Regular Session - March 2, 1999
616
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 2, 1999
3:06 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
617
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask that everyone present please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, March 1st. The Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Friday, February
26th, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
618
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo, from the Committee on Consumer
Protection, reports:
Senate Prints 925, by Senator
Meier, an act to amend the General Business
Law;
1605, by Senator Alesi, an act to
amend the General Business Law.
Senator Lack, from the Committee on
Judiciary, reports:
Senate Prints 1529, by Senator
Balboni, an act to amend the General
Obligations Law;
1666, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Eminent Domain Procedure Law;
1905, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Real Property Law;
1910, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the General Construction Law;
2733, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law.
Senator Padavan, from the Committee
on Cities, reports:
619
Senate Print 1734, by Senator
Velella, an act to amend the General City Law
and the Penal Law.
Senator Hannon, from the Committee
on Health, reports:
Senate Prints 463, by Senator
Holland, an act to amend the Public Health Law
and the Penal Law;
1178, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
2197, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
2302, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
2937, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law.
Senator Rath, from the Committee on
Local Government, reports:
Senate Prints 124, by Senator Rath,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law;
596, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Local Finance Law;
904A by Senator Skelos -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
620
forgive the interruption. But can we at this
time call for a Rules meeting immediately in
Room 332 while we're progressing?
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a
Rules meeting immediately in Room 332.
Thank you, Senator.
The Secretary will continue
reading.
THE SECRETARY: Going back,
Senator Rath, from the Committee on Local
Government, reports:
Senate Print 124, by Senator Rath,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law;
596, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Local Finance Law;
904A, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
1211, by Senator Bonacic, an act
authorizing the Village of Hunter;
1388, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
1980, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
2088, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
621
2586, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law.
Senator Trunzo, from the Committee
on Transportation reports:
Senate Prints 139, by Senator
Nozzolio, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law;
1101, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Transportation Law;
2094, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
2101, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Senator Saland, from the Committee
on Children and Families, reports:
Senate Prints 965, by Senator
Skelos, an act to amend the Domestic Relations
Law;
1075, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Social Service Law and the Family
Court Act;
1257, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Social Services Law;
1531, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Domestic Relations Law;
622
1621, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Domestic Relations Law;
2722, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Family Court Act;
2724, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Family Court Act.
Senator Kuhl, from the Committee on
Education, reports:
Senate Prints 1347, by Senator
Holland, an act to amend the Education Law;
1922, by Senator Holland, an act to
amend the Education Law;
2475, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Education Law.
Senator DeFrancisco, from the
Committee on Tourism, Recreation and Sports
Development reports:
Senate Print 831, by Senator
Marcellino, an act to amend the Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation Law.
All bills directly for third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills directed to third
reading.
623
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Lack, on page 9, I'd like
to offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 122, Senate Print 1527, and ask that
the said bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
accepted, and the bill will retain its place
on the third reading.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time adopt the Resolution
Calendar with the exceptions of 492 and
Resolution 514?
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolutions 492 and 514,
signify by saying Aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed nay.
624
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Resolution
Calendar is adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we at this
time have the title read on Resolution 492, by
Senator Kuhl and move for its immediate
adoption?
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Kuhl,
Legislative Resolution Number 492, celebrating
"Read Across America," an effort by the
National Education Association and the
National Education Association of New York to
promote the joy of reading.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying Aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
625
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
Senator Kuhl is indicating that anyone that
would like to be on this resolution is welcome
to be on it.
And if you don't want to be on it,
you might so indicate to the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Kuhl, this -- Senator Kuhl -- the
resolution, pursuant to Senator Kuhl's
request, is open at this time for
cosponsorship. Those who do not wish to be on
the resolution should notify the desk.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time have the title read on
Resolution Number 514, by Senator Marcellino
and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Marcellino, Legislative Resolution Number 514,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim March 7th through the 14th, 1999, as
Childhood Cancer Awareness Week in the state
of New York.
626
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we also open up the sponsorship, at the
request of Senator Marcellino, on this
resolution.
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsorship
of this resolution is open. All those who do
not wish to be on the resolution, please
notify the desk.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: I believe, Madam
President, there is a privilege resolution at
the desk by Senator Skelos. I would ask that
it -- the title be read and move for its
immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
627
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Skelos. Legislative resolution commending
David and Karen Portal upon the occasion of
their designation as Parents of the Year by
the Yeshiva of South Shore at its 42nd Annual
Scholarship Awards Banquet, March 7, 1999.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we now take up the noncontroversial
reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
52, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 863,
an act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to the transportation of certain
persons.
628
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
116, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1490, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to eliminating certain exceptions.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 1st day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
119, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 96, an act
to amend the General Business Law, in relation
to altering mileage.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
629
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
121, by Senator Hannon -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY: -- Senate Print
1524, an act to amend the Public Health law.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
160, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 2862, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
requiring colleges and universities to
implement plans.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, could we
read the last section first?
Read the last section, please.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
630
President. We thought the last section had
been read.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll and
read the last section, please.
SENATOR BRUNO: He is properly
chastised.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you. It is
nice to have a presiding officer paying such
close attention to our proceedings. Thank you
very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: It's good to be
appreciated, Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BRUNO: And the counsel
is appreciated as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Just kudos all
around.
SENATOR BRUNO: This bill -- and
we're going to ask anyone in the chamber that
631
would like to cosponsor this bill, you are
welcome to do that. And I would encourage you
to do it, because it is a very, very serious
response to a very tragic situation.
Very specifically, a year ago
today, Suzanne Lyall was reported missing from
the SUNY campus here in Albany. Suzanne is
still missing. And her parents, Doug and
Mary, with her sister Sandra, were in earlier
today at a press briefing on this legislation.
And they still don't know what has happened to
their daughter. Their experience, when they
shared it with us, led us to this legislation.
And what this legislation does is
indicate to any college in the state that they
have to put a plan in place so that there's an
immediate reporting and action on any missing
person or any violence to a student on campus.
And that doesn't say that the
universities don't do this. Some of the
colleges do it; some don't. Here at SUNY
Albany, for instance, there are five different
police agencies that can relate to that
campus. Now, you can imagine the distraught
parents reaching in and wondering who to talk
632
to and where to get information and who to
report to.
So it will be up to the college to
reach out into the community to put together a
protocol, a plan.
And in addition, the Lyalls shared
with us that they sometimes had a difficulty
in just getting a conduit. So this will
establish a hotline to the Office of Criminal
Justice. And that hotline will be accessible
so that people will be able to get in one
place whatever resources are available to help
a family deal with a tragedy that may occur or
that they think may be occurring.
That's the essence of this bill.
And it's up today because this is exactly a
year ago that Suzanne was reported missing.
So we ask for your support here in this
chamber.
And thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Madam
633
President. To explain my vote.
I wish to commend our leader on
this proposal. A parent's worst nightmare is
what happened to the Lyall family. And all of
us and each of us can empathize and sympathize
with the pain and suffering they are
experiencing in regard to their daughter. So
I commend the leader's wisdom, I commend his
compassion, I commend his ability to allow us
to empathize and to sympathize in a very
positive way with this family and to take
steps here today which may preclude another
family experiencing a like circumstance.
Because with this proposal, speed and
efficiency will enter into the equation of
trying to find the student who is lost.
So I commend you, sir. I'm
grateful that you've brought this to our
attention. I commend all of us today for
doing the right thing in voting yes on this
proposal.
Thank you very much, Madam
President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
634
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Waldon,
how do you vote on this bill?
SENATOR WALDON: In the
affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the affirmative.
I believe Senator Paterson was
next.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I vote in favor of this bill
and would commend to our colleague, Senator
Bruno, our deepest gratitude for bringing it
forward at this time.
There is certainly the fear, not
only as Senator Waldon described, of any
parent to lose a child, but also any
encumbrance or disabling of an attempt to have
information provided or to perhaps try to
locate a missing individual, that it would be
caused by the inability of different agencies
to communicate or certainly be due to the fact
that there wasn't significant coordination
among those who could have provided
assistance, would really just exacerbate the
tension, the anxiety, and the fear that any
635
victim would feel.
Our prayers certainly on the date
of St. David's Day would be with the family of
Ms. Lyall on the one-year anniversary of her
disappearance. And it represents all the
missing boys and girls around the state whose
parents grieve for them and wish to see them
again.
