Regular Session - April 13, 1999
1799
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE
STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 13, 1999
3:05 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1800
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to 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 all 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, April 12, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Friday, April 9,
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.
1801
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following nominations:
As a judge of the Nassau County
Court, Arthur M. Diamond of New Hyde Park.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Arthur M. Diamond of New Hyde Park as a judge
of the Nassau County Court.
Mr. Diamond has appeared before the
committee. His credentials have been examined
by the staff of the committee. And this
morning he was unanimously moved from the
committee to the floor of the Senate for
confirmation this afternoon.
And it is with a great deal of
respect that I yield for purposes of the
seconding to Senator Balboni.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you,
1802
Madam President.
It is indeed an honor for me to
rise today on this floor and hopefully to
welcome to the bench an individual who I know
has harbored the desire to ascend to that
lofty position all of his adult life.
Arthur Diamond has spent time in
the trenches, time in the trenches protecting
the families and the communities of Nassau
County. He has served with distinction in the
office of Dennis Dillon, the district attorney
for the County of Nassau. He has been a
community activist. He has even opened up
businesses and worked within the body politic
so as he could understand the lives and the
nature of our communities. He provides an
excellently well-rounded background.
And as I said in the committee,
Arthur Diamond is an individual not only who
brings intelligence and enthusiasm to this
particular position, but he doesn't take
himself too seriously. But yet he takes
protecting his family and his community very
seriously.
Madam President, I can think of few
1803
people who have striven as hard as Arthur has
and who are as well deserving as Arthur is for
this nomination. And I sincerely hope that
this body confirms him.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Arthur M. Diamond of
New Hyde Park as judge of the Nassau County
Court. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Arthur Diamond is
hereby confirmed as a judge of the Nassau
County Court.
And at this time, as president of
the Senate -
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: -- I hereby
acknowledge, on behalf of the Senate, and
congratulate Judge Diamond on your appointment
and recognize his wife, Jody Pugach Diamond;
his son, Spencer; and Adele Diamond, Ethel
Pugach, Merle Fishkin, and Brian Fishkin, who
are all here with Judge Diamond today.
1804
Congratulations.
Senator Lack.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Warren County Court, John D. Austin of
Queensbury.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
It's my pleasure to rise once again
to move the nomination of John D. Austin of
Queensbury as a judge of the Warren County
Court. Judge Austin's credentials have been
examined by the committee. He has been vetted
by the staff of the committee. This morning
he appeared before the committee and was
unanimously moved from the committee to the
floor of the Senate this afternoon.
And it is with a great deal of
respect that I yield to one of my senior
colleagues and a former chair of this
committee, who always did such an excellent
job and which I try to emulate him in his
great endeavors, the honorable Senator Ronald
Stafford, for purposes of a second.
1805
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you.
And Senator Lack, thank you. And you should
just continue on for this very fine
nomination.
I want to say, Madam President,
that John and I go way back. He doesn't go as
far back as I do. His brother doesn't, quite,
either. But, on the other hand . . .
John was a reporter, was with
the -- in the newspaper reporting, and then he
decided to go to law school and did very, very
well. He got some experience working in the
Senate. And again, I think it was probably
over 30 years ago. I don't remember the
Senator he was working for, but I think
probably it was me. My memory doesn't go back
that far.
I have to say I wish that his uncle
was here speaking on his nomination, Fred
Bascomb, who was one of the last orators that
I have known, have been privileged to know.
But on a very serious note, this is
an example of the system working so well.
John has been the family court judge for years
1806
in Warren County. He has the ability, the
concern, the temperament. He's a judge's
judge.
And I can only say, Madam
President, that the Governor and all who are
responsible for John being in the judiciary
and for him now being confirmed as a Warren
County judge are certainly to be complimented.
And he has been a credit to his
family, his community, to anyone he has ever
been associated with, and including himself.
So, Madam President, he has with
him his two -- I'm not going to say
children -- issue, Jay and Susan, and his
brother Fred is also here with him. I ask you
to welcome them after we confirm a very, very
fine family court judge who I'm sure will be a
very, very fine county judge.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of John D. Austin of
Queensbury as judge of the Warren County
Court. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
1807
THE PRESIDENT: John D. Austin is
hereby confirmed as a judge of the Warren
County Court.
And on behalf of the Senate and as
its president, I hereby congratulate you and
recognize you and your family present today
and wish you all the courtesies and success of
the New York State Senate. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Nassau County Court, Joel B. Gewanter of
Cedarhurst.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise once more to move the
nomination of Joel P. Gewanter of Cedarhurst
as a judge of the Nassau County Court.
Judge Gewanter's credentials were
examined by the committee. He has been -- the
staff of the committee has checked into him.
He appeared before us this morning. He was
unanimously moved from the committee to the
1808
floor of the Senate for confirmation at this
time.
And I most respectfully yield to my
colleague from Nassau County, Senator Skelos,
for purposes of a second.
THE WITNESS: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
Senator Lack and the Judiciary
Committee and the Governor, thank you for
making this day possible for those of us who
represent Nassau County. But of course for
Judge Gewanter, who has a broad experience in
life: a lieutenant in the United States Army
Reserve, a village trustee in the great
Village of Cedarhurst -- and I know that its
mayor, Andy Piarise, is here today -- village
attorney, district court judge in Nassau
County, and a sole practitioner.
And I think that's important,
because Joel understands what it is for
individuals to practice law, what courtesies
should be extended to members of the bar just
as members of the bar should extend the
respect to the judiciary that they appear in
1809
front of.
He's been a good friend of mine for
so many years, a person who is well respected
within the County of Nassau, the community of
Cedarhurst, Atlantic Beach, where he resides
now. He's married with three daughters, and I
know his wife Sandi is here. We welcome you.
This is a wonderful, wonderful
appointment. I know, Judge, that you will do
us proud in Nassau County and the state of New
York. And I congratulate you. And it's my
pleasure to second his nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Joel B. Gewanter of
Cedarhurst as a judge of the Nassau County
Court. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Joel B. Gewanter
of Cedarhurst is hereby confirmed as a judge
of the Nassau County Court.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: As president of
the Senate, I hereby acknowledge and
1810
congratulate Judge Gewanter and acknowledge
his presence and the presence of his family
members with him here today. Congratulations,
and I extend to you all the courtesies and
success wishes of the New York State Senate.
Congratulations.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Dutchess Family Court, Peter M. Forman of
Beacon.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Peter M. Forman of Beacon as a judge of the
Dutchess Family Court. Mr. Forman's
credentials have been examined by the
committee. He appeared before us this
morning. He was unanimously moved from the
committee to the floor of the Senate,
notwithstanding the fact that he was a member
of Senator Saland's staff.
And I most respectfully would yield
to the good Senator for purposes of a second.
Senator Saland.
1811
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you,
Senator Lack. Thank you very much, Madam
President.
And there are some subtle
resonances here of recall, and I'll do my best
to be brief and not prejudice my dear friend's
opportunity.
It's a pleasure for me to rise on
behalf of Peter Forman, a man who I've known
for a number of years. He is here today with
wife and members of his family -- his parents,
his in-laws. It's certainly a glorious day
for Peter and the Forman family.
He really represents, I think, a
continuing tradition of excellence that
Dutchess County has seen in its judiciary,
certainly manifested most recently with the
appointment of Judge Al Rosenblatt to the
Court of Appeals.
Peter has a lengthy history of
public service, public commitment, whether as
an assistant district attorney, whether it has
been serving his municipality as a corporation
counsel or attorney to the City of Beacon,
1812
whether it has been serving, as he has so
ably, as confidential law secretary to one of
our county court judges.
But within all of these accolades
and all of these accomplishments, he
basically, as a human being, has manifested
the kinds of characteristics that we would
particularly want within the ranks of our
judiciary. He has just excelled in any
endeavor he's participated in. He has been
truly beyond his public life dedicated to his
community in any number of ways. And he's
been a wonderful father, husband, and I'm sure
a wonderful son as well.
He brings the kinds of qualities,
concern for family, to the family court bench,
and an understanding from his work as a
confidential law secretary about the system
that I'm assured he will hit the ground
running and do an absolutely superb job.
I wish you nothing but the best.
God bless you. Keep up the good work, Peter.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you,
Madam President.
1813
I don't think that there's a great
deal, as the number two Senator from Dutchess
County, that I can add to what our colleague
has said, Senator Saland. Let me just say
that I have also had the good fortune to know
Peter Forman for a great many years, know of
the great respect with which he is held by the
bar in Dutchess County and throughout the
Hudson Valley.
This is a wonderful nomination.
Peter Forman will be a great judge. And I'm
pleased to second the nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Peter M. Forman of
Beacon as a judge of the Dutchess Family
Court. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Peter M. Forman
is hereby confirmed as a judge of the Dutchess
family court.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of the
New York State Senate and as its president,
1814
Judge Forman, I hereby wish you all the
success of the New York State Senate and have
a wonderful celebration today of your
confirmation. And we also acknowledge the
presence here today of your family with you
for this joyous occasion. Congratulations.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Chenango County Court, W. Howard Sullivan of
Norwich.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Judge W. Howard Sullivan of Norwich as a judge
of the Chenango County Court. Judge Sullivan
has appeared before the committee. His
credentials have proved to be perfect before
the committee. He was unanimously sent from
the floor of the committee to the floor of the
Senate for confirmation at this time.
We had a little bit of a problem.
Although he technically lives in Senator
Libous's district, both Senator Libous and
Senator Seward have been daily calling for a
1815
month to find out when this confirmation would
take place. And we're going to go by the
strict technicalities, how we handle these
things in the Senate.
And so I most respectfully yield,
for purposes of a first seconding, to Senator
Libous.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President. Thank you, Senator Lack. And
thank you to your Judiciary Committee and to
the Governor for sending up this fine nominee.
And, Senator Lack, you received a
number of calls from both my colleague Senator
Seward and I for good reason. As I look up in
the gallery, I see the entire city of Norwich
with us today.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LIBOUS: Along with many
esteemed members, I see City Trustee Ed
Nelson, and Assemblyman John Ravitz is also up
there. And in our chambers, Assemblyman
Clifford Crouch.
And I think, Madam President, this
tells you a little bit about the nominee and
1816
what we all think of Howard Sullivan and why
this was important to not only Chenango County
but all of us who know Howard as a friend.
