Assembly Live Stream (partial)

of the votes. Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. The bill is passed. Ms. Lumford. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're going to turn our attention to Rules Report number 332 by Ms. Rosenthal.

Ms. Rosenthal?

Ms. Walsh?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. So back a couple of years ago, right, the free menstrual products were required at public colleges and universities, right?

And now this is being expanded to include private colleges and universities?

Okay. And who's ultimately going to pay for these free products?

Okay. So if colleges have to provide them, won't the cost just be passed on through higher tuition or fees or room and board or something like that?

So, but why should private institutions that aren't currently doing this absorb a state-mandated expense without any state funding?

No, I definitely remember all of those bills because I think you and I have spoken about all of them.

I can't wait to welcome more women on my side of the aisle so that we can spread the wealth on some of these bills. I just think that if access to menstrual products is a public health responsibility of the state, why is the bill requiring private colleges to fund and administer the program rather than having the state provide the funding? Why are we making the private universities and colleges pay for it?

Sorry?

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

And I think on that previous bill that you mentioned as well with private lower grade schools as well.

They're necessities, you're saying. But what evidence shows that the lack of menstrual products is a widespread barrier to attendance or academic success at private colleges? Isn't that the argument that you've made for doing it? So what evidence do you have of that?

Yeah. Okay. So, but 40 haven't done it.

Would targeted assistance for students in need be more effective than providing products universally?

Well, if the state can require and is requiring free menstrual products, what prevents future mandates for other personal hygiene items?

I mean, but the whole philosophy, I think, or the whole argument that you've made over all of these bills has been that if women do not have available menstrual products because of being unable to afford them, then they will not attend class, that there will be chronic absenteeism, they will suffer in terms of their academic performance. I mean, that's the argument that you've made again and again. But you think that for private colleges and institutions, can you point to any data showing that that's the case? I mean, for you to just say, well, 60 colleges out of 100 are already doing it, so there must be a need. That's basically what you've offered tonight.

We don't know.

Having to worry about if they're at school, attending class, and need a product, they don't have to worry that it's there. But my question is, if we mandate, if we have toilet paper, which everyone expects in a bathroom, if we have soap and paper towels or an air dryer, why should half the population not have access to biologically necessary menstrual products?

So does this bill, though, require that menstrual products be available at men's only colleges?

Men's only colleges.

So therefore, if it doesn't speak to it, it would?

But I think all of this is beside the point, and I don't understand why it would be so onerous when more than half the private colleges already provide this, which is a necessary product for so many girls and women. There's also faculty, visitors.

You know what? They use the same bathroom. So if they go to the bathroom, oh, my goodness, I got my period, I need a product, it'll be there.

I see it as a basic need. Apparently, you have a different point of view. However, we have already said that private schools in grades 6 through 12 have to have it available. We've said that private shelters have to have it available. We've said that charter schools have to have it available. I do not understand why we would omit this sector as well.

Okay. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Rosenthal.

On the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Yeager.

Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yields.

None of the other laws that we passed specified.

Well, first of all, there's no renovation cost. Secondly, we have not specified in any of the other laws. This parallels them. You know, I've never heard a concern from any of the private locations that we've mandated carry products for women who have their period that object to the cost. It is a courtesy. It is for ensuring that women and girls have the products they need when they need them. it is a pillar of women's rights that women have access to products that they need.

Well, I'm glad you recognize that.

And that wasn't the question.

On the bill.

Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Rosenthal, to explain her vote.

Ms. Rosenthal in the affirmative. Mr. Yeager to explain his vote.

Mr. Yeager in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 129, nays 11. The bill is passed. Ms. Lamford for the announcement.

Could you please recognize Ms. Clark for an announcement?

Majority Conference in the Speaker's Conference Room. Majority conference in the speaker's conference room. Ms. Lumsford.

The chamber is at ease. On a motion by Ms. Lumsford, the House is at ease.

Madam Speaker, could you please call the House back to order? The House will come to order. Ms. Lunsford.

Thank you. On the A calendar, page 12, Rules Report 376, Clerk will read. Assembly number 11360, Rules Report 376, Committee on Rules, Ms. Lee, an act to amend the general business law.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yield.

Thank you.

Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Lee to explain her vote.

Ms. Lee in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0. The bill is passed on the main calendar, page 29, calendar number 224. Clerk will read. Assembly number 9047B, calendar 224, Ms. Callas, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

Madam Speaker, would the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yield.

Ms. Walsh.

Of course. The sponsor yields.

So actually, there are already existing alternatives that are cost competitive. I'll first note that it's prospective. Secondly, there are, as I said, materials that are cost competitive at the same price. But I will note, and it's really important to make this distinction, you can buy something that is cheap but lasts five years, or you could buy something that is cost competitive, It might be more expensive, but lasts 20 years. And I would ask that's perspective. It might be that many people would consider the latter less expensive, ultimately, on the family's budget.

I know that it is an issue. I don't know as a percent.

Yeah, so I do because I live on a lake, and it is an issue because we find them. So if you have unencapsulated foam docks, you will see. I was just having a conversation with one of our colleagues who, if you, I know this as a kid, floating around, swimming around, you will see those white pellets that are in the water. Those are the plastics that we're talking about, and they are highly toxic to wildlife. So, you know, there's two issues. One is the actual percent as a volume. The other is what is the magnitude of the harm. and these are particularly harmful. They also build up. So you'll have animals like the fish that are consuming them or birds. that are consuming them, especially if they're floating on the surface of water, that are extremely harmful and they'll build up in their gullets because they don't break down, ultimately killing them.

Well, it would be both, of course. If you depend on the fish for your family because you fish in that lake, which many people do in my district, then it would be both humans and wildlife. Not only do you have the foam material, like that's what we think of, but those foam materials have breakdown into plastic and then microplastic. As you've probably read, some of the scientific articles that have come out with microplastics, humans now have them in our brain. That was the most recent one that came out a couple years ago. They are associated with increased risk of, for example, infertility. We have seen miscarriage, significant high increased risk of. So if we want to talk about the health implications, I mean, in the ideal world, we wouldn't have any. If you've got even a couple percentage because they build up, because it is plastic and plastic doesn't break down to nothing, that is the consequence, and it is bioaccumulative.

Well, I mean, I don't have right in front of me data, but not having this particular type of plastic breakdown, yes, absolutely does. And I'm happy to, after this debate, to give you some of that scientific information.

Well, I mean, I live on a reservoir, so we have docks. Even more of a problem. Yeah, well, we have docks that my dad built ours with tires so that we could roll it in and out of the lake. And, you know, a lot of them were pretty jerry-rigged, as I remember growing up.

