing. But if they're not certified, would that be an issue? So one of the things that I explained earlier to your colleague is that the bill contemplates and prefers that it be someone who is certified and can attest to their ability to interpret. But we also know that there are thousands of languages spoken in our country, and if it's an obscure language and there's no access to interpretation other than the cousin, for example, then that cousin would have to say, I am translating this to the best of my ability, I'm capable of translating it, I understand the language, and here's what it would say. So I would argue that in an instance like that an officer could conceivably say, I'm not certified, but I am capable of understanding it and be able to sign off on that as well. So to preserve the legislative record here, so if an officer who speaks that language says that they heard the spontaneous utterance in that person's primary language and they're able to interpret it and it should be abstain, it should survive any challenge in court. This bill is not changing that process. So what would, the clear answer I'm asking for is would this stop? I know what you're asking me to do in my answer is this This bill is not changing that process. Okay. So let's shift gears a little bit. What if there's a dying declaration? Police officer shows up on the scene. Someone got shot. They speak Spanish. This officer speaks English and Spanish. And the person dying says, so-and-so shot me and killed me. They said it in Spanish. Now, you can't get that interpreted because at that time, maybe he succumbs to his injuries and dies. what same scenario goes to court, they use that, they make an arrest, someone's charged with the murder, what would happen? This bill's not changing that process. So the officer taking in that information, it would be fine. And it would be an accusatory instrument and survive. Again, Mr. Riley, I know what you're asking me and I know what you're trying to get out of me, and I'm telling you this bill's not changing that process. I'm going to be honest with you. The only thing I'm trying to get at is to make sure that the way it's written on paper but translate to the street the way it should be. Thank you. Thank you.

So as you can tell, there's a lot of ambiguity here. And just the sheer fact that there's a possibility that the outcome of everyone receiving fair justice I just explained how this bill can interfere with from the inception of filing an accusatory instrument. So on its face, prosecutors may not be able to file that accusatory instrument because the police officer or law enforcement officer that responded and speaks that language as well, but is not a certified interpreter, it would be thrown out. It wouldn't even reach the courtroom. That's the concern that I'm trying to raise. And those situations, the dying declaration, the spontaneous utterance, those are real-life cases. And I say it all the time when we're discussing these bills. The things that are on paper do not transition to the streets or to the courtroom the way you think they will. It's time to slow down and actually make sure that what we want to achieve in this body lands the way it's supposed to. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

So a lot has been said on this floor today. I want to make sure that folks understand the only thing that this bill is doing is adding a certification for a process that already exists. There's many state agencies, localities, including, as I mentioned before, the Ithaca Police Department and Tompkins County government, also New York City, and many other police departments, state agencies, city agencies have an interpretation system. They have it because it's the law. The law says you have to provide interpretation in the top 12 languages of your locality. You can choose up to four more. There's already money allocated to it. There's already contracts entered into. And so all of this bill does is say if you are going to use the factual information you receive from a deponent, whether it's in a bar fight, whether it's because they came into the police department, or you call them to your home, if whatever information that person is giving you is going to result in an accusatory instrument that could then lead later to an indictment because information is taken from the individual, then that information has to be not only translated, but accompanied with a document that says that the person who made the translation slash interpretation not only is capable of doing them, that sometimes can mean that it's someone who is certified, and that sometimes can mean that it's someone in a small county where they didn't unfortunately have access to an interpreter in that particular language that has the knowledge of it. It's ludicrous to argue in a state like ours that Spanish would be one of those languages because I am telling you, if you call a hotline, that is the top language that is available. So there should never be an instance where that is what happens when the language is Spanish. If you have a language that, unfortunately, sometimes it takes a week to get access to an interpreter, you of course don't want to wait. We don't want law enforcement to wait. and hear and hear arguments that the reason we may not want this bill is because it could lead to injustice, what greater injustice than someone going to the police, making an accusation, and often it takes victims a long time to come forward to go and actually speak to law enforcement, especially now when there's a lot of people who are scared of law enforcement. and that because we fail to get a small piece of paper, a certification, again, through a system that is already in place and being paid for, the case gets thrown out. What kind of justice is that? We don't want that to be the justice that New Yorkers see because like it or not, whether they speak the language or not, these are New Yorkers. These are people that live in our community that are paying taxes, that are contributing, and that if they are victims of a crime, speaking a different language, should not be the reason why they don't see justice. And I would argue for my colleagues in law enforcement on the other side of the aisle, whether they were former prosecutors or former police officers or judges, that they should agree. We should want whatever document leads to an indictment, whatever document leads to somebody being charged, whatever document leads to justice, should be as accurate as possible. Because the last thing any of us should want is someone who committed a crime going free. The last thing any of us should want is someone who is a victim not getting justice simply because their language was inconvenient to get in a hotline. A hotline that again, I will repeat, it is already in place, it is already being paid for, and it is already functioning and being used by many of your counties. There's no reason why we should be afraid to simply get a little piece of document that leads to ensuring that that person who committed a crime, if they did in fact commit the crime sees the inside of a courtroom and gets the justice for the victim that they deserve. And so all I'm asking is for us to vote in favor of a law that simply says if someone doesn't speak the language, they should get the same opportunity as the rest of us when they come forward to seek justice. Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will support this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they can do so at their desk.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. So the intent, I understand, it's a noble intent. The problem is the practicality. Now, what was just mentioned about being able to call up and get an interpretation, and yes, Spanish is one of those languages that there's always an interpreter on the phone, but the idea that a spontaneous utterance to a police officer could possibly not be included in a document that starts the case off by an accusatory instrument Just the explanation was expressed that well they could call up and get it interpreted That's the problem. Reality and what we have on this paper. We can fix it. You could put a line in there that excludes that. Hopefully the governor is listening. And if it comes before her desk and she signs it, we will do a chapter amendment. Otherwise, it's a slippery slope. I will be voting in a negative. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The bill establishes response requirements to billing complaints made by consumers and expands complaint handling procedure requirements to commercial entities