I'm going to let Senator Seward
talk a little bit more about his professional
background, and I'd like to just take a minute
to talk about his personal background. If you
look as his resume and you see the
organizations that he's been involved with,
you know that Judge Sullivan has spent his
entire life in Chenango County helping others.
And I can only reflect on a story
when, maybe about five or six years ago,
Judge, when I came to Chenango County and they
had a program called, if I get this right, the
Big Brothers/Big Sisters program. And this is
a program where adults help kids who are less
fortunate, kids who do not have families. And
they actually take time and spend time with
those kids to be a Big Brother or a Big Sister
and try to show them the proper way and the
guidance that they don't have because they
don't have parents.
Judge Sullivan has been involved in
that program and been a Big Brother I think
1817
for a number of years. And on that time and
that day, Judge, it told me a little bit about
the compassion that you have for not only for
young people but for your fellow man and
fellow citizens.
And that is certainly one of the
reasons why that he is fit for this position.
The other thing that I'd like to say before I
yield the floor to my colleague, Senator
Seward, is the judge also is a very talented
individual. Not only has he been talented in
the city court for a number of years and done
an outstanding job, but if you're ever
traveling through Norwich and you smell a
great aroma and it smells like fresh bread, it
may be coming out of the judge's kitchen.
It is an honor for me to stand
before this body and to move forward the
Governor's fine choice for this nomination,
Howard Sullivan.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Thank you, Madam
President.
It's certainly an honor and
pleasure for me to rise and join in support of
1818
this nominee, Howard Sullivan, to be the next
Chenango County judge and surrogate.
And I just want to congratulate,
number one, the Governor for making this
outstanding choice, particularly when you take
a look at the background of Howard Sullivan.
He has been a very respected practicing
attorney in our area for many, many years.
He's been a prosecutor in Chenango County.
And since 1978, Howard Sullivan has been the
city court judge in the City of Norwich. As
well as a long list of involvement in the
judicial organizations in our area and
statewide.
If you take a look at these
credentials, there's no question that Howard
Sullivan is eminently well qualified to be a
Chenango County Judge.
But he's also served -- and Senator
Libous alluded to this very, very
eloquently -- Howard Sullivan has also served
his community off the bench as well. And he
brings all of these qualities to this new
position. Obviously a keen intellect, a great
empathy for people, and very much a judicial
1819
temperament. When you take a look at the list
of community involvements of Judge Sullivan,
it's a full page, single-spaced. And I'm sure
this is a mere sampling of his involvement on
behalf of the people of our area.
He's a real people person, and we
know that he's going to be a firm yet very
fair judge who will serve the people of
Chenango County very, very well.
And I want to say it's a great
testimony to Judge Sullivan to have so many
Chenango County residents here to witness this
great occasion personally.
So I rise to urge my colleagues to
support the confirmation of Howard Sullivan to
be the next Chenango County judge and
surrogate. It's a great day for Chenango
County, it's a great day for the Sullivan
family, and I'm pleased to be part of it.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the nomination of W. Howard Sullivan -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: -- as judge of
the Chenango County Court.
1820
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I just want to add a thought on the
part of the Senate Democrats. We participate
in the Senate Judiciary. We thank the
courtesy extended by Senator Lack.
And as I've said before, and I
think Senator Lack agrees with me, I may have
had my disputes with the second floor, but
these five men are part of a continuing
contribution of this Governor to excellence in
the judiciary. The comments of Senator Libous
and Senator Saland attest to the community
involvement of these men, that they've been
involved in the science of government, they've
been involved in politics, they've been
involved in the community, they've worked as
lawyers. Senator Skelos properly points out
they've worked as lawyers. All the attributes
that good judges need -- a sense of their
community, a sense of their profession -- I
think are embodied in these five gentlemen.
There were no negative votes from
the Democratic conference in the Judiciary
1821
Committee. I don't anticipate there will be
any. I know Senator Breslin and others who
were there. This is a good contribution.
And I commend the Governor for
sending us these five names. He's sent us a
lot of good ones over the past. I hope the
trend continues. And I feel confident on
behalf of the Democratic conference in this
state that the future of justice is in good
hands, gentlemen. God speed.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Dollinger.
The question is now on the
confirmation of W. Howard Sullivan as judge of
the Chenango County Court. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: W. Howard
Sullivan of Norwich is hereby confirmed as a
judge of the Chenango County Court.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: As president of
the Senate and on behalf of the New York State
1822
Senate, Judge Sullivan, I congratulate you,
acknowledge the presence of your wife, Sherri,
and your other family members here with you
today, and wish you continued success in all
of your endeavors as described by your
colleagues here today. Congratulations.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As deputy comptroller for the City
of New York, Kathleen Grimm of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I certainly move the nomination of
Kathleen Grimm with a great deal of pleasure.
And again, just a very, very fine appointment.
I've been here a while, Madam
President, and one can see that the nominee is
a scholar. She has a tremendous resume.
She's done so well both in her profession and
also she has done a great deal of volunteer
work, and I'm sure she will do an excellent
job.
1823
And, Madam President, I would just
point out that we listen to many statements
when people come before the Finance Committee,
but I can share with you today that Kathleen
Grimm's statement was one of the best that I
have had the pleasure of listening to. And I
don't say that lightly.
And I believe there are some other
Senators that would like to move the
confirmation. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Stafford.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
I also want to salute the
outstanding career in public service that
Kathleen Grimm has had thus far. I couldn't
be happier, then, to add my voice to confirm
her appointment.
And I want to single out just one
item where she was really very, very helpful,
and that was on the issue of equalizing tax
policy for co-ops and condos with other
classes of residential property.
1824
And she's really, really smart and
she's really, really easy to work with. And I
think that she'll do an outstanding job with
the comptroller. So I'm happy to vote for her
confirmation.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
The question is now on the
confirmation of Kathleen Grimm as deputy
comptroller for the City of New York. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Kathleen Grimm is
hereby confirmed as deputy comptroller for the
City of New York.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Congratulations,
Deputy Comptroller Grimm, on behalf of the
Senate. And I extend to you all the
courtesies of the Senate, and have a wonderful
celebration today.
The Secretary will read.
1825
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Public Employment Relations Board, John T.
Mitchell, Esquire, of Delmar.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move the
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Stafford.
The question -
SENATOR PATERSON: Move
confirmation please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
Excuse me, Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President. I'd like to make a brief
comment, if allowed.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR BRESLIN: John Mitchell
is another example of our Governor making good
appointments. He's been a long-time friend, a
neighbor, and a very distinguished member of
our bar in Albany County.
Terry, as he's known, is up in our
audience today, and really speaks well again
for the quality of appointments not only to
the judiciary but other administrative
1826
appointments as well. And I'm delighted to be
here to participate in it.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of John T. Mitchell,
Esquire, of Delmar, as a member of the Public
Employee Relations Board, for a term to expire
May 31st in the year 2001. All those in favor
please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: John T. Mitchell,
Esquire, is hereby confirmed as a member of
the Public Employee Relations Board, for a
term to expire May 31, 2001.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of the
Senate and as president of the Senate, I would
like to echo Senator Breslin and the other -
Senator Stafford's remarks, for my own
personal knowledge as an attorney in Albany
County of John T. Mitchell's excellence in the
community as well as in his profession.
It's an honor to be here as
president of the Senate to preside over your
1827
confirmation. Congratulations, best wishes,
and have a great celebration.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Harness Racing Commission, Charles
D. Lohrfink of Yonkers.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Charles D. Lohrfink of
Yonkers as a member of the State Harness
Racing Commission. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Charles L.
Lohrfink of Yonkers is hereby confirmed as a
member of the State Harness Racing Commission,
for a term to expire February 1st in the year
2004.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
1828
Advisory Council to the Commission of the
Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled,
Dale R. Angstadt of Gansevoort and Mary H.
Derby of Geneseo.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Dale R. Angstadt of
Gansevoort and Mary H. Derby of Geneseo as
members of the Advisory Council to the
Commission of the Quality of Care for the
Mentally Disabled.
First of all, for Dale Angstadt for
a term to expire November 29th in the year
2001, and for Mary H. Derby for a term to
expire February 17th in the year 2000.
All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dale R. Angstadt
is hereby confirmed, and Mary H. Derby is also
hereby confirmed as members of the Advisory
1829
Council to the Commission on the Quality of
Care for the Mentally Disabled for their
respective terms.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Council on the Arts, Judith O. Rubin
of New York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
I just want to add my voice and say
that you could not reappoint a greater
champion of the arts than Judith Rubin. She
is unbelievably supportive and just
outstanding where it comes to the arts and its
importance in our great state. And I'm
thrilled that she has agreed to serve another
term.
Thank You, Madam Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
1830
President.
I have known Judith Rubin for many
a year. She has completed many years on the
State Council of the Arts. For many more
years than that, she was the head of the 92nd
Street Y in Manhattan. For years she
travelled the state, usually in combination
with Dee-Dee Barclay, the wife of a former
distinguished member of this house, Douglas
Barclay. And the two of them, Dee-Dee Barclay
and Judy Rubin, would go from arts council to
arts council, from rural area to rural area,
from museum to museum, tirelessly promoting
the work of the New York State Council on the
Arts in everything that they did, and continue
to do.
She is a totally dedicated person
in her own right, notwithstanding the rather
involved political involvement of her family,
as is Dee-Dee Barclay, notwithstanding the
political involvement of her family. And the
two of them, although from different political
parties, have come together to work to show
that development of the arts in this state and
of the arts council and all the work it does
1831
certainly goes beyond day-to-day politics.
And I congratulate the Governor
most heartily for renominating, and Judith
Rubin's agreement to serve once again on
the -- as a member of the New York State
Council of the Arts. She has done a wonderful
job. And although not here today, I would
certainly join in congratulating her in the
great work that she's done for the state and
specifically for the arts in New York State.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the nomination of Judith O. Rubin as a
member of the State Council on the Arts. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Judith O. Rubin
is hereby confirmed as a member of the State
Council on the Arts.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
Mental Health Services Council, Jeffrey Davis
of Binghamton and John M. Morihisa, M.D., of
1832
Albany.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Jeffrey Davis and John
M. Morihisa, M.D., as members of the Mental
Health Services Council. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Jeffrey Davis and
John M. Morihisa are hereby confirmed as
members of the Mental Health Services Council.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni,
from the Committee on Water Resources,
reports:
Senate Print 3086, with amendments,
by Senator Kuhl, an act to amend the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts Law;
3653, by Senator Balboni, an act to
amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
3889, by Senator Balboni, an act to
1833
amend the Soil and Water Conservation
Districts Law;
And 4014, by Senator Balboni, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
Senator Spano, from the Committee
on Labor, reports:
Senate Print 840, by Senator
Marcellino, an act to amend the Labor Law;
4273, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Labor Law;
4359, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Workers' Compensation Law;
And 4360, by Senator Spano, an act
to amend the Workers' Compensation Law.