Well, that's the question, though, is, I mean, I think that that's why we're here as a government. When we find that something is very toxic to both wildlife and to humans, it's our job and our responsibility to make sure that we protect the public health of the population. So since there is such tremendous scientific information on this, you'll see that in states this is something that is becoming more and more common, but that's our job.

Correct.

Well, it is because it is a low-cost upfront. It really depends on the area. It depends on the marketing. But it is common. But the fact that there are alternatives that are cost-competitive and the superior materials although they might be a bit more expensive like or but last 20 years I think that is a superior product overall cost as well

You're talking about if someone already has a dock right now and they have materials and they want to replace it, then they just replace it.

I'm sorry. Are you saying, are there any requirements or regulations or restrictions on the disposal?

Well, you would have to remove it from the water to remove the material. Oh, yeah. So, you know, the consideration or the concern is that it would be getting into the water.

I would be happy to work on that bill with you next year.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

This act shall take effect on the 730th day.

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

Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0.

Assembly number 6292A, calendar 290, Mr. Jacobson, an act to amend the labor law. On a motion by Mr. Jacobson, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill will increase the transparency of the availability of jobs by requiring private sector employers with 100 or more employees to disclose if and when hiring will occur in all advertisements and postings for jobs. These specific disclosures are provided in the bill. These requirements would only apply to private sector employers and not to public employers. The requirements would also apply to third-party postings of jobs. Once the job is filled, the advertisement or posting must be taken down within two weeks. The bill provides for penalties of violations of this bill. The Department of Labor will have the authority to enforce the provisions, and there are also penalties.

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

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. So going through the bill, it's saying the employer has to post if it intends to fill the position within 90 days or less. So that's one portion of it. So if an employer is advertising for a job and they intend to fill that position within three months, they have to state that, correct?

Okay. So now, for example, if the employer fills that position in two weeks, what do they need to do then so that they're not in violation of the law?

Or the advertisement. So now what was to happen if they are doing a recurring advertisement, something that they paid for, a newsletter, an online publication, as you said, a third-party vendor? Maybe they paid for a newspaper in advance, some other type of publication that maybe only comes out once a month. Are they entitled to get their money back that they paid up front to have those things printed?

Okay. So just sticking with this, because there's a couple of pieces I want to go through. So if an employer intends to fill it within 90 days, they have to say that, correct? This job is to be intended to be filled within the next 90 days. Also, if it was to be filled within 60 days, they have to list that also, correct?

Okay. And then if an employer was looking to collect resumes for a future job or future positions, they obviously have to state that, correct?

Okay. So now to circle back to the having two weeks to take it down. So again, like I said, if you are paying in advance for a publication, if it's, like I said, a newsletter, if you're paying a local VFW hall, anybody that posted up in one of their job boards, anything like that, a local legislator. I mean, we share job postings all the time, whether it's for the police departments, for unions, for private entities. But now it runs on my social media consistently. I mean, it's there. You could find it forever. So my question is, are those entities responsible for taking it down also?

and I hear nothing because it doesn't exist. Then that applicant will likely turn to the Department of Labor.

So you're thinking it's the applicant that should be going to the Department of Labor to essentially file a complaint. Yeah.

So in other words, if a applicant that doesn't get chosen for a job and is angry. So if the let's say an applicant, let's say I go in, I'm applying for a job and I don't get it. Right. And then I noticed that a third party entity or somebody else still has that job posting up. They told me they filled the position. I now make a complaint. And this could be a small mom and pop shop. This doesn't discriminate, right, as far as private industry goes. This could be a deli. This could be a restaurant. This could be anything. This could have three employees or 100 employees, correct?

Well, the employer has to have 100 or more employees.

Okay. Okay. That's good. That's something I didn't know about. So now it's...

I appreciate that, Mr. Jacobs. That's something that we've discussed before. But I do have one other problem that I want to circle back to. Sure. Why is this only for private industry? New York State, local municipalities, towns, villages have thousands upon thousands of jobs. And all we talk about is retainment and recruitment. All we talk about is advertising and spending taxpayer money on jobs that never get filled, ever. And we know that because we know, you can ask our local private sector unions, we talked about them in hearings. We do not hire enough people, starting with the Department of Labor, by the way, who's going to be checking into this, who's not going to be able to because they don't have enough employees. New York State has open vacancies. Towns, municipalities, local villages, counties have open vacancies that we all talk about. But they are not required to post the same way a private business does. Why is that? Why are we letting off the state and local governments who are saying they have jobs, who are required to fill those jobs and are not? Why are they not getting fined, but small businesses are?

Well, why not do it in this one? We're doing this one now.

Well, I understand that the portion of it that you're trying to stop of them advertising the jobs that don't exist. That I agree with.

I'm talking about the jobs that do exist. Right. Because there are employers that are going to fall into this that are hiring people in industry where the job does exist, but they hire someone quicker than they may have expected.

They don't find a candidate that fits the role. We could drive down the throughway We could drive through on 17 over here and we see advertisement billboards all over the place work in New York jobs for New York state jobs, right? We see them all the time, but the state and local municipalities are not held to the same standard that private businesses are. Why? We know there's jobs there. I could go online right now and find probably 500 jobs just off the top of my head that are in local government, but we're not requiring them to do the same things that we're requiring small businesses to do. Oh, and by the way, we're going to fine them $2,500 to $5,000 for each and every instance that they do not adhere to this new law. So why are we not holding ourselves, which are the state lawmakers, to the same account?

Understood. So you're saying we don't, so a private industry is going to have the applicants, but the public sector does not?

And if that's the case, they've been acting in good faith, and I don't see, and if somebody complains they didn't get the job, well, it's not because the job wasn't available for the 90 days or was fraudulent. It was that you couldn't, they couldn't find anybody.

Right. The intention of it is for people that are looking for a job, right, and their job is magically not there, right? There are people that post fake jobs that maybe have some type of requirement that they have to advertise, spend a certain amount of money on advertisement. And there's job postings that really aren't there. Those are the people that we're going after, and we're hoping that other employers and the people that go in, the applicants for those jobs, will report them to the Department of Labor. and then they're going to be fined. But what we're not asking is those people that come in and apply for state jobs, municipal jobs, village jobs, to do the same thing. And my question is, why?

So my question is, Ms. Jacobson, why are we not holding ourselves to the same standards that we are going to hold small businesses?

But if they complain to us, we put in legislation. but this doesn't include the state and local governments. It's only private industry. My question to you right is you as you seen and we seen in hearings right We been in the labor hearings They not hiring people They have thousands of openings And somebody including us right now are not doing our jobs to fill those positions

And the intention of the bill, I completely agree with. I do.

Around 20% of the employers, 20% of the jobs advertised don't exist. Well, 100% of the state jobs that are advertised do exist, but we're still not hiring people.

There's a lot of reasons it's not being filled. I would agree with you on that.