And we certainly are strongly in
favor of this bill. We believe in it. And
Senator Connor, the minority leader, has asked
me, along with Senator Mendez and Senator
Smith and all of the colleagues -- Senator
Oppenheimer -- to extend to you our deepest
appreciation that we have thought of this to
perhaps minimize the burden and the
encumbrance on those who might be put in this
very, very tragic situation in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
Of course, I think we all feel a
loss and empathy for the parents of the
636
missing student.
What I would commend to Senator
Bruno is a series of recommendations in
legislative form that I made a few years back
concerning violence on campus. One of those
suggestions was that when the campus police is
brought in, that the jurisdiction, the -
every campus is within a jurisdiction, and
therefore the jurisdiction should be notified
at the same time as the campus police is
notified.
And there are a variety of reasons
for doing that which we won't go into now.
But certainly coordination of information is
one of them, one of the reasons.
We also had suggestions concerning
blue lights on campuses, telephones, services
where students could be bused to where they
wanted to be or could be escorted by another
adult. We had other considerations, of cards
to permit entry into dormitories.
At any rate, these were all with
the object of making a campus as safe as
possible and coordinating services. And I
think this is an avenue that we should be
637
going down now.
But I do applaud this bill and urge
you to look at some of the other
recommendations on campus safety,
Senator Bruno.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative on this bill.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, Madam
President.
I too rise to thank our
distinguished leader for this fine piece of
legislation. I am hopeful that it will assist
in allaying the concerns and fears of some
distraught parents. Because at a time when a
child is missing, a parent can never be more
distraught.
And it is great to see a piece of
legislation that all of us, whether on that
side of the aisle or this side of the aisle,
can support. And I'm pleased to cast my vote
in the affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
638
be recorded as voting in the affirmative on
this bill.
Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you, Madam
President.
I too want to express my admiration
for our majority leader in dealing with this
issue. This will not only help those parents
that have children missing deal in that
situation, but will also give some peace of
mind to those parents that for the first time
are going to send their children away during
their first year of college.
So again, my congratulations. And
all of us should be congratulated, because
this is an issue that has made it possible for
a complete bipartisanship in easing the plight
of parents, of those who have children missing
as well as those that will eventually send
their kid to colleges and universities in this
state.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Mendez,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
SENATOR MENDEZ: I vote yes.
639
THE PRESIDENT: That was my
sense. Thank you, Senator.
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Madam
President, I rise to both cast my vote in the
affirmative and to congratulate our majority
leader and also to thank the Lyalls for their
participation in bringing to our attention a
problem that has presided on our campuses.
With this legislation that Senator
Bruno has offered to us today, we will now
have a process that parents who are faced with
that acrimony will at least know how to
proceed and will have some methodology.
And again, Senator Bruno, thank you
for your leadership with this legislation.
I vote in the affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I also rise,
Madam Chair, in consonance with my colleagues,
to commend the majority leader on this
legislation, which is in truth a nonpartisan
640
piece of legislation that all of us can
support wholeheartedly, that is tied up not
only to the security issue and safety issue of
missing children but is a major piece of what
must be provided for all students in safe
surroundings within an educational center,
whether it is university or college, secondary
school, elementary school.
So I would like to be recorded in
the affirmative on this issue and hope it will
lead us to other legislation that will
continue to impact positively on this very
serious situation that afflicts education in
American society today.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
Anyone else? All right.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
641
170, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1071, an
act to amend the Penal Law -
THE PRESIDENT: Before we
continue, I'd like to announce that the sheet
for multisponsorship of the bill that was just
passed is at the desk. I want to emphasize
that it's an important bill. As many
multisponsors who are interested, please feel
free to come up to the desk and sign it.
The Secretary will read. Thank
you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
170, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1071, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
repeat offender status.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 52; nays 1.
Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
642
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
173, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1117, an
act to amend the Penal Law in relation to
gambling.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
176, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 1259, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
crime of criminal employment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY: -- on the first
day of November.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
190, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2421, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to annual reports for gas, electric,
643
steam, and water corporations.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
191, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2422, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to the elimination of the mandate for
the Public Service Commission.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up the rules report?
THE PRESIDENT: All right. The
Secretary will read. And then we'll return to
644
the order of the reports of the standing
committees. The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports:
Senate Print 3109, directly for
third reading, an act to establish
administrative procedures to be followed in
relation to certain failure to file
applications.
SENATOR BRUNO: On the bill,
Madam President.
This relates to the STAR program
that -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, could we
move to accept the report of the committee?
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we move to accept the report of the Rules
Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
All those in favor of accepting the
report of the Rules Committee, please say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed nay.
(No response.)
645
THE PRESIDENT: The report is
accepted.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
we accept the message.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
237, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 3109, an
act to establish the administrative procedures
to be followed, in relation to certain
failures to file applications for the school
tax relief STAR exemption.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
646
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Madam
President. On the bill.
This relates to the STAR program,
property tax-cut relief, that we in this
chamber provided homeowners, seniors and other
homeowners, as part of the budget last year.
What this does simply is hold anyone that is
eligible for the STAR tax-cut deduction
harmless.
March 1st was the deadline for
filing, and some people were confused.
Seniors that signed up last year thought they
were signed up for life. The law indicates
that they have to sign up every year, because
with seniors it's tied to income.
So this law, if it becomes law,
simply says that if you qualified last year as
a senior, you automatically qualify going
forward. So it holds them harmless.
In addition, there are others in
647
the general population that will qualify now
for the first time. They must sign up on
March 1st. Many people won't have signed up
by March 1st, and you're going to hear from
them when they discover their omission.
This law states that those people
can file next year by March 1st and, if they
qualified this year, they will retroactively
get their deduction. So there will not be a
loss to anyone. So it truly holds anyone that
is eligible harmless.
I know that there's another version
of this in the other house that extends the
filing deadline to April 15th and then does
some other things. You're hearing -- and if
you're not hearing, we're hearing from
assessors and county executives all over the
state that that will inhibit their ability to
put out their tax requests, the tax bills, if
we extend this deadline. It's going to create
some chaos and some confusion.
So we would like not to add to the
confusion. This bill doesn't. So we would
ask for your indulgence on this bill and your
support.
648
And, Madam President, we would
invite, as well, anyone in the chamber that
sees fit to sign on this bill to do so. And
the procedure is that you have to go to the
desk and execute the proper signature on the
proper document.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: I believe,
Madam President, there's an amendment at the
desk.
THE PRESIDENT: We have an
amendment at the desk, Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: I'd ask that it
be waived and I'd have an opportunity to
explain.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
waived. You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
The amendment to the STAR exemption
bill would extend the simple extension of the
deadline to April 15th of this year, 1999.
This would replace the recoupment plan that is
in the original bill.
The plan allows the taxpayer to
get -- under the recoupment plan, the taxpayer
649
would have to get this year and next year's
STAR exemption in the year 2000 should they
miss -- should they miss the March 1st
deadline. That's the bill that's on the
floor.
The amendment that we propose is to
allow homeowners to get their 1999 exemption
in 1999 and to allow them to have the real
dollar value of their exemption this year and
not the reduced real dollar value next year.
Our plan will do that by just simply
extending, as the Assembly bill does, simply
extending it to April 15th of this year.
This amendment in no way changes
the -- proposes a change in the protection
that the bill has for seniors. In case they
forget to file their renewal application,
the -- our amendment would still allow for
that automatic exemption once it's first
filed.
It's -- Madam President, this STAR
program is such a new program that many
individuals and many homeowners are still not
familiar with the fact that an application
process is necessary and the deadline for an
650
application process. I think that once this
becomes more of a standard procedure in this
state, we will not be in this situation for
years to come.
But yet, nevertheless, it's been
estimated that between 10 and 30 percent of
eligible homeowners have missed the March 1st
deadline for the STAR property tax exemption.
Now, while the Governor has put out
a wonderful plan in the STAR program, what he
has failed to do is to -
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me,
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
why do you rise?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Will the
Senator yield to a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PADAVAN: What if a
homeowner fails to file by April 15th?
651
SENATOR GENTILE: Well, I'm
hoping within the next six-week period -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, what if
they fail to apply on April 15th?
SENATOR GENTILE: On April 15th
will be the deadline, Senator. What -
SENATOR PADAVAN: They'll be out
of business; right?
SENATOR GENTILE: What I'm
hoping, that in the next six weeks -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Will the
Senator yield again? Will the Senator yield
again, Madam President?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, I will
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PADAVAN: What you're
saying, of course, is that come April 15th, if
they've not filed, they're out of luck for the
tax year '99.