Senator Stafford, from the
Committee on Finance, reports:
Senate Print 762, by Senator
Johnson, an act to amend the State Finance
Law;
1197, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
1745, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend Chapter 554 of the laws of 1996.
1788, by Senator Padavan, an act to
1834
amend the State Finance Law;
3025, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the State Finance Law;
3647, by Senator Stafford, an act
to amend the Executive Law;
3691, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
3832, by Senator Stafford, an act
to amend the Executive Law;
3843, by Senator Stafford an act to
amend the Executive Law;
4550, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act making appropriations for the
support of government;
And 4551, by the Senate Committee
on Rules, an act making appropriations for the
support of government.
Senator Rath, from the Committee on
Local Government, reports:
Senate Print 121, by Senator Rath,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law;
141, by Senator Nozzolio, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
742, by Senator Seward, an act to
repeal Section 4 of Chapter 668 of the laws of
1835
1977;
745, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
820, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the General Municipal Law;
1771, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
1994, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
2440, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the County Law and the Civil Practice
Law and Rules;
3090, by Senator Kuhl, an act in
relation to the application of the real
property tax exemption;
3275, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend Chapter 583 of the laws of 1998;
3793, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
amend the Town Law;
3947, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
4072, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Town Law;
And 4205, by Senator Rath, an act
to amend the General Municipal Law.
1836
Senator Volker, from the Committee
on Codes, reports:
Senate Print 21, by Senator Larkin,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
111A, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
743, by Senator Alesi, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
814, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules;
853A, by Senator Balboni, an act to
amend the Civil Rights Law;
1025, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
1170, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law and the
Education Law;
1618, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
1830, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
1962A, by Senator Johnson, an act
to amend the Penal Law;
2005, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
1837
2139, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law and the Criminal Procedure
Law;
2320, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law and the
Family Court Act;
2352, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
2401, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
2753, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Penal Law and others;
2795, by Senator Rath, an act to
repeal paragraph F of subdivision 1 of Section
70.30 of the Penal Law;
2936, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules;
3070, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules;
3071, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules;
3106, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
3181, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law and the Criminal Procedure
1838
Law;
3289, by Senator Stavisky, an act
to amend the Penal Law;
3299, by Senator Stavisky, an act
to amend the Penal Law;
3502, by Senator Waldon, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
3689, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules and the
Executive Law;
3715, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
3719, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
3926, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Penal Law; and
4252, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
Senator Trunzo, from the Committee
on Transportation, reports:
Senate Print 4203, by Senator
Trunzo, an act to amend the Highway Law;
4247, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4248, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
1839
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4249, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4250, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Highway Law and the Public
Authorities Law;
4251, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4406, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4407, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4409, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
And 4412, by Senator Trunzo, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Senator Saland, from the Committee
on Children and Families, reports:
Senate Print 3812, by Senator
Saland, an act to amend the Domestic Relations
Law and the Family Court Act;
3813, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Family Court Act and the Social
Services Law;
3817, by Senator Saland, an act to
1840
amend Family Court Act;
3931, by Senator Holland, an act to
amend the Social Services Law;
3934, by Senator Holland, an act to
amend Chapter 942 of the laws of 1983;
3985, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Domestic Relations Law and the
Family Court Act;
3987, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Family Court Act and the Criminal
Procedure Law;
3988, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Executive Law and others;
4439, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Social Services Law.
Senator Goodman, from the Committee
on Investigations, reports:
Senate Print 1741A, by Senator
Johnson, an act to amend Civil Rights Law;
1911A, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend the Tax Law;
2124, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
2285, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law;
1841
2364, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
3601, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Tax Law; and
3720, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
to amend the Tax Law.
Senator Nozzolio, from the
Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and
Correction, reports:
Senate Print 1512, by Senator
Alesi, an act to amend the Correction Law;
1563, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Correction Law;
3773, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Correction Law;
3775, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Executive Law;
3776, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Executive Law;
3781, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Correction Law;
3782, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to repeal subdivision 9 of Section 500B;
4027, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend the Executive Law; and
1842
4069, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Correction Law.
All bills ordered direct for third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills ordered direct to third
reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
on page number 10 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 220, Senate
Print Number 2733, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator Wright, and the bill
will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
1843
I'd like to star my bill, place a
sponsor star on Calendar Number 239.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill will be
so starred, Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Libous, I wish to call up
Calendar Number 441, Assembly Print 6982, if
the Secretary would read the title.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
441, by Member of the Assembly Brennan,
Assembly Print 6982, an act to amend Chapter
720 of the laws of 1979.
SENATOR FARLEY: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this Assembly bill was substituted for Senator
Libous's bill, Senate Print 3455, on April
12th.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
SENATOR FARLEY: Madam President,
I now move that the Assembly bill, 6982, be
1844
recommitted to the Committee on Mental Health
and Development Disabilities, and that Senator
Libous's Senate bill be restored to the order
of the Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assembly bill
is recommitted. The Senate bill is restored
to third reading, Senator.
SENATOR FARLEY: I now offer the
following amendments to that bill.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Farley.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
at this time may we please adopt the
resolution calendar in its entirety.
And Senator DeFrancisco has
indicated that if anybody wishes to sponsor
Resolution Number 973, they should notify the
desk.
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion,
all in favor of adopting the resolution
1845
calendar, signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution
calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
may we please take up Resolution 820, by
Senator Lachman. This resolution previously
was adopted on March 30th, but may we have it
read in its entirety at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Lachman, Legislative Resolution 820, honoring
the first, second and third place winners of
the New York State's U.S. Savings Bonds 1999
National Student Poster Contest.
WHEREAS, The Department of the
Treasury, United States Savings Bonds
Division, annually conducts a National Student
Poster Contest to show how savings bonds can
help goals and dreams come true; and
WHEREAS, The United States Savings
1846
Bonds Student Poster Contest has been designed
for our Nation's schoolchildren in grades
four, five and six as a creative learning
activity and has been endorsed by the nation's
leading educational organizations;
The theme for the U.S. Savings
Bonds 1999 National Student Poster Contest
"Creating a New Century of Savings" is
artistically expressed in the winning poster
which will be displayed in an exhibit in
Washington, D.C.; and
WHEREAS, First Place Winner, 11
year-old Lev Stravchinsky, a Russian immigrant
and resident of the 22nd Senatorial District,
represented by Senator Seymour Lachman, is a
sixth grade student at I.S. 239 Mark Twain in
Brooklyn, New York;
Second Place Winner, 9 year-old
Sara Brooke Reinstein, a resident of the 2nd
Senatorial District, represented by Senator
James Lack, is a fourth grade student at
Otsego Elementary School in Dix Hills, New
York;
Third Place Winner, 11 year-old
Ryan Rimmer, a resident of the 61st Senatorial
1847
District, represented by Senator George
Maziarz, is a sixth grade student at Emmet
Belknap Middle School in Lockport, New York;
and
WHEREAS, Lev Stravchinsky, Sara
Brooke Reinstein and Ryan Rimmer have brought
enduring honor to their schools, their
families, and their communities; awards will
be given to each student in the form of U.S.
Savings Bonds for $1,000, $500 and $200,
respectively;
Contest awards have been provided
by State Sponsors, Mr. Thomas Y. Hobart Jr.,
President, New York State United Teachers and
Mr. Alan B. Lubin, Executive Vice President,
New York State United Teachers; and
WHEREAS, Lev Stravchinsky's poster
will represent New York State in the National
competition where First, Second and Third
Place National Winners will receive
respectively, a $5,000, $2,000 and $1,000 U.S.
Savings Bond at the National Awards Ceremony
in Washington, D.C.;
Accommodations and transportation
to and from Washington, D.C., will be provided
1848
for the three National Winners, and a parent
or guardian; while in Washington, winners and
a parent/guardian will be invited to tour the
historic Treasury Building, the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Capitol;
and
WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
legislative body to extend its highest
commendation to Lev Stravchinsky, Sara Brooke
Reinstein, and Ryan Rimmer who have through
their efforts brought enduring honor to this
great Empire State; they clearly personify
that spirit of excellence which distinguishes
the student body of the State of New York;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to honor the
First, Second, and Third Place Winners of the
New York State's U.S. Savings Bonds 1999
National Student Poster Contest; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That copies of this
Resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to Lev Stravchinsky; Sara Brooke Reinstein;
Ryan Rimmer; I.S. 239 Mark Twain; Otsego
1849
Elementary School; Emmet Belknap Middle
School; New York State United Teachers;
Department of the Treasury-U.S. Savings Bonds
Office, Washington, D.C.; and Nancy Dougherty,
Area Manager, Department of the Treasury-U.S.
Savings Bonds Marketing Office.
THE PRESIDENT: This resolution
was previously adopted on March 30th.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, I rise to personally congratulate
all three winners, first place, second place,
and third place.
It is not a coincidence that all of
these winners represent different parts of the
state of New York: first place, New York
City, and second and third place, Long Island
and upstate New York. We are one state and we
have the best and most creative students of
any of the 50 states.
I also want to add to my remarks
some personal statements of belief that I
have. First I want to personally commend and
congratulate Lev Stravchinsky, his parents,
Irina and Stanislaus Stravchinsky, who are
1850
sitting alongside of him, and grandma, who is
sitting behind, as well as Zoe Taptal, his art
teacher from Mark Twain Junior High School.
Lev, I have the privilege of living
around the corner from you and your parents in
Bensonhurst. I also have the privilege of
representing grandma in the Brighton part of
my senatorial district. And, thirdly, I have
the privilege of having your intermediate
school, Mark Twain, in the Coney Island part
of the 22nd Senatorial District. I am mighty
proud of you, Lev, and your entire family.