If an applicant goes into a private industry and they don't have the standards that that job is looking for, they can't fill that position with them, but then they go over time. Or they don't take the posting down. Or they need to extend it. Now that small business or somebody has to spend more money to repost.

They actually physically have to take it down and repost.

Yeah, but that's a whole new ad. Yeah. But that's costing them money, correct?

No, because if they still want to fill it, they would be advertising anyway, right? If they didn't fill it within three months and they still want to fill it, they're going to put out another ad.

Understood. And just going back to the third party, when we talk about that, I'm not sure. So if myself, yourself, any other entity, whether it's a local chamber of commerce, fire department, anything like that, is posting your advertisement for you, right? And they have it up for three months. And someone goes in, looks at the advertisement, looks at my social media page, your social media page, and that job no longer exists. Who's responsible for paying that fine? Is it the, because the third party is me or you, or maybe a local fire department, is the employer, even with that third party that was supposed to take it down, even if it's a company, is the employer responsible for paying the fine or is the third party that put it up responsible?

So now, what is to say that they don't know the job is filled? So are we just doing it on the Department of Labor to have to ask for some type of proof in email, anything like that?

Okay, when you say should have known, in other words, if the original... employer, the one that did the advertisement, reached out to the third party and said, hey, this position's filled, you should...

Yes, ma'am.

It won't be long, Mr. Jacobson. I don't have much more.

posting it, then they have to tell them. Right. But some of those third parties do it free of charge.

No outside income issues.

We do understand. We agree with that.

I reach out to the original third party that maybe I did advertise with or another entity picked it up. Now it's on their website. Now they're posting it. Now they're sending it out in newspaper print. I'm the employer. Am I responsible for that? I think that... At $2,500 a clip? No, I understand. I think that the employer would have to use good faith in telling those entities that have it. And that if the third-party entity knows that you hired the excavator that you needed, I mean, that's another story. Right, but if they don't know. Again, a lot of those third-party entities, especially like job seekers, those that are helping people get employed, aren't doing it with the knowledge that the original employer asked them to do it. They're just doing it to help in the community get advertisement out there. So my problem is with the bill in that way is they are now the third-party entity, right? And I know it's not funny because it actually happens all the time by us, especially on Long Island. I see it all the time We get email blasts constantly about job fairs Job fairs is another thing right I mean they just advertise whatever jobs they hear about because they trying to employ people get people to work which is what we try and do here all the time. But now the possibility is those employers are going to get fined. No, I don't think so. Okay. No, I don't think so. The job fair only says we're going to have employers come to the auditorium that you're talking about, and they're going to be there looking for employees. That's all. Oh, no. Absolutely. And we're taking one specific entity. But if I'm in a job fair and I'm looking for something in construction because, you know, I've experience in that. And there is a entity there that helps people find jobs. And they say, hey, listen, these are a bunch of listings that we found in our local paper online. They're now a third party vendor. They're now advertising your job that no longer exists. So I'm the prospective employee. I go there and say, oh look, there's a job opening here. That job no longer exists because it was already filled. But no one told that third party because they're just doing it out of the goodness of their heart. Just like me or you. They're off the hook. Who's off the hook? The third party. Because you're saying they didn't know or shouldn't have known. The third party's off the hook. My question is, is the original employer, the one that posted it, off the hook? Because according to the language in this, they are not. If the employer said to the third party, here's what it is, will you post it? No. Then they would have an obligation to do it. If the third party just says, oh, I saw this ad someplace and they post it, the employer is not on the hook. Thank you. And that was what so if they just do it out of the goodness of their heart, near you posted or a job fair posted there. The original employer is not on the hook and neither is the third party. I think we're talking about reasonableness here. And if somebody posts it, they should they have an obligation not to keep it up forever. I understand that, Mr. Jacobson. And like I said, I appreciate the sentiment of the bill. I do. And I think what it's trying to do is the right thing. I'm just concerned about those people that get aggravated because they're either not picked for the job, right? The job is posted the wrong way. A third party doesn't take it down. What we're doing is, and my concern is, we're threatening small businesses who are trying to, not in all cases. I understand that. There are ghost jobs and there are unscrupulous employers that are doing this for the wrong reasons. So I I agree with you on that. But it does open up some small businesses to upwards of $5,000 fines, which a lot of them couldn't handle. And there's really no mechanism in place to even enforce this because, as we know, the Department of Labor doesn't hire anybody. And they can't enforce it. So who the hell is enforcing this? Well, I just think that you look at it that a prohibition without a penalty is not a deterrent. and you look at the reasonableness of the circumstances, and I'm sure the Department of Labor would take the circumstances into consideration and make a reasonable decision. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Jameson. I appreciate you answering my questions. Thank you, Mr. Sturzel. Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill. So again as I said to the sponsor I think the bill well and I do understand the difficulty with ghost jobs and those employers that are posting job postings and they really don have them and they just trying to collect resumes and they leave job postings up forever But I do, and I am concerned, about the small businesses that are just trying to run their day-to-day, may forget they have a posting up, maybe a third party posts it somewhere, maybe you paid in advance. and some of these newspapers and other online sources are quite expensive. We're not doing anything to give that money back to them or give them any leeway. On top of it, once again, this bill specifically speaks to private businesses, which we are going to find. We are the state. We're making legislation here, and we're not holding ourselves to the same standards that we're asking everybody else to hold themselves to. And that is my biggest issue with this. And like I said, I appreciate the sponsors. I deal with this. I do. But New York State and all the municipalities within have thousands upon thousands of jobs that are never filled. Ever. And we have people looking for jobs every single day in the state. And all we do is talk about advertising. Come live and work in New York. New York's hiring. No, they're not. They don't hire anybody. And guess what? The Department of Labor sure as hell doesn't have enough people to go out and check on our own business. No less small businesses that we're trying to hurt by them trying to keep their businesses going. If we're going to do this, and I agree with the intention of the bill, we have to hold ourselves accountable first. New York State itself has thousands of jobs that are not filled. and who's being held accountable for it. We can do it right here and hold ourselves accountable, yet nobody has put the damn bill in. So I'll be voting no on this bill, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm just going to speak on the bill. The bill. I have a real problem with this, and I'm imagining a scenario. I'm imagining a business with 100 employees, because I believe that's the threshold where it takes effect. 100 employees, they're looking for the 101st employee, and that's what we want. We want our small businesses to grow, our medium-sized businesses to grow. They're looking for that 101st employee. And they put out an advertisement for that 101st employee. They put it in 10 different places, and they hire that 101st employee, and they, oops, they forget. and they leave it up for longer than authorized. They leave it up for several weeks. And suddenly the Department of Labor comes along and says, hey, small businesses just went from 100 employees to 101 employees. You owe us $25,000. Because as the bell is written, there's a fine of $2,500 for each print publication or digital platform the advertisement appears in. So do we really think that we're going to grow the economy of the state of New York when we're going to potentially penalize a medium-sized business for hiring their 101st employee thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of dollars, because they leave an add-up for slightly too long? that is not a state that is open for business that is an anti-business piece of legislation and therefore I certainly not going to support it Mr Jacobson On the bill On the bill The only thing worse than being turned down for a job after an interview is wasting time applying for a job, which you later discover did not exist at all. Listing for jobs are not being filled, and they're known as ghost jobs. And not only is it a frustration for job seekers, it's hard to figure out what the true picture of the labor market is, which can impact a lot of reports. In a recent survey from Resume Builder, 40% of the companies said they posted a fake job listing in 2024. There was another study in that year by Greenhouse, which is a third-party entity, and they said 18 to 22 percent of the jobs posted online were fake jobs. So this bill will require specific language in employment advertisements, and it will say that if the job is to be filled within 90 days, employer must state the date for when it shall be filled. If it's to be filled in more than 90 days, the employer would give a no sooner as and outside. And if the job is not to be filled and the employer is only seeking resumes, then it must state that the posting is not for a current vacancy and that the employer is seeking resumes to review in the future when jobs become available. All required language in the B, capital letters and bold type. It's hard enough to apply for a job. The least employers should do is be honest with the public about the jobs they are advertising. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately.

Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So for all the reasons stated during debate here, the Republican conference will not be supporting this legislation, But if there are exceptions, members can certainly vote differently at their seats now. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference is going to be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, should there be one that desires to be an exception, they should feel free to do so at their seats. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. Again, I want to thank the sponsor for taking my questions. And like I said, I want to reiterate that I agree with the premise of the bill. I thank you for putting it in. But the reason I'm voting no is because currently New York State has 7,000 unfilled jobs. 7,000 jobs. That is a lot of jobs. And nobody is being held responsible for not filling them. We have advertisements everywhere. We're spending hundreds of thousands and probably millions of dollars on advertising, but no one is hiring them. 7,000 jobs. And we're talking about people who have no jobs? Come to New York. There's 7,000 of them. But apparently, we're not hiring them. So when are we going to be held accountable? As opposed to putting the onus on small and medium-sized businesses, when are we going to set the example? This is just state jobs. 7,000 open positions that we are not filling. We need to hold ourselves accountable. We have to be better. Thank you.

Ms. Peoples-Stokes. Speaker, colleagues, we can now go back to our A calendar and take up Rules Report No. 335 by Mr. Burdick, Rules Report 353 by Mr. Magnarelli, and Rules Report 357 by Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Burdick.

The purpose of this bill is to promote greater transparency and accountability with respect to criminal court opinions. It would require the Office of Court Administration to perform an evaluation and issue a report Specifically it would require OCA to submit to the legislature and the governor a report on or before January 15 2027 including, one, an evaluation of the feasibility and benefit of publishing suppression rulings rendered by trial-level criminal courts and or collection of data regarding such rulings. Two, whether the publication of additional decisions and or collection of data would improve the practice of law. Three, an evaluation of the means by which such publication and or collection of data may be effectuated to improve transparency and the public understanding of such courts. Four, an assessment of any further resources that would be necessary to support increased publication or data collection. And five, recommendations regarding legislation and administrative measures that could be taken. And that is the totality of the bill.

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

Sponsor yield. Thank you, Mr. Burdick. So this bill is a little bit different than its original print. Isn't that correct? That's an understatement. You know, it started out as four single-spaced pages, and it – well, we worked very closely with OCA. Okay, so you've spoken with OCA about this particular bill, and they recommended some changes, and this bill reflects those changes. Well, they said that, you know, the original bill was imposing significant requirements on the court system. And, in fact, I talked to Judge Zayas, who expressed not only concerns about those requirements and the resources necessary to fulfill them, but he also said, you know, I'm concerned that my judges, what they're going to be doing, is working on writing opinions rather than adjudicating cases. cases. And so this transformed entirely from a bill with substantial mandates on the court system to one which, as I mentioned, is to evaluate and then issue a report on the feasibility of greater transparency and accountability. And OCA does support this bill.

What are trial-level criminal courts? So they would be state courts. It could be village courts. Any court in the state that has jurisdiction on criminal cases. Okay. And so this would be your Supreme Court, your county court, your New York City criminal court. We have district courts in Nassau County and Suffolk County, city courts, town courts, and village courts. Is that correct That is correct yes and it my understanding correct me if I wrong that with all of the different parts of county court and Supreme Court that about 3 courts a little over 3 courts

To be honest with you, I don't know, but that sounds like it could be right. Okay.

aren't they going to have to know how many suppression rulings have been rendered from all of those courts in order to fulfill that?

And, in fact, I work closely with Reinvent Albany on this that has been trying to get a decent estimate of that. And if you were to look at all the criminal court rulings on an annual basis, it'd be something like 200,000. Suppression rulings constitute a small fraction of that. And so, you know, there was great purpose in limiting it to suppression rulings, because that would substantially reduce the job that OCA would have to do.

Doesn't some of these trial-level courts, don't they issue suppression rulings sometimes orally where there's a stenographic record? They don't always issue a written opinion. And, in fact, some of our town courts, our village courts, they're not even using a stenographer. They have a recording in the courtroom. So if OCA has to gather this data to figure out how many suppression rulings have been rendered, let's say, in 2026, they're going to have to ask all those courts to send them that information so that they can figure out whether this is going to be feasible or not. Well, you know, again, I think you're taking this bill further than what it actually requires, because it's requiring an evaluation of the feasibility. It's not necessarily requiring that that data be collected. And that was, again, intentional as well, that we recognized that the original bill was overly broad and would impose too many requirements on the court, and the resources would be very significant. There's a shortage of the kind of personnel that you would need to carry the original bill out.

Well, it sounds like you know something that neither I know nor OCA knows in terms of how they're going to carry this out. I don't know whether that's the means in which they're going to try to perform an evaluation of the feasibility. And, you know, I trust to OCA to use good faith in terms of coming to its determination of how to carry it out. What you're describing may or may not be something they do. I think it's actually far beyond what they think they're going to need to do in order to come to a reasonable conclusion on feasibility and so forth.

Well, in other words, I think that what that means is that would it be helpful to practitioners to have this data, to know more about the decisions? Would that improve the practice of law? I think it's the plain language meaning of those words.

I beg your pardon?

I mean, the attorneys practicing in court could tell you, yeah, I would like a written decision. That would be beneficial to me. Or like in my county, you know, we have 26 town and village courts, and we know which judges, you know, pretty much how judges generally are going to rule from their body of work. And so we have a pretty good sense of, you know, what the suppression decision may or may not be based upon the facts of the case. But why do we need OCA to tell us what they think based upon gathering all of this data statewide?