SENATOR GENTILE: I'm hoping,
Senator, by this procedure today, we have six
more weeks to publicize the program that has
not been widely publicized up to now. In
fact, Senator -
652
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator,
wouldn't it be better to allow -
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, if I
might, please.
SENATOR PADAVAN: -- those
homeowners -- here's my final question.
Wouldn't it be better, under this proposal
that's before us, to allow those homeowners a
whole year with which to file and then get the
1999 property tax abatement in any event?
It would seem to me that the
present bill here, the basic bill we're
dealing with, provides more protection for the
homeowners in my district, who, by the way -
you know, we extended the earlier deadline to
March 1st. Many of them caught on, came in.
Many will not have. And by April 15th there
will still be a certain number who will not
have filed.
And it would seem to me, Senator -
and this is my question -- that you should
agree with a plan that gives them a whole
year, virtually, to reapply for 1999 property
tax abatement. Don't you think that's the
better way to go?
653
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, I
don't think it's the better way to go, in this
sense. Because they will be getting their
1999 exemption in the year 2000, reducing the
real dollar value of their exemption for this
year.
Seniors -- you're saying seniors
might be forgetful. Well, we want to make
sure that they remember in the next six weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile,
again.
Senator Bruno, do you wish to be
recognized?
SENATOR BRUNO: Will the Senator
stand for another question?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, I will,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you.
Do you understand that the bill
that's before us automatically covers
seniors -- automatically -- and the bill -
the amendment that you're proposing doesn't
deal with that issue at all?
654
SENATOR GENTILE: It does -
we -
SENATOR BRUNO: What is wrong, is
my question, with allowing seniors to be
automatically covered instead of having to go
through the procedure that you will force them
to go through again by April 15th?
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator -
SENATOR BRUNO: What's wrong with
the bill -
SENATOR GENTILE: -- you are
denying -- you are denying seniors the benefit
of their exemption this year because of a
failure to promote -
(Cries of "No" from Republican side
of the aisle.)
SENATOR BRUNO: You've answered
my question.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, if I
might. If I might.
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes.
SENATOR GENTILE: You are
delaying their benefit till next year, till
the year 2000.
SENATOR BRUNO: As a matter of -
655
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, if you
want, I'll answer the question.
SENATOR BRUNO: But -- but you
don't understand -
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator -
SENATOR BRUNO: -- the bill
that's on the floor, Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: What this -
what our amendment will do is give them their
exemption this year -- 1999 -- not, as
proposed, in the year 2000. Give them the
real dollar value this year.
SENATOR BRUNO: But, Senator,
it's apparent -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno -
SENATOR BRUNO: -- that you don't
understand the bill that's on the floor. And
I'm not trying to be unkind. But what you're
saying is wrong.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator -
SENATOR BRUNO: Let me finish.
And I want to just finish my question. Okay?
A senior that qualifies will
automatically be covered. Okay? That's
different than what you're saying. They don't
656
have to wait -
SENATOR GENTILE: No, no. What I
said at the beginning, Senator -
SENATOR BRUNO: They don't have
to wait for anything.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, what I
said at the beginning is that our amendment -
and if you read our amendment, it does not
change the automatic acceptance for seniors.
What we're saying is that the
April 15th -- most people don't realize there
is a regular STAR program and an enhanced STAR
program. And the regular STAR program is what
we're talking about in terms of the April 15th
deadline.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to
interrupt you again. I believe Senator Bruno
had a question to complete.
Senator, are you completed?
SENATOR GENTILE: I believe he
completed that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR GENTILE: I believe he
657
completed that question.
And I want to make it clear that
our amendment does not change the provisions
of the bill that's on the floor, that seniors
would still receive the automatic exemption if
they have filed.
However -- however -- what this
does for those who are not 65 and have an
income of less than $60,000 and would fall not
under the enhanced STAR program but under the
regular STAR program, they are still cut out
of the program for March -- for the March 1st
deadline.
It is our proposal that we give
them an additional six weeks to file the STAR
property tax exemption application so that
those -- not the enhanced STAR, but the
regular STAR program applicants would get
their exemption and their tax break in 1999.
Now, I believe what has happened is
that there's a confusion as to what the
amendment says. And the amendment does not
change the senior portion of the STAR program
and the automatic exemption. The basic
exemption applies to some seniors who exceed
658
the $60,000 limit. Those who exceed the
$60,000 limit do not come under the enhanced
STAR property tax provisions.
And those are the seniors that
we're talking about, and those who are not 65.
Those are the individuals, the homeowners that
we're trying to extend to April 15th to give
them the opportunity to file for this tax
exemption.
I have to say that if there was a
concerted effort to make this program known -
it was known among the seniors in great -- in
great measure, but not among the general
populace. Even if you look at today's
Times-Union, there's a story in it that one of
the individuals said, "I thought it was only a
senior program, it's only for seniors."
It is not only for seniors.
Underscoring the point that we have not done
enough to publicize the fact that the STAR
property program is for homeowners regardless
of income. The regular STAR property tax
program is available to homeowners regardless
of income and requires an application process.
An application must be filed.
659
Given those factors that have not
been well-publicized, we believe that an
application extension, as was done in the
other house, to April 15th would give us the
opportunity to publicize this among ourselves
within our districts and for the Governor to
publicize this program.
So that if we're serious about
giving homeowners the tax break we propose to
give homeowners, we could give them that tax
break this year by extending a simple
extension to April 15th. And everybody knows
what April 15th is. Everybody looks at taxes
and tax exemptions for April 15th. It's the
perfect day to extend this benefit.
Senator, I think you confuse the
issue by saying that it affects the senior
exemption. It does not, unless a senior did
not file last year or a senior makes more than
$60,000.
This is something that will keep us
true to what we proposed, and that's a tax
exemption for New Yorkers who qualify. Let
New Yorkers who qualify apply for the next six
weeks.
660
Madam President, I'd ask that -
I'd ask that if we're serious about this we
pass this amendment and allow the April 15th
deadline to stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator LaValle, do you wish to be
heard on the amendment?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President. I know that the sponsors of
this amendment are well-intentioned. But I
think that Senator Bruno, through his
questions, and Senator Padavan, through his
questions, I think really brought to light why
the bill that is before us is an excellent
proposal.
Those of us I believe who have been
working to make people aware of this program
have known the frustration of getting to the
public to make them aware of the STAR program.
And whether we extend the date to April the
15th or May the 15th or June the 15th, there
will be people that will miss each of those
deadlines.
Under this bill, they will be held
661
harmless and still be able to receive a
benefit under the '99-2000 taxable year.
Under the proposed amendment, if you missed
April 15th or if we extended it again to
May 15th, those people that did not meet that
deadline are out. O-U-T, out. They would not
receive a benefit.
So this bill holds harmless the
seniors. And a good question was asked in the
Rules Committee about the enhanced benefit and
holding those seniors harmless. Because it's
sound public policy to continue those who
applied last year, to carry them forward
again.
But there are some other issues
that I think we need to bring up. You
cannot -- in this state, each county has a tax
act. And in the tax act are different
deadlines, dates: Taxable status date, when
the roll is closed out, and so forth.
If we jeopardize and play around
with a date, we are jeopardizing other things.
The tax roll may not be closed out in time for
the school districts to know what is their
assessed value when they form a budget.
662
We also play around and jeopardize
the grievance procedure. So there are other
taxpayers that will be put in harm's way
because the grievance procedure will be
jeopardized.
So this proposal is a very simple,
straightforward proposal that allows the tax
assessors throughout the state to be able to
deal with their deadlines within their tax
acts. The school districts will know what the
assessed values are. Those individuals that
want to grieve their assessments will be able
to do so under an established procedure and
time period under their tax act.
Because what we will do as
legislators is push off the grievance
procedure. And we're going to have people
coming in and saying, "Well, we didn't know
you changed things in the time period for the
grievance procedure. And now I can't grieve
my taxes."
So I think this bill does the job.
It holds harmless those seniors for the
enhanced program and protects those for the
basic program so that they will be able to
663
receive their basic exemption for the '99-2000
and the 2000-2001 year.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I saw Senator Libous's hand before
mine. So I believe he's next up on the list.
SENATOR LIBOUS: It's all yours,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I rise to speak in favor of this
amendment.
And I think there are a couple of
things that we need to keep in mind as we talk
about this. First of all, this issue of tax
status date has been a troubling issue for us
for a long time. I know that there are a
number of cases that arise -- and, Senator
Balboni reminds me, for some reason more of
them now, apparently, (unintelligible). The
question of taxable status date; that is, the
date under which the assessor has to be able
to say, Here's the property, is it subject to
664
exemptions, not-for-profit exemptions or
senior exemptions?