And while you're standing, and
while grandma is schepping noches, I also want
to add something else. And I received Lev
Stravchinsky's permission to say this. The
greatness of the United States rests in part
on the fact that we are a nation of
immigrants. Whether from Guinea or Trinidad,
from Korea or China, from Italy or the former
USSR, generations of men and women have come
to this nation, have become part of this
nation, have given their lives for this
nation. We are proud of that fact, Lev. We
are proud of your profound talents. We are
1851
proud that you are now, instantaneously, by
being placed as Number One in New York State,
a finalist in the national contest, which
gives you a prize of $5,000. Which I'm sure
when you win you will use for your college
education. We are proud to have you here, and
your colleagues, the second and third place
winners as well.
And let me say this also. Lev, I
look forward to the day when I will be in the
gallery and perhaps you or the second or third
place winners will be installed in this
chamber as New York State Senators. Maybe in
10, 15, or 20 years -- you have a while to go
yet.
But let me say to all the winners,
all their families, to NYSUT, the U.S.
Treasury department, congratulations. You
make us all proud to be citizens of United
States of America.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
I want to join my colleagues,
1852
Senator Lachman and Senator Lack, in
congratulating the Savings Bond Poster Contest
winners.
I am particularly proud, Madam
President, that I represent the third place
winner, Ryan Rimmer, from Lockport, New York,
a student at Emmet Belknap Middle School in
Lockport. Now, the unusual fact about Ryan,
Madam President, is that this is his third
year in a row having won this poster contest.
I believe one year he was first and second,
and this year he was third. The competition
is getting a little bit better out there,
Ryan.
But I join with Senators Lachman
and Lack. This is a great program. I think
that the New York State United Teachers and
Tom Hobart should be congratulated for
sponsoring these fine young people, the
leaders of tomorrow.
I do want to recognize my colleague
and Ryan's representative in the Assembly.
Assemblyman Dave Seaman is here. And, Ryan,
I'm not sure if someday in your future that
you may be interested in running for the New
1853
York State Legislature. But if you are, you
may want to consider the Assembly. It's a
great place to serve.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I also, Mr.
President, want to welcome Ryan's parents, who
are here for the third time also, Bob and
Cheryl, both of whom, by the way, are public
schoolteachers in Niagara County.
So certainly, Ryan, I understand
that this is your last year of eligibility.
So three years of eligibility and a winner
three years in a row, a perfect score, Ryan.
Congratulations and good luck, and we look
forward to seeing you back here.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: This resolution
was previously adopted on March 30th.
And as president of the Senate, I
want to acknowledge that I had the privilege
earlier today of meeting with all three award
winners. I was impressed and wish you a
wonderful celebration. Congratulations.
Senator Goodman.
1854
SENATOR GOODMAN: I'd like to say
a quick supplemental word with regard to the
nomination of Judith Rubin, which has recently
been passed by the Senate to serve on the New
York State Council on the Arts for another
term.
Madam President, Judith Rubin is a
very rare and unusually gifted individual.
She has not only carved out her own separate
career as a very distinguished producer of
plays and is not only a cultural leader in the
City of New York, but she serves on the
National Endowment for the Arts Council, where
she has national influence in the protection
of that great institution and in the advancing
of the arts and culture in the country as a
whole.
Judy Rubin is a person of great
grace and wisdom, in my judgment, and I think
that her reappointment to the State Council is
great beneficial. She is the only individual
who has served simultaneously as a member of
the State Council as well as the National
Endowment. She and I served together on that
body for a period of some time, and I've
1855
learned to see her in the light of her
remarkable accomplishments and judgment about
what constitutes great art.
She's a person of whom we can be
very proud indeed, and I'm very happy to have
this opportunity to add a word of warm support
for her renomination to the State Council on
the Arts.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
214, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 925A, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to the use of the designations of
"and associates."
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1856
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
362, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 1061, an
act to amend the County Law, in relation to
authorizing the County of Herkimer.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
378, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 2530, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to the possession of equipment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
1857
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
388, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2423, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to unauthorized charges.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 120 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
401, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 3485, an
act to amend the State Administrative
Procedure Act, in relation to adjudicators
proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
1858
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
410, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 1481A,
an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and
Rules, in relation to prohibiting civil
actions.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
411, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1775, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal possession of a weapon.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
414, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2086, an
act to amend Penal Law, in relation to
1859
authorizing an additional term of
imprisonment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. 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
417, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 2247, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
definitions of criminal enterprise.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
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
1860
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
422, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 2678, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
crime of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
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
423, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 2865, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to in rem foreclosures.
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.)
1861
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
425, by Member of the Assembly Hochberg,
Assembly Print 5203, an act to amend the Penal
Law and the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to increasing the penalties.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. 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
443, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 4043, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in
relation to local planning for mental hygiene
services.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
1862
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Excuse me. In
relation to Calendar 443, ayes 56, nays 1.
Senator Kuhl recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
468, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 2942, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law and
others, relating to the rate of interest.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could take up the
controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
1863
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
410, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 1481A,
an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and
Rules, in relation to prohibiting.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, might we have an explanation on
that bill? I just wondered if Senator Balboni
was prepared to discuss it today.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR BALBONI: And thank you,
Senator Paterson, for your interest in this
particular piece of legislation.
My colleagues, this bill is a bill
that we've had before in this house. The
timing of this bill, though, is somewhat
intentional. This bill brings back the
concept of contributory negligence in the
Civil Practice Laws and Rules as it pertains
to lawsuits brought by convicted felons
1864
against their victims.
This is a public policy that has
been long established and upheld and affirmed
again and again and again in the courts of
this state, first beginning with Barker versus
Kalish in 1984, then Manning versus Brown in
1997, and then, last Thursday, by the
Appellate Division, Third Department, in the
case of Johnson versus State. And I'd like to
thank minority counsel for helping me
remember -- know about that case.
My colleagues, this is a case -
this is a statute that for many years has
eluded us, not because of this house's
inaction but rather the inaction of the State
Assembly. We continually try to put this on
the table so that the common sense is
codified. And I would also like to state that
it's my belief that this corrects a problem
that perhaps was an oversight back in 1975
when this Legislature created the Comparative
Negligence Statute and forgot to carve out
actions by individuals that were intentional
and felonious. I hope that that gives you
some examples of the conduct that this bill
1865
hopes to reach.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I was actually kidding before. You
were not here last year. And for all those
who were not here last year, when I suggested
that I wasn't sure whether or not Senator
Balboni would be prepared to discuss this
case, that was really just an inference drawn
by myself in a humorous way, because Senator
Balboni is as prepared as anybody in this
chamber. And exactly last year when we
discussed this precise bill, responding to
questioning from Senator Gold, Senator Balboni
cited a case from 1896 -- actually, I think it
was 1894 -- related to or on point with Barker
versus Kalish. And perhaps we can persuade
him to get up and discuss it further, as I ask
him if he would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
will you yield to a question from Senator
Paterson?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I would.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
go ahead.
1866
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, as
you referred to just a moment ago, on April
8th, the Court of Appeals, the Third
Department, of the State of New York ruled in
the case Johnson versus the State of New York
that where an individual was handcuffed and
held in the back of a police van, he escaped
from the police van, ran off into the woods,
the police were unable to apprehend him, he
was later found to have died in the woods, and
his family sued claiming that there was a
malfeasance of duty on the part of the
police -- the Court of Appeals held, as you
would in this bill, Senator, that -- right, in
the Third Department, that the -- that there
could be no recovery where there was a
presumed felonious conduct on the part of this
individual who's being apprehended who was not
even at this point convicted.
But since the conduct of escaping a
police van was not one that would really be an
argument of fact, that this is actually a
higher standard than you're even holding in
your bill. But at the same time, nowhere does
the dicta in the Court of Appeal's decision
1867
bar the door of the court. It just affirms
the decision of the lower court.
And really, my point is, while we
would want to ban recoveries, do we want to
bar the courthouse when there could be cases
such as a Rodney King case? Where, in spite
of a 1983 civil rights action that prevailed
in that federal inquiry, and there was also a
state criminal charge against the police
officers involved, you would still want to
leave that door open, just in case the other
options have failed -- not to coddle
criminals, but just to allow the courts to
take a look in the individual cases based on
the specific facts.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Paterson, I appreciate your question. And
this is probably the most common misnomer
about this particular type of legislation.
For those of you in this audience
who are not attorneys, might I point out that
there are actually three systems of justice
that could be applied to a police brutality
case. And many people fail to recognize
these.
1868
The first is the criminal system,
where you would assess criminal liability.
The second is a state tort system -- run
particularly under the Civil Practice Laws and
Rules, but other statutes as well -- which is
brought in state courts. And the third, which
is oftentimes forgotten, is the Civil Rights
Law under the federal statutes, specifically
Title 1983.
The relevance of this particular
measure is that we are, as I said, codifying
this state's enunciation that we will not open
the courts to those who have chosen to step
outside the boundaries and be convicted of a
crime. And to those people who say, well,
wait a minute, what about -- where's the
deterrence against future activity by -
particularly about police officers, I would
say to you and argue strenuously that it is
much better to bring a 1983 civil rights cause
of action if it is in fact your goal to
recover monetary damages. And if you truly
want to punish and prohibit this conduct in
the future, then what you should do is bring a
case -- a complaint, a felony complaint to the
1869
district attorney and have the district
attorney go after the individual police
officer.
And to further make my point, the
current statutory scheme of New York State is
replete with statutory immunities for police
officers which the federal government does not
have. Specifically, I think it's 50(l) of the
General Municipal Law refers to the police
officers of my county and the Nassau County
police officers. And it basically immunizes
them for even gross negligence.
And so -- and if you take a look
also at the Monelle decision in the federal
courts that speak against the assessment of
individual liability, against servants of a
government, it basically says that you cannot
sue them individually but you can go after
them individually in a 1983 action, that is
again where these suits should be brought.
So to answer your question, or to
address your concern, if we were to eliminate
the ability of convicted felons to sue in this
state court, we would do nothing other than
follow the case laws that have already been
1870
decided, the public policy that's been
articulated, and we would do nothing as to the
deterrent effect by either criminal liability
or by civil liability.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator,
there's a case right here in Albany, the
Jermaine Henderson case, where the district
attorneys did bring an action against the
police in a situation such as might apply to
the nature of the legislation that you're
presenting. And the jury was unable to get a
conviction.