OCA is the entity which deals with all of the criminal courts, state, apart from federal and section. But I think it would be helpful for them to review it, do a survey, and get an idea and provide some recommendations to the governor and the legislature.

Well, it requires OCA to issue a report, and then what that report is going to contain is listed in these subsections.

I'm not making anything bigger than what it is.

I think you're kind of spitballing it as to what OCA would be doing.

But I don't think that they're going to go to the kind of lengths that you're describing.

I mean, under Section 212 of the judiciary law, OCA already has the power to do what you want it to do. I mean, under subsection, I think it's subsection 1F, OCA has the inherent authority to make recommendations to the legislature and the governor for laws and programs to improve the administration of justice and the operation of the unified court system. So if, geez, I don't know how long our judiciary has been in, I guess, 200 or some years, 249 years or 251 years. After all of this time, Mr. Burdick, if the judiciary wanted to issue a report about the number of suppression motions and whether they should be written or not, couldn't they have already done so? They could, but this bill requires them to do that.

Well, suppression hearings, I think, are extremely important. And because they really go to basic constitutional rights.

And particularly if there are problems with it, it could spell the difference between whether someone is free or not. And so suppression hearings, the reason why that was what this was narrowed down to is, one, the sheer numbers are far, far less, estimated 5,000 to 10,000 a year, probably less than that. And two, as I mentioned, they're at the heart of basic constitutional rights, due process, and so forth. And so suppression rulings seem to be a very good and appropriate place to start.

Maybe not. Maybe yes. You know, a lot of that is going to depend upon the evaluation and report. That's the whole purpose of having them to do an evaluation of feasibility and a report to the governor and legislature.

I don't know. I don't want to try to predict what the report will contain.

It is.

I did, which I stated at the outset. And what it is is to promote greater transparency and accountability.

Where do you think the criminal justice system is lacking in transparency when it comes to suppression motions or suppression rulings? Again, I think that goes to what the report and evaluation would be.

Are you going to allow me to answer your question?

Okay.

Why do they need to be published? I'm saying that I think that it would be helpful if they were to be published. But again...

And some of them are not published.

But they're still a matter of public record because they're being recorded. And anyone can access that record. Anyone can.

Why does it need to be more accessible? Again, I think that it makes it more accessible to the public generally, and I think it's a beneficial thing if we were to have greater transparency, accountability, and access to the actions that are taken through the judicial system.

So in New York State, if, first of all, and I've been through this before, when a defendant is arraigned, they get an attorney. If they can't afford one, one is provided for them, usually at great cost to the state of New York. Then we provide automatic discovery in New York State. So one of the things defendants receive in every criminal case is information that can be the subject of a suppression motion. Then the defendant, now because we have automatic discovery, the defendant always files a suppression motion. Why? Because it's malpractice if they don't. So you have suppression motions in every case, whether it's to suppress statements or physical evidence that's obtained or an identification procedure. And then the court rules on it. And the court makes a public record. It's either an oral decision or a written decision, or it's recorded. If it's in a town and village court, there's usually a recording of it. And then if the defendant, if the judge rules against the defendant, there can be an appeal. And that appeal is not only exhausted in New York state appellate courts, but is oftentimes exhausted through federal courts. So you can appeal to your appellate division. You can appeal to the Court of Appeals. If you lose in those two places, you can file in federal district court, in the Second Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. And we have a ton of data on suppression rulings from our appellate divisions. Why do we need this bill? Why do we need this law? OCA can do this on their own if they want. We just passed the budget bill. OCA has a budget of over $8 billion. Will this increase cost to the judiciary? Yes, it will. You have over 3,000 courts in New York State, and every single one of those courts is going to have to, according to this bill according to the plain language of this bill is going to have to provide data to OCA And then someone going to have to analyze all that data to decide these esoteric questions about whether we need it And then we're going to get recommendations from OCA about how they can improve the criminal justice system. Why? What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to create uniform decisions? I mean, that seems to be a violation of the independent judiciary in New York State. Let courts do what they're supposed to do. I'm glad that this isn't the original bill, but this is still a bad bill. I'd encourage everyone to vote against it, and I'll be voting against it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

Yes, of course.