We've been through this many times
as we've tried to figure out should we come up
with some adjusted tax status date, should we
allow retroactive reimbursement if a
not-for-profit institution acquires land in
the middle of the year and it exceeds the tax
status date.
This has always been a troubling
issue for us to deal with, because Senator
LaValle properly points out there are some
days, if you're on the right side of the day
or apply on that date, you get it, and if you
don't, you miss it by a day, you're gone.
However, I still think that under
this proposal -- and I appreciate the Majority
bringing out a bill that will increase the tax
advantages from the STAR program to as many
people as possible. But there are two things
about the bill, the approach that the Majority
has taken, which I would just remind everybody
will slightly vary the terms of the STAR
program.
The first is one that I mentioned
665
in the Rules Committee. And I'm willing to
abide by that. That is, because it's
income-sensitive -- that is, you have to make
less than $60,000 -- there may be some seniors
who qualified last year, made less than
$60,000, who this year would not be eligible
for the enhanced STAR program because they
make more than $60,000. And I understand -
we talked about this in the Rules Committee.
The chairman of the Rules Committee made it
clear that there's a valid public policy that
says, okay, we're going to fudge that a
little. We're going to give some people who
would not otherwise qualify this year, for
administrative convenience, because we can't
quite be as sensitive with the law as we want,
we're going to expand that and give them the
benefit of that for a second year, even though
they may not be entitled to it.
But let me just mention one other
consequence of this approach. And that is
Senator Bruno, in explaining the bill, pointed
out that the seniors will benefit. That isn't
technically correct. Who will benefit? The
property benefits.
666
The way the exemption works is that
if you got the enhanced STAR benefit, it was
attached to the property. It's an exemption
that runs with the property. If you sell the
property the day after you get the exemption,
you -- the new owner gets the benefit of the
exemption for the following year and, under
the bill as proposed by the majority, would
get the benefit for two years.
So you have a senior citizen who
sells their property sometime during the
course of the last year, and they have an
enhanced STAR exemption on that property, they
are -- in some cases, their assessment is
reduced by $50,000. We last year accelerated
the enhancement so that there's a $50,000 tax
benefit with that. Under the bill as drafted
by the majority, even if I bought that
property, I would get the benefit of the
senior exemption now for a period of almost
two full years.
When we discussed this issue in
committee -- and I understand the concern of
members that say in this approach we can, for
valid reasons of public policy, fudge a little
667
at the extremes to allow some people who
wouldn't otherwise qualify because of income
to get the benefit. But understand, we may
also take many people who would not ever be
entitled to the enhanced STAR because they're
not old enough, we may give them the benefit
as well.
So as a consequence of that, we
have a system, as proposed in the underlying
bill, that has a fudge factor that may give
some people the benefit that they're not
otherwise entitled to; those whose income has
increased or those who buy property from
seniors whose property already qualified.
Or we have the other approach,
which is to create an absolute continuation of
the tax status date. I'll agree with Senator
LaValle, it is difficult to establish an
absolute cutoff. But I would simply suggest
that in this state we have absolute cutoff
dates for taxable status on almost every other
thing that deals with real property: normal
senior citizen exemptions, veterans'
exemptions, not-for-profit exemptions. They
all must be filed on the tax status date.
668
So the notion that we have a cutoff
date doesn't bother me. And I will confess,
Senator LaValle, the question of whether we
should bump it back to April 15th, how much
effect that will have on the assessors, I'll
accept your explanation that it causes them
significant concern.
But it seems to me that the
creation, the mere extension of the tax cutoff
date is not inconsistent with the prior policy
of this state. It will open the door to some
people who would not otherwise get the benefit
this year to get it.
I would hope -- and I agree with
Senator Gentile -- that if we aggressively
promoted this more, we might pick up that
additional 20 percent of people that would
qualify.
And, quite frankly, I think this
offers a different approach. I won't say it's
ironclad or guaranteed to do everything that
we would all want it to do. But I certainly
think the amendment has a clarity attached to
it that will, rather than sort of fudge our
public policy as the underlying bill might do
669
or might accomplish, inadvertently or
otherwise, the notion of having an absolute
cutoff date is not necessarily a bad idea.
I would also point out to everybody
that while the assessors may be concerned
about their obligations for city, county, and
town taxes, the STAR program only affects
school taxes. Those school tax warrants
aren't issued until late August. It would
seem to me, although it accelerates the
process for assessors, they'd still have four
full months to get the assessments completed
so that we could certify the school tax bills.
It's a complicated issue. I think
they're complicated questions. But I think
the proposal by Senator Gentile continues a
tradition in this state, one that has a
clarity and a finality attached to it that we
apply everywhere else and, in retrospect,
seems a slightly better approach than what the
majority offers.
I would simply point out I intend
to vote for this amendment. And if it fails,
I'll vote for the underlying bill as well.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam
670
President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, I believe you're next. Do you
wish to be recognized?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I believe
Senator Libous was ahead of me. But he's -
he's out -
SENATOR LIBOUS: Go ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Well, as
long as I have Senator Libous's permission.
As you know, Madam President, I always seek
his permission to speak. Otherwise, I simply
can't.
I'm going to vote against the
amendment. I know that may shock some people.
But I just happen to think that this issue is
so confusing and has been so muddied that any
further extensions, any further delays in
getting this thing resolved in a positive way
is only going to add to the confusion.
I object to the comment that there
has not been an attempt or there has not been
proper notification out there to the general
671
public on behalf of the administration and on
behalf of we as individual legislators. I
personally in my district have received close
to seven different mailings, just in the last
few weeks, from every level of government,
from every county legislator, from every
county executive, from village mayors and the
like, going out and telling people that this
program is due and that this deadline was
here.
Senator Bruno's bill resolves this
issue in a fair and equitable manner. It
allows the assessors to go on and do their
business in a fair and equitable way without
inhibiting them and without causing further
delays and further confusions with all the
subdivisions of government that we have to
deal with.
Let's end this process. Let's move
ahead in a positive direction, vote down the
amendment and vote up Senator Bruno's bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
why do you rise?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
672
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: We're not on -
Senator, we are -
SENATOR PADAVAN: On the
amendment, excuse me.
I was listening to Senator
Dollinger's comment relevant to what he
perceived would be an inadvertent application
of a senior citizen's tax abatement to a
person who really should not qualify for it by
virtue of income or age -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
I'm going to interrupt you, sir, because
Senator Rath had requested to speak first. I
wanted to ask you why you were rising.
But, Senator Rath, it's appropriate
for you to speak first. Go ahead, Senator.
SENATOR RATH: Senator -- I'll
yield my time so Senator Padavan can continue
his line of thinking, if I can have your
assurance that I'll be the next speaker.
THE PRESIDENT: You have that
assurance.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, ma'am.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
673
go ahead.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you very
much.
Senator Dollinger was explaining
his view on the extension provision as it
might relate to a senior citizen who sold a
home in the two-year cycle that we're
referring to and the new owner did not really
qualify by virtue of age or income.
And what I simply wanted to do so
is draw his attention to the underlying bill
that we're amending which specifically
addresses that issue. It says, "The enhanced
STAR exemption shall not be continued on the
1999 assessment roll where -- without an
application where the assessor determines
there are one or more new owners of the
property," and so on and so on.
So that problem that you cited is
addressed in the underlying bill, Senator.
And I hope you understand that. So -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Page and
number?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yeah, the front
page. First page.
674
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Madam
President.
The Assessors Association sent me a
letter on the 24th of February indicating
their strong opposition to the extension of
the deadline for accepting STAR applications.
And some of the points they made I thought
were important for us to recognize.
Senator LaValle went to some effort
to speak to those issues and the timely manner
that the assessors need -- and in the timely
manner in which the assessors need to finalize
their tentative assessment rolls. The dates
varying differently, but some are as early as
April 9th to 15th in order to be able to get
those data files completed.
However, there is another point to
that, that it would be impossible for them to
do that if indeed this deadline was extended,
as assessors are already behind in their
fieldwork collecting new construction, due to
the volume of people coming into their offices
to file the STAR applications.
Recognizing that this will have a
675
very negative impact on the property taxes if
they cannot gather the information and
document the new construction. That's new
money that will not be coming in if the
assessors are not able to go out there and do
that work because they are busy with a STAR
extension that they had not anticipated.