As would be very likely in these
types of cases, also you have the situation
where you have law enforcement in a sense
pursuing law enforcement.
1871
And so in those types of
situations, this is why I would suggest that a
tort action within the state would actually be
valid. And of course in the Rodney King case
it was only in the second attempt to receive
justice by use of a 1983 federal civil rights
action that that was actually achieved.
So what I guess I'm really asking
is, since -- there are really two elements to
your legislation. One is the standard, which
I agree with and which the Court of Appeals of
the Third Department has now also raised the
standard. It's actually higher than the one
you presented in this bill.
So I don't think that we have any
argument about that. If someone is convicted
of a felony or if someone is even considered
to be engaging in what would be un -- what
would not even be argued as anything other
than felonious action, that we would bar
recovery.
But in terms of keeping the
courthouse open, I don't understand where
Barker v. Kalish or even some of the public
policy stated in the Johnson case actually
1872
affirm this.
Now, of course, I'm still waiting
for you to get back to that case from a
hundred years ago. I came here -
SENATOR BALBONI: -- versus
Palmer, 1889.
SENATOR PATERSON: Pray
elucidate.
SENATOR BALBONI: The point for
us in this state is illustrated by a case that
I tried personally. The case was called Key
versus the County of Nassau. I was the deputy
county attorney when we tried the case. The
case involved a scenario where an officer
responded to a call of two individuals
fighting; one of them had a knife, one of them
had a baseball bat. The individual with the
knife proceeded to follow, in an attempt to
stab the other individual, who then ran behind
the Nassau County officer. The officer
retreated, shout "Stop. Stop. Stop." He did
not. He fired four times, dropping the
individual.
The individual survived, but was
paralyzed, brought a suit against the officers
1873
in Nassau County. He was subsequently
convicted of attempted assault on the officer.
Now, as you know, in that case, in
order to get a conviction, you have to have
beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of
evidence. It's much higher than by the
preponderance, which is what the standard is
in civil actions. And my frustration as a
deputy county attorney was that I could not
win on a motion for summary judgment.
We actually had a month-long trial,
empaneled 22 witnesses, and then gave the case
to the jury and they came back in a little
over two hours. In other words, it was a
slam-dunk. And if this statute had been in
effect, the individual would not have been
able to do that.
And the point is, that cost
taxpayer dollars. That was a huge drain on
our office. Once again, we do not deny the
individual the remedies, both criminally and
civilly. What we do is we take the public
policy of the state and we apply it in such a
way so we don't have to expend taxpayer
dollars in civil defense. But furthermore,
1874
insurance companies, physicians -- I mean,
everybody who gets sued -- motorists, anybody
else out there, they would be able to use the
same bill to stop the suit on a motion for
summary judgment.
And that's the point of this
particular statute. It would save dollars.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: In all
seriousness, Madam President, I appreciate the
amount of work and the amount of effort that
Senator Balboni has put into this piece of
legislation. And particularly it is my wish
to congratulate him, because it does become
frustrating to see individuals who are
committing crimes, who are injured in the
process of apprehending them, who, but for the
fact that they were apprehended, may have
actually injured the police officers or some
other citizens and then have the audacity,
literally the temerity to go to court and to
sue, claiming that somebody else should pay
1875
for their injuries. It is more than
frustrating. It's really a disgrace.
And yet, in my opinion, it is one
of the burdens, one of the encumbrances of
living in a democracy. The defense
attorney -- I guess the plaintiff, I'm sorry,
not the defense attorney, but the plaintiff in
the action that Senator Balboni describes, the
case I believe of Key versus Nassau County,
probably argued that it was one of the last
bullets of the four shots -- maybe they argued
that it was the last shot that paralyzed this
particular individual, trying to imply that
after the first couple of shots maybe the
individual was disabled and there was some
negligence on the part of the police officer
that the last shot caused the individual to be
paralyzed. That argument lost, because
Senator Balboni, who was then acting in the
capacity of counsel, proved that this action
was rightly taken.
But you can't always know that
without conducting a trial. And all Senator
Dollinger, who voted in the negative last
year, and Senator Connor, and myself are
1876
trying to say is that in these situations, we
would better let it go to the court. And as
frustrating as it may be, with the 22
witnesses that had to be called, that that was
a better determining factor than for a judge
to look at some papers and try to find out
what was there without having to have heard
from a number of witnesses.
It is something that is somewhat
paradoxical, that an individual in that type
of situation would even attempt this type of
procedure. But we feel that most often our
judicial system will handle it correctly. And
the fact that we do have to be burdened with
these types of problems is what makes our
democracy greater than any other on this
planet right now. And it's the fact that we
live through this and we recognize that we
want as much as possible to keep the
opportunity to go to court open.
And so for that reason, in spite of
case law from 110 years ago, I'm going to vote
no on this, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the -
Senator Dollinger, excuse me.
1877
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, would you please recognize Senator
Schneiderman.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
Thank you, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
Will the sponsor yield to a
question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Senator
Balboni, I have not had the opportunity to
review your great body of work that led up to
this legislation, being the newcomer here.
But I have a simple question.
Is this limited to actions brought
against a police officer or the victim of a
crime, or would this also limit recovery
against a third party, perhaps who aids in the
presentation of the felon, someone steals a
purse and runs down the street and either a
well-meaning citizen or a vigilante, depending
1878
on your point of view, shoots them, would this
bar recovery by the felon against that person
as well?
SENATOR BALBONI: The defense
would have to be raised in the third party
action defense.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Right.
SENATOR BALBONI: So in other
words, once this was codified, then it would
just be raised as an affirmative defense on
behalf of any party sued.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: But upon
any party, not just the police or the victim
of the crime?
SENATOR BALBONI: The only thing
that I could see where it would not apply is
for some reason -- for example, if -- let's
take a -- I mean, this is all conjecture.
But -- no, I believe there would be a general
application for it.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
In addition to the concern that
Senator Paterson raised, I have a concern
about barring recovery against third parties
1879
who get involved in a situation where it's
often very difficult to assess what is a
proper use of force in circumstances like
this. And I appreciate the fact -- as an
attorney, I hate to not be able to win on
summary judgment myself. But I think that
given that, that particular limitation is an
additional reason why I'm afraid I'm going to
have to vote against this very well-intended
piece of legislation.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, my dialogue I think last year with
Senator Balboni about his bill, I just rise
for a couple of purposes.
One is I -- my friend from Nassau
County describes going to trial and not
getting this case dismissed through the motion
of summary judgment as a waste of taxpayer
dollars. I would just think he's
short-selling his services. It sounds to me
like the taxpayers of Nassau County got every
penny of their dollar's worth by having Mike
1880
Balboni, then an attorney, try this case and
bring it to a successful and, it appears,
proper conclusion under the facts.
So I think the right thing was done
in your case. And let me tell you why I think
this is an interesting idea but I don't think
it's the right one for public policy.
It's very simple. Any policy built
on Barker against Kalish, which is in my
judgment one of the worst cases ever to come
down from the New York Court of Appeals, with
all due respect to Judge Kaye and the rest,
they fumbled the ball in that case. There was
a little boy playing with fireworks in the
back yard. He had obtained the fireworks and
other ingredients in this little firework he
was building from several neighbors. As he
was putting it together, it exploded and it
blew off the fingers of his hand.
And what happened, they raised the
defense in that case that he was making a pipe
bomb, which is a felony under New York law.
And they said he was engaged in criminal
conduct. He was ten years old. He blew off
his fingers.
1881
And so what they said was you can't
sue the neighbors, who willy-nilly made all
these combustible materials available, because
this little boy was engaged in building a pipe
bomb, he was an urban terrorist. He was a
10-year-old playing with firecrackers.
What that case does is it
demonstrates the illogical nature of a rule
such as the one that Senator Balboni wants to
enshrine in our law, to make permanent in our
statutory law.
I would point out that we may yet
get a chance to discuss a case today about a
guy who was shot. And I would suggest to you,
suppose that was standing on a street corner
and he had a weapon in his pocket and it was
an illegal weapon. That's a felony under New
York law. And the word goes out to the
police, there's a suspect, Richard Dollinger,
on the corner of Fourth Avenue and Pearl
Street in Albany, and he has a gun and we
think it's illegal. That's right on the
corner where I live.
And all of a sudden, the police
show up and I happen to make a gesture toward
1882
my pocket. In fact, I do have an illegal
weapon on me, but I never display it, I never
show it, and all of a sudden I'm hit by a hail
of bullets. Well, I'm clearly guilty of a
felony in possessing -- unlawfully possessing
a weapon. And that possession of an unlawful
weapon raises the awareness of the police and
causes, suddenly, a hail of bullets to come in
my direction.
Am I now prohibited from going into
the civil courts of this state and saying that
the force used against me was unreasonable?
That they were engaged in far more culpable
conduct than I was and I have no civil remedy
regardless of the damages I sustained?
I would suggest, Senator Balboni,
that this is an interesting idea. You've done
a lot of work on this. I respect your
judgment. Your experience, I think, had a
certain frustration to it. It would be an
interesting or perhaps the right thing in some
cases to be able to say we have a blanket rule
and those who commit crimes should not be able
to go into the civil court and recover.
But I would just suggest that if we
1883
pass this bill as drafted, what we will do is
we will say to a whole bunch of people that
when unreasonable or deadly force is used
against you and you've been engaged in some
criminal activity which under some definition
may be an felony, you can never get into the
courtroom.
I would submit to you that that
little boy in Barker against Kalish was
absolutely wrongfully denied his opportunity
to sue someone because someone suggested that
when he was playing with fireworks, he was
really an urban terrorist preparing a pipe
bomb. And that's the problem with this rule.
I would leave it the courts of this
state to apply the common law rules
established in Palmer, established in Barker,
even though I disagree with them. I ran into
the same problem in Smith against Julie, which
is the case that I litigated that's cited in
Senator Balboni's law review article. I would
just leave it the courts of this state. Let
them have the discretion to figure out when
the rule should be applied, when it should be
an absolute bar, and when it should perhaps
1884
only be a partial bar giving a partial summary
judgment that the defendant is guilty of some
culpable conduct which must be weighed by the
jury.
I think Senator Balboni is trying
to do the right thing here. I think it's a
interesting approach. But I think because of
its very black-letter effect on all cases, it
just goes too far and solves more than the
problem he's addressing but in fact will deny
a whole group of people in this state the
potential to have their cases heard by a jury
of their peers and to recover for damages that
they've really sustained.