Thank you. So I also am glad that we are working off of the A print rather than the original bill. It was scoped differently. But I wanted to pick up on something that my colleague started to explore with you during his time, and that is what OCA is going to be doing pursuant to this legislation in terms of the study. And you had mentioned, I believe the term you used was kind of spitballing, I think you said, as far as maybe overstating, my colleague was maybe overstating what the bill was actually requiring. But if you look at your own justification, it says, and I'm just going to quote a few pieces of it if I could, and then there will be a question. It says, the legislature expects the report to identify the real volume of suppression rulings and provide a clear estimate of the resources needed to publish them. The report should also address both written and oral suppression rulings. It goes on to explain how some are issued in writing, others are delivered orally from the bench. A useful report should account for both, both written and oral. The legislature expects the report to identify how many suppression rulings are written, how many are oral, and what practical options exist for publishing oral rulings, such as publishing transcripts or mandating that all of these decisions be made in writing. It goes on to say the legislature also expects the report to address both administrative and legislative paths to publication, including where statutory changes would be beneficial for setting standards and where administrative action is needed to allow for flexibility regarding changing technologies. It goes on, but that's the gist of it. So do you still think after, I mean, I don't mean to sound like a lawyer, but I mean, now that I've kind of refreshed your memory about what your own memo really talks about as far as what a good study is going to look like, do you still think that he was kind of overstating what the legislation is requiring as far as the study? I do. You do? You know, what you were reading is precatory. You know, it's not the actual text of the bill. It's really up to how OCA carries it out. And, you know, again, it's an evaluation and a report. It's not mandating what you just described. It an expectation but it isn a requirement It not in the actual bill language but it part and parcel Certainly it part of the bill jacket It part of the legislative intent of what that report is going to look like and that's something that's relied upon. We all know that. That's part of our legislative record. So it might not be in the bill itself, but you have identified as the sponsor of the legislation what you think that good report is supposed to look like and the components of it, And that includes identifying and quantifying the written suppression motions, the oral suppression motions, and as identified by my colleague, a good number of those coming out of the upwards of 1,200 justice courts throughout the state, many of which utilize a recorded transcript rather than a stenographic transcript. So I think that this is a much bigger undertaking in terms of a study then perhaps has been acknowledged during the earlier portions of the debate. But you certainly, we can certainly have a difference of opinion, but I think that that's what it says. I mean, that was your justification for the bill. And I want to give you an opportunity to respond. Sure. I mean, you know, I should mention that a good deal of data already is being collected under the judiciary law right now. You know, current law does require the collection of data on felonies, misdemeanors, violations, infractions. Now, there is no requirement for suppression rulings for trial-level criminal courts to be captured directly. However, there are substantial data requirements, reporting requirements relating to what I just cited, offense information, aggregate number of misdemeanors and offenses charged, race, ethnicity, age and gender, summons, DAT, arrest or help for arraignment, and on and on. There's already a good deal of this data that would be needed for the evaluation and report. That's already part of the requirements of OCA. Well, I agree with you that we absolutely bury our judges at all levels with paperwork and their clerks. We bury them with it. We make them collect so much data already. and now this legislation will require collection by OCA of a lot of additional data. And that, as my colleague pointed out, that will flow downstream, shall we say, to the judiciary at all levels to have to provide this data for OCA to compile it. That's what's going to go into the study, I would say to you. But let's move on. I'm really interested, though, you mentioned that you worked with Reinvent Albany, and you also have worked with OCA in the development of this bill. What was the origination of the bill? Did this, and I mean, maybe this came just whole cloth, you know, from your head, but I mean, did somebody approach you with this, or did OCA approach you with this? To be honest with you, this is a bill that Senator Gianaris had worked on with Reinvent Albany. I see. And I was asked if I would carry it. I see. And I said I would, but I also said that I felt that, to be candid with you, that it was impractical, extremely expensive, too much of a burden on OCA. And the words I used is, we need to take a meetup. to it. And God bless you for doing it. So we're dealing with a much more narrowly scoped bill than the original, it sounds like, you know, so I appreciate that. You know, and again, I just need to return you folks to the fact that this is not a mandate for publication of the opinions. It is not a mandate for a particular data collection. There already are mandates on that. It's a mandate for an evaluation and a report. Yeah, well, how are they, and I guess it's like, maybe it feels like a circular argument, but how are they going to create a report without quantifying the number and type of suppression hearings that are already going on? I mean, they have to collect, OSA's got to collect a certain amount of data. Maybe they're not going to be publishing the suppression reports and the expanded publication, and I get that, and I'm grateful that that's been taken out of this version of the bill, but to provide a report, they still have to, in order to create conclusions, they have to collect a certain amount of data of what are they talking about in terms of oral, written quantity of suppression hearings statewide, right? Well, I think that you're jumping to the conclusion of what this bill is supposed to do, which is to determine the feasibility of that, not the actual carrying out of what you and your colleague feels are necessary in order to carry out the intent of the bill. But you thought it was necessary because you put it right in your justification for the bill. I said that that would be an expectation. It would be, I look at that, as I said, it's precatory and it's guidance. Yeah, but you said a good report. The legislature expects that a good report will include, and then you listed a whole bunch of things. So it does say that. It says it, but it's not in the actual requirement of the bill, now is it? You said that one of the goals of the report is to promote accountability. Promote accountability of whom, exactly? Well, you know, the judicial system that we have in this state are the election of judges. And the people elect the judges. And those who examine them for fitness and such, whether it's to recommend the barist, you know, recommending whether or not they should be voted in to begin with, endorsed and so forth. I think that that kind of data and information would be helpful. It shouldn't obviously be the only... In elections or re-elections of judges? Is that what you're getting at? It's accountability. We have a democratic system. Oh, I see. Okay. Yep. So it's estimated that 85 to 95 percent of routine suppression motions are made orally from the bench. Did you know that? that only 5% to 15% of motions are actually decided in writing upon submission. So that's going to be interesting to try to bring all of that together, I think. I found that interesting. So the pool of written decisions already is really limited. But it looked like the report also would evaluate whether publishing either stenographic transcripts of suppression, written decisions from the bench, or perhaps recorded transcripts, you know recordings of these decisions would be feasible So yeah I also was interested that in the memorandum of support it talked about the possibility of concluding that all suppression motions must be decided in writing. Boy, I hope that that's not a decision that's ultimately reached by this report, because, man, if we think our courts are clogged up now, way to have to make all the courts throughout the state on suppression motions have to do them in writing. That's going to be insane if that's going to be OCA's result. But as, well, I won't even quote what my former colleague and this chair used to call OCA. I don't think that that's probably a good thing to say out loud, but it wasn't flattering. Let's just put it that way. Let's put it that way. Mr. Burdick, I very much appreciate your answers to my questions. In my brief time, I think I'll just go on the bill. You're very welcome. Thank you. Thank you. So I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, Mr. Molitor, and the points that he raised. I think that while this bill is a little bit more restrained, maybe even a lot more restrained than the insanity that was originally proposed, I think that this bill still has some real problems. I think it feels to me from reading it, and this is just my feeling, my gut feeling from reading the Memorandum of Support and reading the bill language, that even though it's only a study that's being asked for here, and we know how much the governor really doesn't like studies, so we don't know if this is even going to make it across the finish line. But if it does, this study already feels like it's got a result in mind, and that's concerning to me. I think that just as we have had bills wanting all of our town judges to be lawyers, I think that there's maybe an uncomfortability with the fact that such a great number of these suppression motions are decided orally from the bench rather than in writing. I'm worried that that might be a result. And certainly the language that talks about the desire for greater uniformity in decision-making, that doesn't feel right either. That does smack as though we're starting to want or have OCA start to encroach somewhat on judicial independence in the decision-making that it issues. So I've got some real red flags that have popped up in examining this bill a little bit more closely. And while I appreciate the sponsor certainly answering these questions, it sounds as though the bill was primarily, at least initially, developed through a stakeholder advocacy group and the senator, and that he graciously offered to carry it in the Assembly, and now he's getting peppered with all these questions. But as it is in its current form, I won't be able to support the bill. And thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Speaker, will the sponsor yield for some questions?

Sir, of course.