So I think for all good reasons, I
think that the bill that's before you from
Senator Bruno is the one that we should
support. And I urge my colleagues to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: On the amendment.
All those in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Party vote
with exceptions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 24. Nays
33. Party vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: The -- keep
676
following me. The acting leader asked for
exceptions on the party vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, could
you speak up, please?
Please identify yourself -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, when I made a -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, please
identify the exceptions.
SENATOR PATERSON: The
exception's identified by raising their hand,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. And
you may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: In other
words, you should ask the exceptions to please
raise their hands.
THE PRESIDENT: All the
exceptions have been noted.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 23; nays 34.
Party vote with an exception.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
defeated.
On the bill. Read the last
section.
677
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous.
To explain your vote?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President. I'd like to explain my vote.
And I want to applaud Senator Bruno
and the Governor for coming up with this
creative way.
I'm not sure I understand what my
colleagues were trying to do with the
amendment, because I thought our role here was
to make an opportunity, to give as many people
as possible this tax break.
You know, it's always very simple
in this chamber and the other house when money
is taken away from the taxpayer. But for some
reason, why would we want to make it difficult
to give it back to them?
This proposal that we're voting on
I think is very simple. It makes all of the
assessors happy because what we were doing is
putting -- by doing an extension, you're
678
putting an unburdened mandate, a mandate that
you're not paying for -- they have to bring in
more people to meet the deadline date.
This is simple, and yet it gives an
opportunity to those senior citizens, those
folks who are not senior citizens, to receive
something back from the government. And that
something happens to be their tax dollars.
Madam President, I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
be recorded as voting in the affirmative.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
to explain my vote.
I want to commend Senator Libous on
his comments, because he is very accurate and
right on.
I want to explain to my colleagues
that the bill that's before us is a Governor's
program bill. And the Governor, in his
wisdom, put this bill before us with a message
of necessity, to help the people, to clarify
for the people that they're not going to lose
a benefit. And this is the only bill that's
going to get signed. And no other bill is
679
going to get signed.
So if you want to provide relief, I
am sharing with you that this is the bill that
must pass both houses and get sent to the
Governor for his signature, because the
Governor sent it to us.
And I want to commend the Governor
and applaud the Governor for providing this
relief and this comfort level and to alleviate
whatever confusion that's out there for people
that will have lost their benefit otherwise.
And I would wager that there are
people in this chamber that, unless this bill
becomes law, are going to lose the benefit.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you are
recorded as voting in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce -
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
I just wanted to point out -- and
I'm voting in favor of this bill, that the -
(Sound of applause.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
680
Senator.
You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Maybe I should
just stop while I'm ahead.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: But I just
wanted to point that the Assembly has a bill,
the Senate has a bill. Presumably they will
meet in conference, and that's the way that
the final determination would be made as to
which bill would be passed in both houses.
As to which bill would actually
would be signed, I'd presume neither, since
neither of the bills has been passed in both
houses.
So hopefully at this point there
will be some relief of those who have been
benefited by the program in the very near
future.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you're
recorded as voting in the affirmative.
And the Secretary will now announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
681
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up the controversial
reading of the calendar.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Without further
comment, the Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
52, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 863,
an act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to the transportation of certain
persons.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This is an
identical bill that we've passed the last two
years which simply says that if you are
receiving transportation as part of your
682
Medicaid benefits, that that transportation,
if you live along a public transportation
route and you are physically and mentally able
to take the public transportation, you should
do so.
The concept is, number one, it's
the lowest-cost transportation. Number two,
it provides more funding for public
transportation, which comes to us annually
looking for more funds to exist. And in my
judgment, it's a win-win proposition.
And lastly, the bill does nothing
more than require people who are receiving
Medicaid to do exactly what those other people
do with a fixed income, they rely on public
transportation. Nothing more, nothing less.
And the bill's passed the last two
sessions, and hopefully it will pass this
session.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman,
I believe.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Will the
distinguished Senator from Syracuse yield to a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
683
yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I will,
yeah.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LACHMAN: As a former
academic, I sometimes attempt not to sound
like an academic. And in this bill, I think
of my Aunt Sylvia, who's a senior citizen.
And the way it's worded, Senator DeFrancisco,
you expect a senior citizen who thinks she
needs emergency care and is on Medicaid to go
to the closest subway station or bus stop in
New York City to get relieved of any pain or
illness she might have?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Is your
Aunt Zilia on Medicaid?
SENATOR LACHMAN: There are many
Aunt Sylvias that are on Medicaid.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Okay,
Sylvia, I'm sorry.
SENATOR LACHMAN: (Laughing).
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The point
of the matter is if they're physically capable
of doing so. Obviously, in an emergency
situation, no one is going to tell a Medicaid
684
recipient to stand on a bus corner or to run
down to the subway and try to get there.
This is for regular medical
treatment that people are receiving, and
that's the intent of the bill.
In a situation where it's an
emergency, I don't think anyone would suggest
it's a physically capable situation to sit
there and wait until they're seriously in need
of medical treatment.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Will the
Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. It
specifically says, Senator, to obtain
emergency care. You're aware of that? It's
your bill.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I am.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Will you
continue to yield?
Are you aware of the fact -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you do
continue to yield, Senator DeFrancisco?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
685
Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- that in at
least three of the boroughs of the city of New
York -- I'm not quite sure of Manhattan -
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, may I
go back to the last question?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Sure.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The first
section of the bill, which is already law,
says emergency medical care.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Right.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The
"provided that" says -- that I've added in
this bill does not deal with emergency medical
care.
And you were aware of that, were
you not?
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'm aware of
that as well.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: So you
understand fully, before asking that question,
that my bill wasn't intending for someone to
stand on a corner if they need emergency
medical care.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I have two
686
corollary questions. If -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, please
address your comments to the chair. Would the
Senator -
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam Chair,
it's always a pleasure to address my comments
to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I
appreciate that.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Will the
Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Absolutely.
SENATOR LACHMAN: All right. The
two corollary questions dealing with this is
that in New York City, even if a senior
citizen whose name is not Aunt Sylvia has a
problem -- that senior sometimes has to go up
30 stairs, 60 stairs, 70 flights of stairs in
order to get to a train -- now, this bill the
way it is written I think can make it much
more difficult for a senior to get the type of
care that he or she needs, whether the senior
is called Sylvia or Sam.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: There are
some seniors in this chamber that are in
687
better shape than you or I and that could run
up nine flights of stairs -
SENATOR MARCHI: (Raising hand.)
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LACHMAN: John -- John
Marchi, Friday morning at the corner of Bay
Parkway and 86th Street.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: So this
bill is not limited or focused on seniors.
It's focused on those who are capable. If an
individual is 20 years old or 80 years old and
they can't make those stairs, they are not
physically capable. Consequently, they would
not fit under this definition.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam Chair,
it's a pleasure to look at you. May I -- one
final question -
THE PRESIDENT: -- don't have to
request permission to be -
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay, thank you
kindly.
How is a person, senior or not
senior, how does that person realize that he
or she is capable of doing this? Because when
a person gets some symptoms, they're in a
688
state of panic, whether they're 80 years old
or 50 years old.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The
Department of Social Services will make a
determination if someone is required to take
public transportation, based upon their
status.
In the event that they disagree
with that, as in any decision made by the
Department of Social Services, they could have
a fair hearing.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Before or after
the symptoms occur?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No. If
it's an emergency situation, Senator -
SENATOR LACHMAN: But who decides
on whether it's an emergency situation?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: If it's an
emergency situation, I think anybody would
understand that the senior or anyone else is
going to take the quickest transportation in
an emergency.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Including the
Department of Social Services throughout the
state?
689
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator -
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: -- are you
finished?
Please direct all comments to the
chair.
Senator DeFrancisco, you may
continue.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: And then
there will be a determination as to future
treatment after the emergency. But this, as I
mentioned before, does not deal with emergency
situations, the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
do you wish to be heard?
SENATOR PATERSON: Not publicly,
Madam President.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Thanks,
though.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If I may be
permitted to remain seated, I would appreciate
it.
690
THE PRESIDENT: Of course,
Senator. Go ahead.
SENATOR STAVISKY: In part of my
district, we have the No. 7 line, which is an
elevated line and will require individuals to
climb substantial numbers of stairs. Now,
this may not be construed as an emergency
situation. But it definitely causes great
pain and suffering to anyone who is not able
to climb the stairs. And I believe that the
No. 7 line is an elevated line over much of
its tracks.