I'll be voting no again this year,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: If I may just
choose to close on the bill, if there's no
other speakers.
Madam President, three quick
points. The first is a motion of summary
judgment is decided on a standard where
judicial review is involved. The judge will
use his or her discretion to decide whether or
1885
not there is no question of fact involved in
the application of a law. If there is a
question of fact, then the motion for summary
judgment is denied.
So to assume that the enactment of
this statute would somehow now bring the door
down on all suits with absolutely no judicial
involvement is incorrect. First thing.
Second thing. Barker versus Kalish
was decided by Judge Wachtler. And any
student of the decisions during that tenure as
chief judge of Judge Wachtler will be hard put
to find a better reasoned, a better written,
and, in my opinion, a more reaching decision
than Barker versus Kalish.
Senator Dollinger, it was a pipe
bomb. And they chose that case because of the
grave potential for injury, not only to the
two children playing with this pipe bomb but
to the community.
The third point is this. This is
an easy bill to vote against if you only apply
the context, the emotionally charged context
of police brutality. And I have been on
televised debates on that particular issue.
1886
And let me share with you a conversation I had
with fellow attorneys and fellow colleagues
about whether or not we should have amended
the bill so that we take out any cases
involving police brutality.
After all, now consider this bill
not involving police brutality. Would it be
an easy bill to vote against? Perhaps. But
the reason why we did not choose to leave that
section out was because of the civil rights
law. Because any plaintiff's attorney worth
their salt would never bring a police
brutality case in state court.
Why? Well, first of all, the
federal courts are much faster. Secondly,
discovery is much broader. Third, you have a
better application individually and as against
the police department in the suit. And the
last reason, which is really the crux of it,
is in 1983 civil rights cases you get
attorneys fees. So you can afford to go
through all of the discovery, all of the
different witnesses, because you're going to
get paid at the end. So no one's going to
bring a case in state court.
1887
So we left in the law the ability
to apply to police brutality cases because we
realized we weren't affecting it. Anyone who
is injured by a police officer in this state
is free to go to the federal court and, I
would argue, get better justice than in the
state court.
But let me leave you with the words
that I use on my stump speeches when I go
around my Senate district and I talk about
justice and how sometimes there are holes and
quirks. And when I finish, I have everybody,
but particularly the senior citizens, jumping
up and down on this.
And that is this scenario. God
forbid someone breaks into your house tonight,
sticks a gun to your head, a knife to your
spouse's, robs you of all your possessions,
and then on the way out trips over Johnny's
toy. Under this state's law, you can now be
sued. That's a fact. People are outraged by
that. They want that loophole closed. That's
the reason for the bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
(Applause.)
1888
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last -
read the last -
(Applause.)
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 PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to
explain my vote very briefly.
It was Judge Wachtler who wrote
Barker against Kalish. He started with the
wrong assumption, he finished with the wrong
conclusion, and the decision is just basically
wrong.
The other thing I'd just point out,
Senator Balboni, is that your bill does change
slightly Barker against Kalish, because you
require a conviction with a felony. In Barker
against Kalish, there was never a conviction.
But I think that the danger that
this bill poses to closing the doors of the
1889
state courts -- and I would just submit that
with all due respect to Senator Balboni,
telling to the people of this state that we're
going to leave the door to the federal
courthouse open but close the door to the
state courthouse doesn't seem to make sense or
doesn't seem to be fair or certainly means
that we in New York are less respectful of
justice than our federal counterparts. I'm
not so sure we want to tell that to anybody in
this state. We ought to be just and fair in
our state courts as much as we are in our
federal courts.
I'm voting no, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
Senator Schneiderman, to explain
your vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: To explain
my vote.
First of all, I commend Senator
Balboni on being able to bring the senior
1890
citizens to their feet even in this chamber.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I also do
want to point out, very seriously, that I
appreciate all the work he's done on this. I
do feel, as Senator Dollinger has stated, that
this is a bad solution to a difficult problem.
And I'd also like to add that while
many people do get upset about the fact that
someone can be sued, it doesn't say anywhere
in the state laws that exist now that you will
necessarily prevail on that suit. And I think
that our system of justice generally reaches
the right result and it does take a little bit
of time.
So that is my reason for voting no,
Madam President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded, Senator Schneiderman, as voting in
the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 410 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Lachman,
1891
Markowitz, Montgomery, Nanula, Paterson,
Rosado, Sampson, Santiago, Schneiderman,
Seabrook, Smith. And Senator Duane.
Ayes, 45. Nays, 14.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
411, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1775, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal possession of a weapon in the third
degree.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I'd like to waive the explanation
of the bill and just be able to ask a question
of the sponsor through you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl,
will you yield for a question from Senator
Montgomery?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
1892
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Kuhl, the summary of the
provisions of this bill states that it amends
the Penal Law to add a new subdivision which
provides that an individual convicted of a
violent felony who subsequently possesses a
rifle or shotgun shall be guilty of the crime
of criminal possession in the third degree.
And I'm wondering if this is the
case whether or not possession of that rifle
or shotgun is with intent to do anything.
It's just automatic, if you just possess it,
you're still going to be found guilty under
this law?
SENATOR KUHL: I think I have the
gist of your question.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes,
Senator.
SENATOR KUHL: There's a lot of
movement around -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes,
we're -- we're being interfered -
SENATOR KUHL: -- new members who
aren't familiar with the rules of the house
1893
and that sort of thing.
But in any case, you may remember
we discussed this bill last year. This bill
is exactly the same bill as last year passed
this house unanimously except for your vote in
the negative.
The bill essentially is aimed at -
there currently is a law which says if you are
a convicted felon and you possess a weapon,
then that is a violation, possess in -- I
think it's the fourth degree, which is a Class
A misdemeanor. This bill says if you are a
convicted violent felon and you possess a
weapon or if you have been found previously to
be in possession of a weapon and were
convicted for a first offense and that this is
a second alleged violation and you're
eventually convicted for a second time, that
there is an elevation of the crime from a
Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony.
So that is the essence of what
we're trying to deal in this bill, and that is
to say, listen, we'll give you a break one
time, we're only going to have a Class A
misdemeanor if you're found in violation, but
1894
the second time we're going to make it a
felony.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, I'm going to -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm going to
again vote no. I just think that there's -
it's rather loose and we wouldn't want to
convict people or to convict a person who
essentially is not really intending to
create -- to do another crime, necessarily,
but nonetheless would be eligible, it seems to
me, to be reconvicted.
So I'm going to vote no on this.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
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, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
1895
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, I'd like unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 414.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator
Montgomery, on Calendar 414.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
468, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 2942, an
act to amend General Municipal Law and others,
relating to the rate of interest.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR RATH: Senator Paterson,
this bill, as you asked last year, and as we
suppose of last year, amends the General
Municipal Law by linking the rate of interest
paid by municipal corporations upon judgments
against it to prevailing market rates;
specifically, to the 52-week United States
1896
Treasury bill rate.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Madam President, if Senator Rath would yield
for a question or two.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield to Senator Paterson?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, about
15 years ago the interest rates in this
country were up at about 15 percent. What
your bill does is take the lower number of a
cap at 9 percent or linking it to the annual
52-week United States Treasury bond. So
therefore, if the interest rates went up far
above 9 percent, the recovery could only be
9 percent. And you could have a situation
where the interest rate, as it did 15 to about
20 years ago, would be much higher than what
would be the rate of recovery.
Would you be thinking of amending
the law at that particular time? Or, if not,
why do you have this apparent discrepancy?
1897
SENATOR RATH: Senator Paterson,
this all changed in 1982. And things
certainly have changed with interest rates
since 1982. And interestingly enough, the
memorandums in favor and in opposition, the
trial lawyers are in favor -- or, pardon me,
are opposed and the school boards are in
favor.
And I have found myself in an
interesting role as I've come to be familiar
with being chairman of the Local Government
Committee, because I find myself representing
the interests of the taxpayer and the people
who have to cover the costs when huge
judgments come in. And when the taxpayers and
the school boards -- of course, they have to
pay dollars back out when assessments are
challenged.
And if we keep picking away dollars
from the deep pockets of the schools or the
municipalities, the cities, the towns, whoever
it might be, we end up spreading more costs on
the property tax. And that, of course, is the
very worst and most regressive kind of
taxation that we can have on folks in New York
1898
State. I think that's pretty well agreed.
And so here's an opportunity to
give these municipalities and these schools
boards and these jurisdictions an opportunity
to not pay a rate of interest that is much
higher than in many cases many of their own
investments are earning.
So here's an opportunity for us to
get an equity circumstance out there for these
municipalities. Because really, who does
represent the municipalities? Their own
lawyers, when they go to court. But on the
floor of the Legislature, there are not a lot
of people who are worried about the deep
pockets of the taxpayers of the State of New
York. I happen to be that person, and that's
why this bill came out of my committee and why
I'm advocating for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator Rath.
And, Madam President, if Senator
Rath would yield for another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
1899
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Rath.
Go ahead, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If there were
a different kind of recovery in the courts, a
judgment for personal injury, it would provide
for the recovery, the interest rate to be in
effect from the time of the personal injury.
As opposed to what we have here, which is that
the postjudgment -- that the interest rate is
derived out of the date that the judgment is
arrived at, so it's really a postjudgment
interest.
So, for instance, you could have a
situation where three years might transpire
before the case is actually adjudicated in
court. And so then what you have is no
interest for that three-year period that would
otherwise be recovered in a personal injury
case.
So this could be a significant
amount of money that the plaintiff loses
because of the nature at which time the
recovery is awarded.
1900
If Senator Rath would yield for a
question, the question is, why do we have a
difference between the way municipalities
would pay the judgment and any other defendant
in a civil action?
SENATOR RATH: Senator Paterson,
I think you've raised an interesting point.
And if you'd like to bring that into another
piece of legislation, I'd be real happy to
talk with you about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
The discrepancy as I just
explained, between the postjudgment and
prejudgment interest rate, factoring in on
these cases where you have a difference
depending on whether or not you sue the
municipality and whether you sue just another
individual, is one of the reasons that I think
there might be a better crafting of this
legislation.