Thank you. Mr. Burdick, this is a bill I think you have stated that OCA, it's an OCA bill, correct? Recommended by the Office of Court Administration? No, I did not say that. Okay who is this bill recommended by Well as I explained to your colleague and I think that she pretty accurate in the description of it I think that this was developed between reInvent Albany and Senator Gianaris. Okay. However, it would be a misstatement to say that this is a bill that came out of OCA. Have you had conversations with OCA about this bill? Extensive conversations. Are they in support of this bill? They are. Did you have discussions in regards to the specifics of this bill with them? Yes, indeed. Okay. Now, you were asked by both colleagues in regards to the intent of the bill. There were some things that you said were not accurate. So I'm just going to ask you straight. Sure. What is the intent of this bill? As I had stated from the outset, the intent of this bill is to promote greater transparency and accountability with respect to criminal court opinions. And let's just move on. Let's just go forward more on that. Can you please sit? What do you mean by transparency and accountability? Well, I think the bill speaks for itself, and I would suggest respectfully that it would be inaccurate to take the justification of the bill as the statutory changes themselves. The bill itself is requiring an evaluation and a report of the feasibility of taking certain steps that would enable greater transparency in the opinions and in data collection and so forth. Are you suggesting that this report is basically going to be a check on the Supreme Court judges that write these reports? Is that what you mean by transparency? I don't see that anyplace in this bill. Well, I'm asking you. You wrote transparency. Please tell us and the public what you mean by transparency. The plain meaning of the word. Which is? The plain meaning of the word is that the actions on the part of the judicial system would be better known and would be more accessible to the public. Oh, so it is so it could be. So basically, it's about accessibility to the general public, correct? I stated that a couple of times. That's correct. Okay. And you obviously are aware you're an attorney, correct, sir? I am indeed. And you understand that decisions published by the court are published on Westlaw, on LexisNexis, on the Internet, correct? Yes? That's one of the sources of... You also understand that OCA itself has access to these decisions, correct? Because they're written by judges that are part of the Office of Court Administration, correct? That is correct, yes. But yet you are introducing this bill today, which is mandating a report to be delivered to the legislature and to the governor, correct? Well, it's to be issued to the legislature and the governor so the public would become aware of it, yes. Are you aware that a few months back, the chief justice of the state was at a symposium where he criticized certain judges for sentencing, for sentences that they had imposed on defendants and other decisions that they had made? Are you aware of that? I'm not. Okay. But I don't think that that's quite germane to this bill. Oh no I will make it germane once I talk about the bill Mr Burdick are you aware obviously that judges are independently elected by the voters in the state Correct. And are you aware that judges work for the people and not for the Office of Court Administration? Well, I think that they're ultimately accountable to the public and to the voters who put them into office, correct? But they also have certain requirements under law in terms of reporting to the OCA and under the judiciary law certain requirements. You made a statement to my colleague just now. now, you stated that judges are independently elected. However, it's OCA's responsibility to make sure that they act in the correct manner. Is that what you said, Mr. Burdick? I don't know whether I used those words. Well, then, can you please emphasize what exactly you meant by that? Well, it's hard for me to answer a question that's based on something that I didn't say. So what I do think is that judges do have accountability under the judiciary law for certain reporting to OCA, and that would remain the case. And I think that in order for the intent of this law and the actual requirements under it, as opposed to what might be a way of fulfilling it, which is what is in the sponsor's memorandum, is simply for OCA to produce a report as outlined by the bill text itself. Nothing more, nothing less. Just to clarify for the general public and for all our colleagues, you actually just admitted to me a few minutes ago that all this information is already accessible to both the general public and to OCA itself, right? That's not quite what I said. What I had said was that certain data already is required under judiciary law to be provided. Correct. Well, no, but not the report itself. So all this, I'm just trying to clarify, Mr. Burdick. All this law does is require OCA to give a report, to provide a report to the governor and to the legislature, right? That's all this bill does, correct? Based on information that OCA would already have access to, presumably. It's a report that would be issued to the governor and the legislature of an evaluation regarding the feasibility of taking certain steps with respect to suppression opinions within the court system. Now, where did you come up with suppression, specifically? Well, I addressed that earlier, but I'm happy to repeat it. and that is that the original bill was going to deal with all criminal court opinions. And the estimate on that was something like 200,000 each year. And in one of the things which I had suggested to Senator Gianaris was that this was just too great a burden on the court system. It would be incredibly expensive. The resources didn't exist. There aren't enough court stenographers to carry it out. It's through a shortage of court stenographers. And that, as I had mentioned to your colleague, that they needed to take a meat ax. this and figure out a way to substantially reduce the scope. And so that resulted in narrowing it to an area of the law, which of the rulings, as I was mentioning before, which was far, far narrower and far fewer in number. Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

A few months back, the chief justice of this state was at a symposium where he actually referenced a case where he believed, well, he actually explained that he did not agree with the sentencing provided for by the judge. didn't actually say that he believed the judge did anything legally wrong, only stated that he did not agree with the sentencing imposed by that judge. He also made a statement that if that people should work against judges that OCA does not agree with, it is quite evident that OCA, or at least the leadership of OCA, has some type of agenda when it comes to the judicial process. Judges are independently elected. We sit here today, and I sat with this bill, and I'm trying to figure out why would this bill come forth when OCA already has this information? Why would they want this? I'll tell you why they want this. They are trying to intimidate independently elected judges. That's why they want it. That's what they've been doing. And that's what the leadership continues to do. That's what this is about. You want something that's public? It's already public. You want something that's already accessible? It is accessible. You want something to train new lawyers? It's called Westlaw and LexisNexis. We don't need this. The only presumable reason is to try to intimidate independently elected judges if they do not conform to the way that OCA leadership believes they should conform. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Will the sponsor yield for a couple questions?

Yes, certainly.

I don't know whether it's the hour or my age. I've listened to all my colleagues, I've listened to your answers, and I'm dumbfounded. What is the need to address and publish suppression hearings which are based on principles of law, based upon what a judge applies the facts to the law for? What is the purpose? I think the purpose, as I had mentioned earlier, is to have the information, the intent of the writers of these opinions. And I think that the more that we can be able to review them and evaluate them, it's beneficial to the public to know. As a democracy, accountability and transparency in everything we do, whether it's this body, whether it's Congress, is at the heart of our democratic values and precepts. Why would you say – I'm sorry. I thought you were finished. Now just to conclude suppression rulings as I mentioned are so fundamentally important because they at the heart of whether a person may be incarcerated or not It may be at the heart of whether the evidence that was obtained was done so within constitutional limits. And that's what this is trying to get at. Well, isn't there an appeal process? that other judges, higher courts, will use precedent to determine, rather than the general public making a decision? You know, the process to appeal a decision certainly is known to me and to you and to others who practice law and probably the general public, but not quite germane to this bill. And this bill is only to obtain a report and evaluation of feasibility and desirability and whether or not it would be beneficial. Feasibility for what? You used the term the intent of the judge. So now are you looking at using this to micromanage a judge's opinion so the general public can use it when they go to the polls for re-election? Not at all. Well, but that's what you said. Why would you say then the intent of the judge in their opinion? You know, one of the factors that the public is going to take into consideration on whether or not to vote for the re-election of a judge is how they've been on the bench. What have they been doing? What kind of opinions have they issued? and is there a feeling that the way that those opinions were issued were in conformity with existing statute and the Constitution? So let's go back to my previous comment. If the defense attorney, whether he's hired or whether he's given to the individual because they can't afford it, If they're unhappy with an opinion, they can appeal it, correct? That's correct. Okay. And a higher court will reveal whether or not that was the facts were comport to the law, correct? That's the purpose of the higher court revealing it. Okay. So what difference does it make for the public to know what that judge decided? Okay. When you use the term his intention, that's nefarious. And what that indicates is that you're looking to see whether a judge is liberal, conservative, and whether he's going to make decisions based upon, like, our chief judge who was put in because his predecessor that was picked by the governor was not liberal. And that's what this seems to be going towards. You use the term in your reasoning, clean slate. Why would clean slate be involved in your justification when we're dealing with suppression hearings that have facts in law and an attorney who representing a defendant has the right to determine if he fails the judge made a correct assessment of the fact and applying it to the law He can appeal So you use clean slate Why clean slate With all respect, the term clean slate is not in the text of the bill. It's your justification. We're talking about what brings this forth. A bill could have three words, but the whole purpose is exactly what you are trying to do with a judge. analyze and anticipate why a judge makes a decision, where his head is at, whether he's liberal, whether he's conservative, on an opinion dealing with a suppression that has no bearing on it. So using the word clean slate, coupled with your word of intention, tells me there's a nefarious background. Next, what is Reinvent Albany? I have no idea what Reinvent Albany is. Can you educate me? Well, Reinvent Albany is a nonprofit advocacy group that is trying to promote greater transparency in government. And frankly, you know, they will criticize any elected official, regardless of party and regardless of political viewpoint. if they feel that that individual or group of individuals is not acting in a transparent and open way? So a decision on a suppression, which applies facts to the law, which is usually put forth by a defense attorney who has experience, he's been licensed by the bar. Okay? So it just seems that the whole purpose of this is to second guess a judge's actions on the bench. Now, you admitted there's an appeal process. So the appeal process would only be if the judge either didn't apply the proper law to the facts of that particular case, or if, in fact, something was missed. But the intention of the judge, which is the word you use, still opens the door. That, coupled with the word clean slate, coupled with reinvent Albany, makes me really suspect as to what is behind this. Because it didn't come from OCA. OCA knows what they're doing. This was brought to OCA and tried to get their stamp of approval, their imprimatur on it. And that's what's frightening me about this bill.