And I believe that this legislation
will require issuance of a statement of
medical necessity for situations which are in
a sense brutal for many individuals. Come
with me to western Queens where, from downtown
Flushing to the city line, there is this No. 7
line which consists of elevated tracks. It
will not be possible for all individuals to
require and expect a certificate of medical
necessity.
I think that this legislation will
indirectly impair the ability of such
individuals to take advantage of the access to
691
the subway line, which is really an elevated
structure. And I believe that this is -- this
is a -- an incongruous impediment to access to
rapid transit.
There are trains all along the No.
7 line, but the trains do not necessarily meet
the expectations or the ability of individuals
wishing to use mass transit. Climbing up and
climbing down will impair the ability of
citizens and noncitizens to have access to
this public rapid transit. Which, if you can
get to the train, is one thing. But if you
can't reach the train because of the elevated
structure, I believe that impairs the ability
of this legislation to do the right thing for
so many people.
For these reasons, I intend to
oppose this bill as it's presently written.
So it will not be a question of a certificate
of medical necessity in each case, but,
rather, it is necessary to recognize the
reality that a subway route in your
neighborhood, which is not truly a subway
route but rather is on an elevated structure,
will impair the ability of tens of thousands
692
of people to take advantage of the intent of
the legislation.
For this reason I will vote against
this bill, as I have done on a previous
occasion two years ago, and ask that members
consider this situation of an elevated train
which is not in close proximity to the
constituents' needs.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would the Senator yield for a
question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: He yields. You
may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
notion of this bill is quite apt. People who
are able to meet these appointments should be
able to do them. And if they can ride the
buses and the subway, they certainly should.
But my question is, how does your
legislation address those kind of transient
693
situations where, for instance, a subway might
be three or four blocks away from where an
individual lives, but with a significant
snowstorm that trip that could be made by a
person one day could be an emergency in the
sense that they could not get to that
transportation on another day?
And I don't know, in an ambiguous
situation such as that, how that is -- there
is any kind of regulation that can provide for
any kind of guidance in that situation. And
to adjudicate these cases administratively, in
my opinion, would probably cost more money
than would be saved by implementing this type
of regulation.
So my question is, how do you
address those situations that are -- have an
inertia to them, that are not static?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: First of
all, these are being addressed voluntarily in
some counties, including Onondaga, where I
come from. And basically it's not creating a
hardship to anybody that's physically or
mentally capable of using public
transportation.
694
And what it's doing is saving
dollars from cabs that were used previously,
which dollars are being used for, guess what,
medical care. So Aunt Sylvia can get medical
care once she gets there, because those who
are capable of using the lower-cost
transportation are doing it.
Now, no question, any legislation,
if you're going to look at one exception -
there's a major snowstorm. What do we do
then? You can't legislate by exception. In
situations like that, obviously, if that
person cannot make it on that day because of
the circumstances, then I would imagine the
Social Services Department could make an
exception on that day.
But generally speaking, when you
are capable, just like a low-income individual
who doesn't have the luxury of Medicaid is
capable to use the lowest-cost transportation,
so dollars are used for medical care rather
than transporting people to the medical care.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
695
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: On the
legislation. Although if the sponsor cares to
respond, I would -- with your permission, that
would be more than welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be no
need for my permission. Go ahead, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I thought there
was always need for your permission, Madam
President.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsor can
respond. The sponsor can respond. Go ahead.
SENATOR DUANE: While I
understand the intention to bring down costs
and to encourage use of mass transportation,
both of which I think are laudable goals, I
think that this legislation is really too
much. And in fact, there might be better ways
to achieve the goal, by regulation or other
ways, which might take into account the very,
very complicated decisions that people make
when it comes to their health, how it is that
they access health care.
And probably most specifically what
696
I wanted to raise was health care when it's a
parent or a foster parent or a grandparent or
a guardian dealing with the health of a child.
As many of us know, many of the people covered
by Medicaid are in fact children. And I think
that a mom or a dad or an adult needs to be
able to have the full range of options on how
it is that they provide access to health care
for their children.
In addition, it may not always be
perfectly well known on the spot whether or
not a particular health-care situation is an
emergency or not. And I don't think that it's
appropriate to, in many cases, hold
accountable after the fact actions which were
taken with the best interests of what could
have been the health needs of a child.
And so that's why I think that this
is much too much to do it legislatively and in
this manner on an issue which, yes, is
important as it applies to mass transportation
and health care and Medicaid costs. But I
don't -- I just don't think that this is the
way to go.
Thank you, Madam President.
697
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
I don't want to belabor this too
long. But if the gentleman would just let me
preface a question, I would be greatly
appreciative, Madam President. I will ask a
question with a few brief remarks before.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, go ahead
on the bill.
SENATOR WALDON: Just sit,
Senator, until I get to the point.
Where I live, the area that I'm
honored to represent, all of the Rockaways is
in that area. In the Rockaways is the
heaviest concentration of senior citizens in
any small geographical area in the state of
New York.
When you were speaking on your
bill, I was wondering what happens in an ice
storm. And someone raised that -- I believe
Senator Paterson -- about inclement weather.
But what happens in a snowstorm or
heavy rain and the senior citizen is, as one
senior citizen I know, 84 years of age, from
698
the Caribbean, not too capable in terms of
language to communicate in the native tongue
of America, and has to walk great distances to
where the bus stop is, has to walk an
extraordinary distance to get to where the
elevated subway is and then up the stairs in
order to get the medical facility?
What happens in Cambria Heights,
where there's one bus line going through the
area from Murdoch to 121st Avenue? What
happens when there's such distances and the
weather is inclement?
What happens when the person
affected is also an octogenarian and has to
make a decision: I know I'm sick. For
80-some years I've been able to determine when
I'm sick. But considering the bill that was
passed, sponsored by Senator DeFrancisco, I
now must call my doctor to see whether or not
I'm sick enough to call for the EMS vehicle,
or whatever would transport her to the medical
facility?
So my question, Senator, is what
would happen under those extraordinary
circumstances. And I appreciate your
699
response.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I've
already answered the question. I think the
question was already raised concerning the ice
storm, and I indicated that in emergency
situations individuals could take other
transportation.
But this is no different than
someone of low income or someone who has to
rely on public transportation anyway. It's
simply for someone who is on a fixed
transportation route, that's capable of
getting on the transportation, they should use
it.
And, you know, it's not intended to
be punitive. I mentioned it's used
voluntarily in our county. It's saved an
awful lot of money for health care. And those
people that have complained that they can't,
because of whatever reason, are entitled to a
hearing. And in most cases, they're
accommodated.
It's simply a way to try to reduce
costs and indirectly to provide more funds for
mass transportation so it's there for
700
everybody, to benefit everybody.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
I apologize. I said I would ask one question.
If you would ask the gentleman would he yield
to just one more -
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Senator
yield?
SENATOR WALDON: -- I guarantee I
won't ask another.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yeah,
absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you have
the floor for one more question.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
Senator, if you have the
information and the data, could you give us an
idea as to what savings you were able to
determine would happen if this became law
versus what is in existence now?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: About the
only thing I can do is provide you -- and I
don't have it with me, but I could certainly
provide it to you -- the savings that we've
experienced in Onondaga County under the
701
voluntary program. But it's substantial. And
I can't tell you the numbers.
In fact, it was the public
transportation and the Onondaga County
Department of Social Services that told me
about the program, that prompted the concept
that it should be considered statewide.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
I thank you. And I thank the Senator. Thank
you, Senator DeFrancisco.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, if the sponsor will yield to a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Senator,
the question I have, as you know, it's been
more than a month since the Clinic
Anti-Violence Bill was introduced in this
house and the Assembly, and -- thank you.
702
It's been more than a month since
the Clinic Anti-Violence Bill was introduced
in this house and in the Assembly, and we're
facing a very serious problem in this state of
demonstrations, harassment, threats, and acts
of violence outside reproductive health
facilities.
My question to the sponsor is,
would this require a woman seeking
reproductive health services to take public
transportation when that would result in her
having to run the gamut of screaming, abusive,
and possibly threatening protesters, as
opposed to attempting to take a car service or
taxi to deposit the woman in front of a
reproductive health facility?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't
think it matters whether you get to the health
facility where the demonstration is going on,
whether you get there by bus, train, car, or
plane.