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

Yes, of course.

Thank you, Mr. Denowitz. Surprised to see me?

It's good to see you, though. A few questions. The governor vetoed this bill a couple years ago. She cited a few different things. One, that it would create a significant increased workload for the commission staff and result in increased expenses to the state. She talked about taking away the discretion from the PSC. Did your bill do anything to address the vetoes that the governor made?

Okay. Thank you. If the PSC wanted to implement the changes you have in this bill, they believed it was necessary, they didn't necessarily, they can go through a proceeding and implement that, correct?

Yes, sure. If the PSC, who has the authority handling complaint matters and things of that nature, if they wanted to take up the language in this bill and implement it on their own because they believed it was necessary to address a problem, they could do that now, correct?

Okay. When we talked about the other area I wanted to talk about, the old bill, if I correctly, had a 90-day, like a come-do-a-decision-with-90-days, but that was removed from this legislation. Is that correct?

How come we removed that 90-day period of time to give them that time to do the investigation and come up with the decision if that was what the PSC used to tell?

Sure we are.

Okay. And just to be clear, this bill would include all utilities, gas, steam, electric, correct?

Okay. And it's my understanding, even though this bill focuses on billing complaints, it would also cover any other complaints, even non-billing issues. Is that correct?

I agree. I mean definitely the people we represent are complaining about their bills, no question about it. This legislation would also broaden the scope to include not just residential but commercial as well, is that correct?

I understand. And from your perspective, this bill is necessary because the PSC has failed to enforce the existing complaint procedures, statute, and process they have in place now?

So there's a time frame of 15 days. So walk me through what would be the process. Is this kind of accurate? An individual would file a complaint with the PSC. The PSC takes it. They send it to the utility. the utility would respond to it, then the utility would do an internal investigation or the PSC does the internal investigation and then sends it back to the PSC. How would that work?

Yeah, I mean, they both have a role in doing that.

It's 15 business days, by the way, which is longer than 15 days. Sure, I agree.

Let me check.

And the utility required to provide, what would the utility, I guess, for me they have to provide documentation and our written interpretation of what the investigation is.

Okay, if you say so. I do. I know you do. If the question is, when an investigation takes place, is it 15 days from the time it was filed or when the investigation is complete?

Okay, now does that include the appeal process also? The what process?

So if you told it, I remember you said that PSA has discretion to deal with appeals. I know in the past, when we had this conversation, you had mentioned that they would still have to provide the written report, even though it would still be going through the legal process of an appeal process. Does this mean now the appeal process would have to be part of that completion, or does that report have to be filed before the appeal process finishes? Because it's not ultimately finished until the appeal process has worked its way through.