On the issue of the deep pockets of
taxpayers, we have to remember that a
taxpayer, presumably -- someone who was
1901
injured, one of our neighbors was injured, was
harmed by the municipality. So while the rest
of us are taxpayers and we may in a sense
collectively be contributing for what was the
misfeasance of duty of our government or in
some way some agency of our government, we do
have to understand that there are a number of
catalysts, a number of factors that probably
influence far greater the amount of money that
taxpayers have to pay or the increase in
different types of property taxes or school
taxes that would accrue from having to need
more revenues in government.
And so I don't think it is exactly
fair to take it out on the individual, who
tomorrow could be any one of us, who would be
harmed by some action taken by an agency and
then we, the individual, the individuals, go
to court, win a judgment, and are somehow not
allowed to recover or not -- we are allowed to
recover, but our interest rate is capped at
9 percent, when who knows what the interest
rate could be somewhere in the future.
So we would like to support Senator
Rath's idea of indexing what would be the
1902
interest rate. And we suggest that there be
an index rate that perhaps corresponds to the
annual 52-week figure, which is now 9 percent,
of the United States Treasury bond.
But what this bill does is not just
to link that number to whatever the
coefficient is of the 52-week Treasury bond,
but caps it at 9 percent. So it can only go
up but so much. And what we are suggesting is
that that creates a hardship on the winner of
a lawsuit and, in a sense, creates a situation
where the defendant always wins when it comes
to interest.
And for that reason, we recommend a
no vote on this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will Senator Rath yield to
one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, do
you yield?
SENATOR RATH: Sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
bill apply to all judgments against local
1903
governments by any person, any entity?
SENATOR RATH: Let me check.
Municipal cor -- yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
I applaud Senator Rath's concern
about taxpayers. But let me give you an
example of where the taxpayers will be hurt by
this bill. A taxpayer has a tax certiorari
claim against a school district, against a
town, against a village, against a city, and
he's awarded a huge judgment because it turns
out that the town and the village or the local
government has wrongfully assessed him, has
broken the laws of this state. The taxpayer
whose tax money was taken wrongfully by
government then says, "I want my money back.
I'm entitled to have it back. It turns out,
local government, you were wrong to take my
money."
And what happens if your bill
becomes law? The local government is able to
say, "We don't have to pay you 9 percent. We
can pay you less than that. That gives us
plenty of time to appeal. We can hold your
1904
money during the appeal, and it doesn't cost
us anything." We, a good old-fashioned
taxpayer, the very taxpayer that you're
concerned about, gets less money back on the
interest rate because the village or community
just continues to hold the money.
I would point out that that may not
only be true in a tax certiorari case, but
what about the contractor who does a ton of
work for the municipality, helps the
municipality, takes the taxpayers' money,
provides services to the taxpayers and their
government, and it turns out that the
government wrongfully withholds their
retainage or wrongfully withholds, after a
judgment, wrongfully withholds the money that
that taxpayer, that business taxpayer, that
guy who's out there trying to make a payroll,
he wants his money back. He's a contractor,
he's entitled to it. This bill would say, no,
you don't get 9 percent interest, you get some
lower rate.
I would suggest that this bill is
antibusiness. I would suggest that this bill
actually backfires in the face of taxpayers
1905
involved in tax certiorari cases. And in
fact, I think this attempt actually loads the
deck in favor of government.
I know you, Senator Rath, and a
whole bunch of people in this room have said,
"Let's run government like a business." Well,
I would just suggest to you that all we're
suggesting here is that government shouldn't
be a favorite business. It should be treated
like everyone else. Whatever I have to pay as
postjudgment interest on my judgments against
me, I pay 9 percent. Why should government be
treated any differently? Let's run government
like a business, like my business. You get a
judgment against my law firm, you get the
statutory rate of interest.
All I think we're doing is
suggesting that to give government the
favoritism that you suggest may backfire in
the face of taxpayers, may cost businesses who
deal with governments money, and may actually
end up not running government like a business
but running it like a favorite little
corporation.
You either want to run it like a
1906
business or you don't. And this suggests that
they don't have to. And I would suggest that
that really flies in the face of trying to get
governments to run like businesses and respond
like businesses.
I've voted against this bill in the
past. I'm going to vote against it again. I
would suggest that the taxpayers for whom this
bill may be designed to help are actually -
there are actually going to be a whole group
of taxpayers who will end up being hurt by it
because they're not going to get the time
value of their money when it's held by
governments after a judgment is rendered
against them.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Senator Dollinger,
I might note for you that the plaintiffs I
think would benefit under the bill from a rise
in interest rates, since the interest rates on
the judgment would continue to parallel market
realities.
And the School Board Association
points out rightly, I believe, that by filing
challenges as close to the final expiration
1907
date as possible, entities that have overpaid
their real property tax obligations receive a
higher rate of return at a substantially lower
risk than investment opportunities provide.
And I believe that it was an
interesting -- as I listened to you, as you
used the word "taxpayer," as plural and
singular, the taxpayer is some great unknown
out there. And as that person has very few
people protecting him in a real way, and as we
expect our local governments to be the
watchdogs of those tax dollars, and we load
them up with unfunded mandates, which you and
I have discussed over the years and we keep
avowing that we are not going to do or
continue to do, I think it's important that
where we can give the municipalities a
break -- and it's on a sliding scale, and it
will be go back and forth in relation to the T
bill rates.
And so I think we're putting any
great hardship on people who are going to go
to a municipality to try to get redress for
some unpaid amount or some incorrect amount.
I think that this is a case where the
1908
taxpayer, the broad level of taxpayers need to
be protected.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 468 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Duane, Lachman,
Paterson, and Sampson.
Ayes, 53. Nays, 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Mendez, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Will you
recognize Senator Fuschillo, please, Madam
President.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you recognize Senator Mendez,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Mendez,
1909
please. Excuse me.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you.
Madam President, I wish to have unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 410. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, Senator, you will be recorded as
voting in the negative.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there is not,
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I believe
there's motions to discharge.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I believe there is a motion at the
desk. And I ask that it be read, and then I
would like to be heard on the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
1910
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Print
2303, by Senator Duane, an act to amend the
Criminal Procedure Law, the Penal Law, and the
Civil Rights Law, in relation to strengthening
civil rights protections.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
The reason I'm rising at this point
is to ask the body to discharge the
Bias-Related Violence Bill to the floor so
that the full Senate can debate it and vote on
it.
I don't have to remind people about
the most recent terrible cases -- James Byrd,
Matthew Shepard, Billy Jack Gaither. And I
think also you'll hear, as this motion is
being debated, about the increasing penalties
which the bill includes in its provisions.
But I'd like to speak at this point
specifically about documentation and reporting
and how very important that is for our state.
I'm sure that people will say, and
I've seen it in the press, a murder is a
1911
murder, a rape is a rape, an assault is an
assault. But in fact, my concern is not just
about the prosecution of heinous crimes that
are bias-related. My concern is also about
the prevention of bias-related crimes across
the state of New York.
And what this bill will do is to
help protect classes of people -- specific
classes of people, yes -- in the state of New
York from bias-related violence, but it also,
in fact, will end up, I believe, protecting
all of the people of the state of New York.
Because if any of us are at risk of
bias-related violence, in fact all of us are
at risk of bias-related violence.
In fact, in the district that I
represent, what often happens is people come
into the district with bad intentions. People
are beaten up, people are verbally threatened,
not because they may or may not be gay or
lesbian, but because they are perceived to be
gay or lesbian just because they happen to be
living in or visiting my district.
And I think that that happens in
many neighborhoods across the state of New
1912
York. And we need to have this legislation
because it will increase protection for
everybody in the state of New York.
One thing that we don't have the in
the state of New York is documentation and
reporting. And so I can tell you till I'm
blue in the face that these things happen
every day in the state of New York, but you
don't have to believe me because there is no
statewide reporting or documentation of cases
of bias-related incidents and violence in our
state. And by increasing awareness of the
terrible problem of bias-related violence and
bias in our state, it will help to increase
awareness of the problem and make it a real
problem to people across the state. And it
will also focus the attention of law
enforcement, police departments and district
attorneys, to bias-related incidents across
the state. And also that will continue to
sensitize educators, elected officials like
ourselves to the problem, counselors, but
indeed the public at large as to bias-related
violence in our state.
So this legislation not just
1913
enhances the penalties after a bias crime has
been committed, but in fact it goes an awfully
long way towards trying to prevent
bias-related crimes from occurring.
You know, when I speak before a
lesbian and gay group of people anywhere, one
of the questions I ask them is, how many of
you have been victimized verbally or
physically in an antigay attack? And every
time, every time, 95 percent of the people in
that room say that they have been the victim
of a bias attack, oftentimes a physical
attack, and almost all of them to a verbal
attack.
And you never know -- you never
know when someone verbally attacks you because
they think you're gay or lesbian whether or
not they're going to come after you in a
violent way, with a bat or a knife. You don't
know. And you are unsafe or we are unsafe all
across this state, because you don't know
whether or not a verbal attack is going to
turn into a physical attack.
I'll tell you something else. When
I speak in front of young people who I don't
1914
know whether they're gay or straight -- I
assume some of them are gay, I assume the
majority of them are straight, I ask them, how
many of you have verbally harassed a person
because you perceived them to be gay or
lesbian? And you know what? Too many of them
raise their hands.
And that's what we have to stop as
well. And that's why we have to reach law
enforcement, DAs and police officers, and
educators, so that nongay young people know
that it's not right to harass and threaten
people that they perceive to be gay or
lesbian. And that has to be started at an
early age.
Let me talk about my experience.
One time I was leaving a bar, a car pulled up,
people piled out of the car, someone was left
in the car so they could make a fast getaway.
They came over. They started calling antigay
epithets at me which I don't -- I'm not going
to repeat what they are, but they were pretty
despicable and you would know what the words
mean. And I'll tell you, I was really scared.
Not so much because of the words specifically,
1915
but because I had no idea whether or not they
had a gun or a knife that they were going to
go after me with.
And I was all alone. And they beat
me -- they beat me to the point that I was
bleeding, my clothes were ripped, my ribs were
bruised. It was only because I was able to
fight back -- but I was afraid to fight back
too much, because I was afraid that they had a
knife and that that would escalate the fight.
And I did all the things that I'd been trained
to do, because I'd gone to a self-defense
class. But you know what? There were more of
them than me.
And only when people -- other
people left the establishment did they jump to
the getaway car and get away. And I was
brought to the emergency room, where I was
treated.