I think the problem that you're
talking about is totally unrelated, and it's
related to a problem around the facility
itself. How they get from home to the
703
facility I think is irrelevant to the issue.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: If the
sponsor will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: In certain
clinics where I have represented clinic
defenders, in fact, the problem is precisely
that the area directly in front of the clinic
may be cleared by escorts and the police while
on all sides of the clinic there are
protesters who will accost every woman,
frankly whether she's seeking reproductive
health services or not and seeks to approach
the facility.
If it is a situation like that, I
take it -- am I correct in assuming that this
bill would nevertheless require someone to
take public transportation even if it meant
walking through that particular unpleasant,
possibly threatening situation?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, it
704
would. And I'm just wondering if they took -
may I ask, would you yield to a question?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Certainly.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: If they
took their car to that facility, how would
they avoid that same problem?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, in
the situations where the police are able to
clear an area directly in front of the
facility, between the facility and the road or
the driveway, there is in some cases better
access.
Where people have to walk, everyone
of course has First Amendment rights. And
what's most common is for protesters to -
police to attempt to move protesters to the
sides, although sometimes that can be
difficult.
Those are the situations I'm
speaking about, Senator.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: And my
question is, how does someone that's
protesting identify someone getting off the
bus as walking to this area, to the health
clinic?
705
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Just -
just -- just by -
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Do they
have signs on them that say they're -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Just by
the direction they're walking.
No. In fact, that's one of the
problems at reproductive health facilities, is
that many women who are not even seeking such
services are screamed at, berated, called
murderers, just for approaching the building
or, in some cases, attempting to go to a
different office in the same building.
And it is a serious problem, as you
know. It's something that we're seeking to
address here.
I do not think that the network of
terrorists is getting any lighter in its
touch. And I think you're correct in pointing
out that in many cases this is a problem even
for women seeking to obtain reproductive
health services arriving by car.
As I think you probably are aware,
last week envelopes with powder in them that
said "Anthrax. Have a nice death" were sent
706
to the National Organization of Women, the
National Abortion Rights Action League. We
have representatives from that organization
here with us today.
The terrorist campaign is getting
worse. And I would urge that you take into
consideration this particular problem and the
implementation of any sort of bill that would
restrict women in any way from prompt,
efficient, and safe access to their
health-care providers.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: To answer
your question directly, this bill does not
address that, nor do I think it needs to be.
That's a totally separate issue that there may
be a different remedy.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you continue
to yield, Senator DeFrancisco?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I just
want to say that I am an advocate for mass
transit and I appreciate the intent of this
piece of legislation. I think that some of
707
the issues that have been raised here in
questions of my colleagues have great merit.
And I would also urge that until
our house addresses the issue of violence at
reproductive health facilities, we will
continue to face anomalies like this in the
law. And that the ultimate solution to this
problem is to make sure that every form of
access is safe. And if that was true, I think
that it would be easy to support a
well-intentioned bill like this.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Madam Chairman.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
Chairperson. And briefly.
I understand the Senator's noble
intentions. And they're good and they're
wise. But this bill is penny-wise and
pound-foolish, in my opinion, because it does
not take into consideration those troubling,
transient transit problems that arise every
day of the year, especially in emergency
708
situations and especially with senior
citizens.
And unless you have an ex post
facto provision written into this bill, it
will not adequately do justice to the citizens
of my borough of Brooklyn and most of the city
of New York, including the distinguished
Senator who's sitting next to you, his borough
of Staten Island.
I therefore would respectfully vote
no on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yeah, I'd
like to explain the vote.
I want to thank Senator Lachman for
calling this bill wise and noble. And I
appreciate the alliteration that we heard as
well, with the transient transit authority or
709
whatever.
But I just want to make very clear,
it sounds from all the discussion of the
negative points here that there's some
meanspiritedness around this bill.
All I want to say very clearly is
that this concept works in Onondaga County.
Monies have been saved. It does not apply to
people who cannot use the public
transportation for whatever physical or mental
reason. And it provides more funds for what
Medicaid is truly used for; namely, medical
care.
And I think it's a good bill, and
hopefully it will be passed in this house.
And I vote -
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator, you will definitely be recorded as
voting in the affirmative.
And the Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 52 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Duane, Kruger,
Lachman, Markowitz, Mendez, Montgomery,
710
Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson, Rosato,
Santiago, Schneiderman, Smith, Stavisky,
Waldon. Also Senator Gentile, Senator Hevesi.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I apologize
for any confusion, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right,
Senator. Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 39; nays 18.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
121, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 1524, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to reimbursement.
SENATOR ALESI: Madam President,
may we lay the bill aside for the day, please?
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day, Senator Alesi.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
173, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1117, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
gambling offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
711
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
I rise to explain my vote.
Madam President, I had reservations
about this bill, in that my initial concern
was that potentially individuals who would
play three-card monte could be subject to
prosecution if we classified the offense this
way. I've since been assured by the sponsor
that that's not the case and, as a result,
enthusiastically support this legislation.
Fortunately, in the city of New
York, it's been my personal experience that
we've seen less and less of these three-card
monte games. But this legislation is
exceedingly necessary in light of the fact
that although there are less of these games
right now, probably as a result of the city's
crackdown on quality-of-life offenses, the
712
city is doing so well economically that our
tourism is exceedingly high. Hotel occupancy
is at some of its highest levels ever. And
therefore, we have more potential victims in
the city from this scourge.
These three-card monte players are
by definition insidious. And the games are
often set up in an elaborate fashion to entice
people, where they have individuals who are
shills, if you will. And they entice people;
they act as if they're playing the game and
are successful in their winnings when they're
in fact not successful.
So I enthusiastically support this
legislation and commend Senator Goodman and
Senator Maltese on sponsoring it -- I know it
passed unanimously in this house last year -
and would also urge my Assembly colleagues to
pass this bill as soon as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. You
will be recorded as voting in the affirmative.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just to explain my vote.
In my prior discussions about this
713
bill in committee, Senator Goodman, I said
I've never seen three-card monte. And I never
realized it was a problem. And then lo and
behold, Madam President, last night what am I
doing, I'm watching Ally McBeal. Ally McBeal,
who's gone through an emotional trauma much
like, I guess, others, is at the end of Ally
McBeal in the middle of downtown Boston. Who
does she run into, Senator Goodman, but a guy
with three cards on a little stand. And
Ms. McBeal, who's gone through the trauma of
Hollywood, suddenly starts betting dollars.
And then I'm informed by staff, before the
program ends she's betting twenties and
apparently losing at great measure.
So I guess if it's real in Boston,
if it's real in Hollywood and real for Ally
McBeal and, according to my colleague, Senator
Hevesi, real in New York City, we ought to
include three-card monte, whoever he or she
is, in the list of games that we ban in this
state.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you are
recorded as voting in the affirmative.
Senator Montgomery.
714
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, to
explain my vote.
I'm going to be voting yes, but I
just want to remind my colleagues that
three-card monte is a local activity, a
street-level gambling activity, similar to our
casinos, which we certainly don't have in New
York State. They're illegal too. But
nonetheless, we once had the local numbers
runners and that was unfortunately very much
involved with organized crime. But
nonetheless, we replaced it with legal numbers
games, which we sponsor in this state.
So I'm going to vote yes for this,
but I do have some -- some sense of hesitancy,
in that I'm reminded that it really removes a
little activity at the street level by people
who are really hustling to make a little money
for themselves.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: So recorded,
Senator. Thank you.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57.
715
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
176, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 1259, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
crime of criminal employment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section -- excuse me.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield to a
question, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano, do
you yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
In committee the question arose -
first let me say that I'm very, very
supportive of the intent of the legislation
and -- that of the despicable use of by an
adult of a child in a drug transaction.
716
But the question came up in the
committee as to whether or not a child who
engaged another child in a drug transaction
would also be covered by the penalties in this
legislation. Which I'll -- as you know,
Senator, I am not supportive of. And I just
wanted to clarify that they would not be
covered, that it's only the adults who would
be -- an adult who would be punished.
SENATOR SPANO: You're correct,
Senator Duane.
And we, in researching this in
anticipation of your question, were told that
a juvenile would be covered under the Juvenile
Delinquency law and not covered -- because
that juvenile would be covered under the
Juvenile Delinquency Act. So it would not
cover a minor.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The Secretary will now announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57.
717
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The last section will now be read.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
191, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2422, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to the elimination of the mandate for
the Public Service Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I wanted to rise
to explain my vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: First we'll call
the roll, Senator, please.
718
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
I'd like to be recorded as voting
in the negative on this. I don't think that
it is that burdensome to submit to an audit
every five years by the Public Service
Commission for utility companies. I just
think that this provides an additional
protection for -- to make sure that with
energy deregulation that our small businesses
are able to be provided with affordable
energy. And also, frankly, for older New
Yorkers and low-income New Yorkers.