What there to appeal from So I understand that but I just saying there be a report and then there could be an appeal of that report So you have to have that report before the appeal takes place

Is that accurate?

So ultimately, any complaint would lead to an investigation. Is that correct?

Like sometimes right now, a lot of times the PSC, if a complaint comes in, the utility would call and communicate with that constituent or that person via phone call and do that. That's not allowed anymore under this case. If they were able to solve it with a phone call by saying, hey, Ms. Walsh, here's your problem. Here's our response back. Now they would have to provide a written communication to whoever that person is. Is that correct?

I don't know about you, but if I was complaining and following a complaint, I would want a written response. I would want evidence, basically. I want to see it for myself. I don't just want a phone call from some nameless person who we may not even be able to track down. So a written response, I think, is something which I think all of our constituents would want.

If that would satisfy it, wouldn't that be enough? But then if they're not happy with that response, then there could be the appeal from the appeal, right?

I really don't think it's asking too much for a consumer who's questioning a bill to get a written response. What's so hard?

I understand where you're coming from. And I'm sure you agree with me.

So from reading the bill, it does seem a bit vague on when the investigation that triggers a report to the customer occurs. For example, let's say if a utility is required to provide materials or documentation, is that considered an investigation? Just from my perspective, it seems like there's an ambiguity between the investigation and documentation. Do you not agree or no?

I have the bill right here. Yep.

So is the documentation?

I'm sorry, I'm looking at line 16, section 43, line 16, where after you took out.

That's not vague. Well, I'm just saying, is the investigation a documentation or is it both?

Shall be in writing, provide all supporting documentation. Okay. Does the bill in here clearly outline what the investigation consists of and when it shall be considered over?

The documentation in 15 days. If the consumer is complaining about a bill,

Sure. So is it your position that this bill doesn't duplicate some of the process we already have in place, right? Because obviously you're doing this bill because you think there needs to be changes.

All right. Since obviously this involves a PSC, have you had any consultation with the PSC to discuss this, to see if it's necessary or beneficial to the process? Have they been able to communicate on that with you?

Relating to the penalty structure, right now the PSC already has the authority to levy penalties against utilities if they don't file a timely response, correct?

Okay, so in that note, I mean, and we talked about how the PSC, you said the PSC has discretion now to deal with appeals Do they have will the PSC have discretion in the application of a penalty to account for if there are extenuating circumstances that the utility might have and not answering on a timely basis Will the PSC have discretion in dealing with that penalty, or is it basically by the book what it says?

I believe that. As individuals, that's what we have to do.

I understand that. Deadlines are good for some people, but not good for others. My question is, this can also apply to municipalities, is that correct?

And is there any concern from your perspective that this really, with having to respond so quickly, that they're going to prioritize speed over the legitimacy of the complaints? and keep it in mind again because these effects are municipalities.

Okay. Do you think that, and I know your perspective is it's not going to propose more of a burden on utilities or on the PSC, but obviously there's going to be something involved in this. Are you concerned that requiring more written notification on every single complaint for a billing issue or a non-billing issue? Because as you said, it could be for non-billing issues, but you didn't think it would happen for that, but any complaint could happen. So these are costs that the utility is going to incur. Then those are costs they're going to try to recoup. So isn't it true that this could obviously be put back on the rate payer to pay additional utility costs on top of it to pay for this additional requirements? even the governor said is not necessary.

I hope that I know on a lot of bills there's a party vote and everything, but I would hope on something when it comes to utility rates and utility bills that we would all be together on this, and I would hope the governor would as well.

Not against them, they're just not my primary concern. No, I understand that. And I guess on that point, the more mandates

Are you diverging from this bill right now?

People are complaining. We're about billing complaints. People are complaining about the utility bill. So it's all relevant and germane, I would think,

I'm not diverting at all. I don't believe. But I think it sounds like a diversion to me.

It just sounds like an issue you really don't want to discuss.

can you really explain how this bill will actually lead to energy affordability and reliability goals?

Sure. Given the fact that there's going to be increased responsibilities, documentation requirements, Can you say how this bill is actually going to help lead to a broader energy affordability and reliability goals that are required to be mounted?

Okay.