On the bell. In my questioning, I'm really, really suspect as to what is behind this bill. The language that was used, clean slate, intention of the judge, it tells me that immediately they're looking at what is this judge thinking? What are we going to do with this judge? Now, this suppression hearings are not the only thing that a voter would think about. What the judge has done, what his actions are, what his demeanor is. There's defense attorneys, there's prosecutors, and it's just so suspicious. Now, if this was on how a judge acts normally, what he says from the bench, what his violation of ethics are, I have no problem with it. But to nitpick on a decision that has the ability to go up to a higher court again makes me suspect This bill is absolutely unnecessary This bill would be a burden Nobody would be able to understand And the general public, they can go. The opinions of the higher courts are there. They can go look at what happens. And so with that being said, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. It's a waste of time, a waste of money. It's a witch hunt, and it's for nefarious purposes. Thank you. Good job.

Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will not be supporting this legislation, but if there are any exceptions, members can vote yes at their seats now if they wish.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference is going to be in favor of this piece of legislation. There may be a few that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. So, this bill is really a very simple bill. It doesn't go beyond what some of my good colleagues on the other side of the aisle described it as. It simply is requiring an evaluation of the feasibility of providing more information to the public, pure and simple. That's the only requirement. And I think that there's value in doing that. This was developed in consultation with OCA after it became patently clear that the original bill would be far, far too much of a burden on the court system. and as Judge Zayas had said to me, would divert judges to the job of writing opinions rather than adjudicating cases. So I want to thank OCA for working with me on this and Senator Gianaris as well as reInvent Albany, and I vote in favor. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To briefly explain my vote, I just want to thank the member for the debate in which he remained calm in discussing what his intentions were, despite what I felt was an attempt to cross-examine the sponsor as opposed to having a debate. So I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative in favor of Mr. Burdick's bill and his very calm demeanor.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to explain my vote. I think the sponsor of this legislation made it very clear that there were ongoing conversations with the Office of Court Administrations. Now we talk on a regular basis about agencies, organizations that could do things on their own but sometimes they won't. Give them a little push. This is their little push and No judge should go without public scrutiny. We're elected just like they are. We don't go without public scrutiny. And so if there's an opportunity for someone to be held accountable for their record, that should happen. It's only fair. So I support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1553 rules at the request of Mr. Stern. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 22 2026 as Veterans Suicide Awareness and Remembrance Day in the State of New York On the resolution all those in favor signify by saying I Opposed No the resolution is adopted Assembly number 1554 rules at the request of Mr. K. Brown. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 2026 as Recovery Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1555, rules at the request of Ms. McMahon. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 3, 2026 as Ostomy Awareness Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1556, rules at the request of Mr. LaMondez. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 6, 2026 as Coaches Day in the state of New York. Mr. Lamondi is on the resolution.

On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1557 rules at the request of Mr. Bronson. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 11, 2026 as coming out day in the state of New York in conjunction with the observance of National Coming Out Day. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1558 rules at the request of Mr. Durso. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 19th through the 23rd 2026 a school bus safety week in the State of New York The resolution all those in favor signify by saying aye Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1559 rules at the request of Ms. Rosenthal. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 25th through the 31st, 2026 as Epidermalysis Belosa Awareness Week in the state of New York, more commonly known as Butterfly Children Awareness Week. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1560 rules at the request of Ms. Bichotte Hermelin. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Clergy Appreciation 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 1561 rules at the request of Ms. Buttonshine. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Disability Employment 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 1562 rules at the request of Mr. Simone. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Perth's Disease 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 1563 rules at the request of Ms. Hunter. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Careers in Construction Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Ms. People Stokes.

Okay, thanks. Chantal Jackson does not have to do a resolution. She's not. Chantal Jackson does not have to do a resolution. So just... Yeah. Yes, Madam Majority Leader, we have no House keeping, but we have a few proposed resolutions. Resolution by Mr. O'Farrell, Clerk will read. Assembly number 1564, Mr. O'Farrell, legislative resolution honoring James Jimmy O. O'Farrell posthumously upon the occasion of the co-renaming of Hornell Loop in Brooklyn, New York, in recognition of his contributions to his community and the sport of boxing.

Thank you, Ms. Hooks, on the resolution.

On this resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. a resolution by Ms. Gonzalez Rojas. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1565, Ms. Gonzalez Rojas, legislative resolution commemorating the 34th anniversary of Queen's Pride Parade on June 7,

all those in favor signify by saying I oppose. No, the resolution is adopted. We have a number of additional 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.

Ms. Clark for the purpose of an announcement. Thank you. I'm here to announce Majority Conference tomorrow at 9.30. majority conference tomorrow at 9 30. Thank you 9 30 a.m. tomorrow majority conference

Wednesday June the 3rd tomorrow being a session day. On Miss People Stokes's motion the house stands adjourned. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.