I just think this provides an
additional check to make sure that the needs
of small businesses and at-risk New Yorkers
are taken into account by deregulated energy
companies.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
be recorded as voting in the negative.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President, yes.
719
THE PRESIDENT: Announce the
results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56; nays 1.
Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
recognize Senator Montgomery?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 170.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you are so recorded as voting in
the negative.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: There will be an
immediate Minority conference in Room 314.
720
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate Minority council meeting in Room
314.
Minority conference, excuse me. I
didn't hear you correctly.
Go ahead, Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please recognize Senator Breslin? I
believe he has a motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, I believe there's a motion at the
desk. And I would waive reading and be
allowed to explain the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator. Thank you.
SENATOR BRESLIN: There's a bill
at the desk on a motion to discharge which
would -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, first we
should read the title.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Breslin, Senate Bill Number 801, an act to
amend the General Obligations Law and the
721
Civil Practice Law and Rules.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: This bill is a
relatively simple bill. It's a bill that
essentially duplicates the bill which has
passed the Assembly the last three years
holding insurance companies and HMOs
responsible for their own medical decisions.
Doctors are held responsible,
lawyers are held responsible, and HMOs are now
making decisions which crowd the medical area.
And they should be responsible for them.
It's certainly not a partisan
issue, as many of my Republican friends on the
other side as well as Democrats on this side
have supported the concept and in fact the
legislation dealing with HMO responsibility.
The key word in the legislation is
"accountability." Currently, if an HMO makes
a medical decision, we are precluded from
having a lawsuit emanate from that decision,
as they cannot be held responsible for
malpractice. This legislation would change
that.
We've waited far too long. We've
722
waited a number of years and watched HMOs make
decisions. There are many fine HMOs who do
make medical decisions and they're made by
medical people. I can emphasize the ones in
our Capital District as being so good. But
there are others that don't, and we must hold
them responsible.
And this legislation has tremendous
cross-based support, including but not limited
to the Center for Independence, Citizens
Action of New York, the Mental Health
Association of New York, the League of Women
Voters, NYPIRG, the New York State Senior
Citizens Action Council, and many other
groups.
It's time to come together as
Democrats and Republicans and pass this
legislation. And I urge all of you to vote
positively on this motion to discharge so we
can take up this important issue.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
723
I'd also like to speak in support
of the motion to discharge offered by Senator
Breslin. This is an issue that he has been
closely involved with and taken the lead on,
and I commend him for that.
What this bill seeks to do is not
to create a revolution in New York law but
simply continue the evolution of New York law
with respect to creating damages for pain and
suffering -- damages in tort -- for certain
entities that engage in tortious conduct.
All the lawyers in this room -- and
I'm sure Senator Balboni will give me the name
of the case that involved the Buick in 1918
that was driving down the road.
MacPherson-Buick.
Remember what happened to
MacPherson-Buick? The tire falls off the car.
Somebody's in an accident. Under the old
law -- up in Plattsburgh, I'm told by Senator
Stafford. Right up in Plattsburgh, the New
York Court of Appeals says, "What are the
damages for not repairing the car correctly?"
MacPherson-Buick would turn around
and say, "Wait a second. The only thing you
724
can get is damages, are breach of contract
damages. I told you I'd repair the car. I
didn't repair it. What would the car have
been worth if it were properly repaired? I'll
give you that amount of money." Simply breach
of contract.
But instead the Court of Appeals,
which continued the evolution of New York's
common law of torts, said, "No. If you're
involved in a contract and you breach that
contract and it's a product, you are now
liable for pain and suffering that is caused
as a consequence of your breach of contract."
And we ended up with product
liability, a theory based on the notion that
you should be responsible for your actions and
when they cause a harm, a foreseeable harm,
you should have to pay not only for the breach
of contract but pay for the pain and suffering
that was foreseeable at the time your conduct
caused the harm.
That is all that Senator Breslin's
bill seeks to do, is to say to an organization
involved in a contract, that has a contractual
obligation to provide health insurance and
725
health coverage for an individual, that if
they breach that contract and do not fulfill
their contract responsibilities, because it's
health, because this is the health of New
Yorkers that's at stake, we will simply treat
them exactly the same way we treat a physician
and we will hold them to a negligence standard
of conduct.
If what they do is to disregard a
foreseeable risk -- if it is because they deny
a mammogram, they foreseeably create the risk
of breast cancer or undetected breast cancer
or delayed detection of breast cancer. Or if
they deny experimental treatments that would
include, as it included in a case that I took
to the courts in this state several years
ago -- they were unwilling to cover what they
considered to be an experimental treatment
that involved surgery for an epileptic child.
They refused to do it for two years. And
under those circumstances, when we sued, all
we could get were breach of contract damages.
But I'll tell you, for the little
boy who had eight epileptic seizures a month
prior to that surgery and two a year
726
thereafter, I believe that I could have proven
to a jury that he suffered a personal
suffering and pain as a consequence of the
health maintenance organization's failure to
provide him with that coverage and with that
access to care.
It seems to me that in the
evolution of the business world we simply have
said to some people who are involved in such
conduct that it creates a direct risk of harm,
where we know what the harm is, that under
those circumstances they can be held to a tort
standard of liability. That's all Senator
Breslin's bill does.
If insurance companies want to get
into the business of telling doctors what to
do for their patients, let them stand up and
say "We accept the same responsibility that a
doctor has." And that is, if their conduct
causes a harm, they must respond in tort
damages.
I look at this as the next
evolution of New York's liability laws. We
are told that this is a revolutionary idea,
that this changes the whole tort system.
727
Senator Breslin has pointed out to me a number
of times, since when was there a revolutionary
idea that was put in place in Texas before it
was put in place in good old New York?
I'd simply point out to you, let's
do what Texas has done and ten other states
that don't consider themselves to have the
same progressive tradition of New York. Let's
follow their lead and march down the road of
telling insurance companies that want to play
physician that when you play like a physician,
if you're negligent, you have to pay like one
too.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor -- Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, I've been informed you were
first. Go ahead. Senator Schneiderman first.
Go ahead.
Excuse me, Senator Paterson. I
didn't see you.
Go ahead.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, I'll be very brief. There was a
fascinating -- Senator Dollinger just
728
mentioned a lot of issues relating to the
denial of health care. There was a
fascinating and thoughtful article in the
Sunday New York Times this week discussing how
in many cases health maintenance
organizations, managed-care companies, are
making too many decisions approving certain
procedures which may be unnecessary and overly
increasing the cost of the health-care system.
Whether you think that there are
too many denials, too few denials, it is
absolutely clear when you get to the end of
this piece -- which I think was a very
balanced statement -- that they are the
decision-makers. We should stop kidding
ourselves about who's making the decisions on
whether medical procedures are available or
not. And I do not understand why they should
be uniquely exempt from malpractice liability.
And I also concur in the sentiment
that if Texas can have this, under the
leadership of Governor Bush, I don't see any
reason why New York State cannot also achieve
these results.
And perhaps it's something that we
729
can achieve this session and provide aid to
those supporters of the Governor who wish to
see him join Governor Bush in future
endeavors.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. Thank you for holding the
vote so I can stay here.
I want to just say that Senator
Dollinger joined Senator Breslin and Senator
Schneiderman as the -- they have been going
around the state trying to enlist support on a
number of health-care items, but particularly
this one.
We do have standards in our state,
particularly in the major medical and legal
professions, for what is considered to be a
malicious practice of those professions. We
have the Office of Professional Discipline,
which through the Department of Education
supervises 32 other professions.
But we do not have any protections
against these types of decisions that are made
by a new entity -- in a sense, practicing
730
medicine not only without a license but
practicing medicine sometimes without even any
supervision.
And so what we're just saying is
that as long as those decisions are made in
good faith, we can abide by them. But the
problem is that even in good faith, where
there's been establishment of -- an
establishment of negligence, there must be
some kind of remedy for the afflicted and for
the victim.
And for that reason, I rise in
support of this motion for discharge.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of accepting the motion to discharge,
signify by saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote to
affirm.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 24; nays 33.
Party vote.
731
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Will you
recognize Senator Paterson, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I just wanted to remind my
colleagues on -- in the Minority that there'll
be an immediate meeting in the Minority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Minority conference.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Wednesday, March 3rd, at 11:00
a.m. sharp.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Wednesday,
March 3rd, 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)