March 18, 2026 · Judiciary · 1,522 words · 7 speakers · 88 segments
Good morning, everyone. Today is March 18th. It's the third meeting of the judiciary for this year. We start right away. We start with Senate print 413 by Senator Gardis.
It's an act to amend the general obligations law in relation to the release of certain claims by certain employees.
Any discussion on the bill? Move the bill. Second motion by Senator Scoufas. Seconded by Senator Myhre. All those in favor?
Aye.
All those opposed?
Aye.
Any without rec. Without rec. Please, sir. The bill is reported to the floor. The next one. Senate print 1015 by Senator Brooke.
It's an act to amend the estates powers and trust law in relation to prohibiting an individual convicted of a crime involving elder abuse from inheriting from the elders of state. As we just.
Any discussion on the bill? Move the bill.
Yes, Chairman. I just want to say this is a good bill. And there's also another hole in the law that I incurred encountered where a parent who abandons a child and a child passes away, the parent can still inherit, which is sort of along the same vein. And so I'm going to bring legislation to you to amend that hole in the law at some point. I agree. I second the bill. Thank you.
Any further discussion? Motion by Senator Lewis to move the bill. And second.
Second.
Second by Senator Sabisky. All those in favor?
Aye. All those opposed?
Any without rec. One. Next bill. The bill is reported to the floor. Next bill is Senate print 1849 A by Senator Mayor.
An act to amend the judiciary law in relation to requiring data recording by the chief administrator to delineate specific information relating to all courts in the unified court system, including town and village courts.
Any discussion on the bill? Motion to move the bill by Senator Lew. Seconded by Senator Palumbo. All those in favor?
Aye.
All those opposed?
The bill is reported to finance. Any awrs?
Yes.
One, two.
Two. The bill is still reporting to finance. Next bill is Senate Print 3690A by Senator Sanders.
It's an act to amend the lien law in relation to adding certain notice requirements for enforcing liens on the good goods and self storage facilities.
Any discussions on the bill?
Move the bill.
Motion to move the bill by Senator Mayor. Seconded by Senator Stavisky. All those in favor?
All those opposed?
Debt min.
All those without rec. Una. The bill is reported to the floor. The next bill is Senate Print 3816 by Senator Sepulveda.
An act to amend the general obligations law in relation to requiring mercantile establishments to seize collections upon a court finding of not guilty of larceny. In mercantile establishments.
Any discussion?
Just a quick comment. Chairman, if I can, this. I've been against this bill. I'm still going to vote no, just for the purposes of the understanding that sometimes cases are dismissed on technical reasons. If something says 30, 30 time, Limous dead, or other reasons not on the merits, I think that the business should still have the opportunity. Certainly in the grand larceny case, where there's significant value, they should still have their opportunity to be heard by way of a civil action against the suspect. So. Or defendant or former defendant, or now just civil defendant, if that makes sense.
I understand that, Senator Colombo, but to me, if you are adjudicated not to be guilty on a criminal offense, then there's no. There should be no other methods of the establishment to collect on something. Sure.
And if I can just ask one more question in that regard, and I think Senator Martin's going to have a comment. Is this only. And I'm sorry, I didn't read the specific language of the bill. Is this based on a finding of not guilty after trial, or is this just ultimately an adjudication in your favor?
It's a finding of not guilty of larceny. Okay. Does that change your vote? It.
It might.
I'm going to read it out.
Hold on a second. I need my eraser
one. Frank. If under these.
This rationale, OJ Would be. Not killed, Right?
Correct.
There'd be a civil action by the family. Because as long as you don't prosecute somebody. So let me ask you, if a. If a store, retail store, decides not to press charges, but seeks a civil result, no issue with this. This bill will still allow them to seek a civil result if they don't press charges.
Correct.
So the prosecution, the people, by deciding to prosecute, you're forcing a retail establishment, a small business owner, to decide whether to cooperate with a prosecution for fear of not being able to bring their own action in order to recoup money that was taken from them.
The mercantile establishment has a right to pursue civil actions against anyone.
They always do.
Right, Right.
But the idea that they can't cooperate with charges that may be brought by the people because they don't bring criminal charges. You know that charges are brought by the government, by the people, in order to prosecute somebody who they believe committed a crime. So they need to have probable cause to do that. In order to do that, the mercantile staff, the small business owner, has to decide whether or not they're willing to cooperate with the prosecution for fear of whether or not they can actually bring Their own action to recover money that was taken from them.
Correct.
Okay.
And I'm just confused, Chairman, about the different burdens of proof. Obviously, if it is a criminal case, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. In a single case, it's a preponderance of the evidence. Why would a. The failure to convict criminally impact the lesser burden of the preponderance of the evidence?
Because the whole premise of the establishment to go after someone is because they committed a crime.
They committed theft.
Right. And if the courts determined that there was no crime, there's an adjudication. Then the Mercantile establishing can still pursue their civil claim. If in fact there's a finding of not guilty, this will stop them from being able to collect on any judgments
in a claim. In a civil claim.
Correct.
There are civil claims for taking things that are. That doesn't amount to a crime. You understand that, right?
There are claims.
There are civil claims that do not involve criminal intent. That's why you have. You can. You can actually bring a civil claim against somebody as opposed to having somebody prosecuted. We disagree.
That's fine. Thanks.
No, go ahead. Motion by Senator Luke to move the bill. And a second.
Second.
Second it. Vice Senator Bailey. All those in favor?
Aye.
All those opposed?
The bill is reported to the floor. The next bill is Senate print. Senate print 88192 by Senator Clear.
It's an act to amend the judiciary law in relation to the sufficiency of the number of judges and justices in districts and courts.
Any discussion on the bill? Motion by Senator Bailey. Seconded by Senator Palumbo. All those in favor?
Aye.
All those opposed?
Any without right Direct. The bill is reported to the floor. And the last bill today is Senate Print 90. I'm sorry about the bill's report. The closer.
Two more.
The next bill is Senate Print 9286A by Senator Sepulcher.
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules in relation to prohibiting undisclosed reporting of mediation and court annex alternative dispute resolution proceedings.
Motion.
Is there any discussion on the bill? Move the bill. Motion by Senator Bailey. Seconded by Senator Mayor.
All those in favor?
All those opposed?
Any without rec.
Without.
The bill is reported to the court. And now the last columns. Senate print 9316 by Senator Sepulcha.
It's an act to amend the Family Core Act, a civil practice law and rules, the domestic Relations law, the executive law, the Judiciary law, the social services law, the general obligations law, the vehicle and traffic law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control law and the education law in relation to substituting parentage for paternity and affiliation and to repeal certain provisions of the Family Court act relating thereto
any discussion. Move the bill. Motion to move the bill by Senator Gardis. Seconded by. By Senator Mary. All those in favor?
All those opposed?
Any without rec.
Please.
The bill is reported to the state. There being no further business before the committee. This meeting is adjourned.