All right, Mr. Dinowitz, I do appreciate your time as always.

On the bill.

When we talk about complaints, our utility bills, the assessments, the taxes, fees, assessments, our NYSERDA, who put out that memo, is sitting on over $2.4 billion in ratepayer funds right now that they've collected from our ratepayers to pay for these green energy mandates. Why aren't we providing direct ratepayer relief right now? Just a couple weeks ago, we passed a bill from my colleague that would allow NYSERDA to rebate back to people if they buy an electric or businesses, they buy an electric lawnmower, an electric weed whacker, subsidized by the rate payer. If you talk to your rate payers, you ask them, do you want your utility bill to go up more to pay for someone's electric lawnmower or electric weed whacker? They're going to say, no, I want direct rate payer relief right now. That $2.4 billion has been sitting there in their coffers. They can relieve and provide that relief right now. Our taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges, which can make, in some cases, more than 20% of our utility bill to pay for green programs, we should be suspending that. You know, with this budget debate that we're talking about, I know the climate actions are being talked about. These are things we can do as part of this budget to provide direct repayment right now. Again, those taxes, fees, and assessments add up to 20% of the bill sometimes. Let's suspend that for a while. We don't need more taxes, fees, and assessments. Let's give that direct ratepayer relief right now. It just seems one thing after another. And then just, it's all part of misplaced priorities. I understand what the sponsor's trying to do. I'm delving, talking about complaints about billing. And then, you know, we have legislation also that was introduced recently that would allow for individuals who aren't getting paid because of the state budget to not have to pay their utility bill and not have to pay fees, and the only ones who are not getting paid is the legislature. So that just seems kind of out of touch with what's going on. Our constituents are facing back at home how a piece of legislation like that gets introduced to help us out when the people we're serving back at home are to the brink with these rising utility costs that are hurting them each and every day because of the policies that have been implemented in this house. The governor and others may say we're all the above approach or affordable energy, but the policies don't match the words. All you have to do is look at the list of policies that have been implemented since the CLCPA. All electric buildings all electric school bus cap and invest act regulation advanced clean car regulation One thing after another This is causing a big problem for our families our seniors our veterans individuals on fixed incomes and our business community And when you talk about our business community, I know businesses are now a part of this complaint process. When you talk about energy costs, they care about two things, affordable and reliable. And if they can't get affordable and reliable energy here in New York State, they are going to go elsewhere as they are already doing. So based on the points I've raised and other issues, I will be voting in the negative on this bill. And I urge some of my colleagues to join me in that. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but if there are yes votes to be cast, you may do so now at your seats. Thank you.

The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 98, nos 38. The bill is passed. Mr. Fall.

Thank you. Page 12, calendar number 67. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1748, calendar 67, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the public buildings law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Rosenthal.

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

Sponsor yields.

So am I.

Sure. Just one second. Okay. Yeah, we didn't change the definition. We changed the effective date.

Yes, there are 22 facilities.

Okay. Now does that list of 22,

It is, it is not meant for buildings that are closed to the public.

I don't know, but we don't ask how much toilet paper costs. We don't ask how much soap costs. We don't ask how much towels costs. And, you know, women who have their monthly bleed need pads and tampons and liners and whatever it is that they need to cope with a biological need.

I'm not saying that, but I'm also saying that we voted some years ago to provide free menstrual products in shelters, correctional settings, and in schools, grades 6 through 12, throughout the state. So this is just conforming the 22 public buildings managed by OGS to the rest of the law concerning menstrual products.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. 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 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes, 136. Noes, 0. The bill is passed. Page 14, calendar number 77. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1994, calendar 77. Mr. Colton, an act to amend the vehicle and traffic law. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Colton.

Thank you, Mr. Colton. On the bill? On the bell.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Dersow.

Quiet, please, ladies and gentlemen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Fall.

The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results.

The bill is passed. Mr. Fall.

We do have a piece of housekeeping on a motion by Ms. Kellis, page 29, calendar number 224, bill number A9047A. 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.

Opposed. No, the resolutions are adopted. Mr. Fall.

Ms. Clark for the purpose of an announcement.

Majority conference immediately following session. Majority conference immediately following session in the speakers conference room. Mr. Fall.

10.30 tomorrow. Thank you. On Mr. Falls' motion, the House stands adjourned.