But what happened was while the
perpetrates were caught, it was treated as if
it wasn't a big deal, as if, you know -- as if
it didn't really matter that I had been beaten
up. In fact, the case went before a judge
without them even contacting me, so I didn't
1916
even have a chance to testify as to what had
happened.
And what's even worse is that if
you looked in the records about this, you
would see nothing. You would see nothing. It
would be as if it never happened, as if I'd
never been beaten up, as if they'd never
driven up and beaten me. It was as if it had
never happened because it's not documented
anyplace, it's not reported anyplace.
In the neighborhood where I live,
I've had -- I'm not even talking about all the
times where epithets have been hurled at me.
But I'll tell you about two where it did
escalate to physical. I had a full bottle of
beer hurled at me. I got slammed in the face
for no other reason except for that they
thought I was gay. Broke my glasses; again, I
was cut.
And yeah, I did report them,
because by now you can report those things in
New York City. But you don't report them
across the state. So nowhere in New York
State is that this happened to me counted.
And for the countless number of gay, lesbian,
1917
bisexual, and transgendered people in this
state, nobody knows at what level bias-related
attacks are occurring.
But believe me -- well, you don't
have to believe me, because we don't count.
But if you care to believe me, it happens
every day. It happens in my district. It
happens across this state. And no one counts
it. Nobody even knows that it's going on,
because there is no way to document or report
it.
And how do we stop that? First of
all, by proving that it happens. And then and
only then will we be able to take the steps to
stop bias in our state. So that people like
me and people like the people I represent and
so many other people don't have to live in
fear of being beaten and in some cases being
killed. Because you know what? It's only a
very thin line because what happened to me in
that bar, in that bar parking lot and what
happened to Matthew Shepard. It could happen
to any New Yorker.
That's why we need to have the full
debate on this bill. And that's why
1918
ultimately -- and I know it will happen -- we
will pass this law so that we can stop
bias-related crime in our state.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
In substance, what Senator Duane's
bill would do -- and we certainly thank him
for his long fight on this issue. For those
of you who don't know, Senator Duane has been
an elected official in New York City serving
the New York City Council since 1991, and has
been fighting on this particular issue for
many, many years.
But what it would do is increase
the penalties for crimes committed with people
for a purpose, a purpose of hatred. And it
would be committed against people who were
attacked because of their race, religion,
national origin, age or disability, sex or
sexual orientation.
Now, just sitting here, everybody
in this room is eligible to be the victim of a
hate crime. And we have found that there have
1919
been hate crimes that have been committed
against every race, every religion, every
national origin, against gay and lesbian
citizens in this state, against the elderly,
and certainly against people who are disabled.
And so let's not look at this bill
with any preconceived notion of an agenda.
For those who have led the fight for passage
of this legislation may just be in the
vanguard of the attack but are no means
separated from anyone else here who could
certainly be victimized.
In 1986, on December 20th, there
was a terrible attack in Howard Beach, New
York, which claimed the life of a young man
named Michael Griffith. In 1987, I introduced
a bias bill similar to that of Senator
Duane's. But I wanted to point out to the
Senator and to everyone here that one
difference in the legislation that I proposed
from the one here today is that I wanted to
establish a continuing special prosecutor that
would examine hate crimes all over the state,
to accomplish exactly the purpose for which
Senator Duane stated when he got up, and that
1920
would be to bring some kind of understanding
to, in many respects, document these evidences
of crime all around the state.
Now, since I introduced the bill,
most district attorneys' offices in the 62
counties of New York now have hate crimes
units and to some degree address these issues
a lot better than they did before. But the
documentation is still nonsubstantive and
really not at a point that we can really
understand how grave this issue actually is.
Those who oppose this legislation
want to disconnect the First Amendment right
of speech from the action taken by the
perpetrator. They state, and they state
correctly, that we already have laws on the
books that cover these types of crimes. If
you assault someone, if you in any way injure
another person, we already have laws that
convict you. But what sets hate crimes apart
from the other crimes is that they not only
injure the victim but they send a message to
everybody within the group that the victim
lives.
And so therefore, if you were
1921
Jewish and lived in Crown Heights, you might
be afraid to go out of your house for days
after the injury, the death of Yankel
Rosenbaum on August 18, 1991. If you lived in
Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, and happened to be
African-American, you might not want to go
into that neighborhood after what happened on
August 24, 1989, to an individual named Yusuf
Hawkins. If you were African-American and you
lived in Brooklyn, you might not have wanted
to interrupt a disturbance outside your store,
as an individual named Arthur Miller did, and
met with the same end. If you were a
70-year-old woman who was suffering from a
mental disability, you would not have wanted
to walk up to police armed with only a kitchen
knife and be shot down by six police officers,
all with weapons, as happened to Eleanor
Bumpers on October 19, 1984.
So what we are saying in this
situation is that if you can manifest bias or
definitely document that there was a purpose
of hatred, you are now attacking a pillar of
our society. We already have laws on the
books that make it a greater crime to
1922
vandalize a cemetery because of what it does
to the religious beliefs of those who have
their loved ones buried in that cemetery. We
have legislation, we have laws on the books
that increase the penalties if you attack a
police officer, because a police officer is a
pillar of our society.
And what we want to do by passing
Senator Duane's bill, and first discharging it
to the floor for debate, is we want to create
the opportunity to raise the level of hate
crimes to the same level that those other
maladies in society are that we've already
addressed.
In 1945, the New York State Senate
and the New York State Assembly passed the
Quinn-Ives bill. This established for
penalties for the discrimination of employment
by reasons of race, religion, or national
origin. They wanted to employ a special
prosecutor at that time to examine violence in
situations of employment and perhaps violence
for reasons of race or religion. They decided
not to. But they added to Executive Law 63
Sections 9 and 10, which gave the Attorney
1923
General the right to come into cases in any
jurisdiction for this explicit purpose. The
Attorney Generals, from 1945, have never used
this opportunity.
But the fact that statewide elected
officials have eschewed the opportunity to
exercise a compelling state interest, as is
the prerogative of the Attorney General, does
not limit us as a Legislature from bringing
some teeth to Sections 9 and 10 of Executive
Law 63 and to buttress the Constitution of the
State of New York under Article 4, Section 2,
which would give us the right to create a
situation where we can further examine the
number of these types of cases, the increases
in particular areas.
Attacks against Jewish New Yorkers
are up one-third in the last decade. Attacks
against gay and lesbian New Yorkers are up by
half in the 1990s as opposed to the 1980s.
And yet, if we can't guarantee
protections for individuals, how are we ever
going to give them any kind of equality in the
areas of housing and health care and education
and employment? This is the most basic
1924
concept that we have in this society, the
right of individuals to live in a democracy
without having it violated by others.
President Eisenhower said you
cannot legislate morality but you can
legislate to protect individuals from the
immorality of others. And that's what I think
Senator Duane's bill sets forth today. I
congratulate him for moving to discharge it
from committee, to bring it to the floor for
debate, and I certainly speak in support of it
and hope all of you will as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: We've
spoken on this bill in the past -- thank you,
Madam President.
We've spoken on this bill in the
past, and I remember I think the last time we
speak on it, it was following a pretty serious
incident that happened in my village. And at
that time I said that when there are examples
of hatred in a community that, as Senator
Paterson has mentioned, everybody of that
group, of that circle, gets very scared,
1925
whether it's a gay person or a Jew or a black
man or anyone who belongs to a specific
minority group.
In our case, in my village and in
Westchester County, we had a very unfortunate
period of time, several months, where a great
deal of anti-Semitic graffiti was found on
people's homes. And needless to say, this
caused great fear and intimidation. People
were afraid to go into their own homes once
they saw this on the walls. And everybody in
that community, not just Jewish people, became
very fearful.
And at the end of a few months, we
decided the best way to rally around was to
create a march which went throughout two
communities. The march was comprised of all
peoples, and all peoples were coming together,
all religions, all colors. And we marched
from church to synagogue to church to temple
to church to -- we just kept moving through
the community. It took several hours, and we
did it in light rain. And it was one of the
most joyous things that I have ever seen.
I believe people want this bill,
1926
because this bill reaffirms what happened in
my community, that people want to come
together and they want to make us feel more
protected and secure in our environment.
As many of you know, I'm Jewish,
and we Jews believe that our protection
resides in the protection of all minority
groups, irrespective, every minority group.
And indeed, our government is based on that,
because we don't want the tyranny of the
majority. And we feel that to stand by and
see any group's rights threatened is a threat
to everybody in our nation.
And we have seen some very horrible
examples. Indeed, right now we are seeing, in
Yugoslavia, some pretty horrible examples of
what happens when the majority says that their
way is the way and everybody else should
either be gone, killed, or not a part of their
country.
And so I feel very strongly that
this bill -- it's been around for a while but,
by George, we need this bill. This state
needs this bill.
Thank you.
1927
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR MENDEZ: I rise in
support of discharging Senator Duane's bill to
the floor for debate. And in this question is
a fascinating thing, the argument that a
murder is a murder is a murder.
However, in the instance of bias,
of crimes that are biased by nature, in my
view they do represent, they are a reflection
of the institutionalized prejudice that
unfortunately exists in our society.
Therefore, it is imminent, in my view, that we
must have protections for those different
groups that we are talking about here today.
I think that -- of course, nobody
has mentioned Puerto Ricans. And I am a
Puerto Rican. We are usually the invisible -
the invisible minority throughout the state.
But it does affect my people as well.
And therefore, we all must join
together to ensure that the necessary -- the
necessary protection that the state should
1928
give its residents. It is a duty of the state
to protect all its residents. And of course
we are a part of that.
So besides, Madam President, once
you are a member of a minority group, you
cannot afford to ever go against another
member of any other minority group, because it
boils down, unfortunately, that you'll be
working against yourself.
So I support the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Madam
President, I rise in support of Senator Duane,
Senator Duane as a person and certainly in
support of Senator Duane's bill.
I have -- I've prepared notes, but
to listen to him -- I -- I'm terribly sorry
that the -- that only our side of the aisle is
here. Because to listen to you and not to be
moved, you really have to be made of stone,
absolutely made of stone. This is not about
your issue, it's about our issue. It's a New
York State issue. And I think we need to
understand that.
And I prepared my notes because I
1929
was really looking forward to this day. Since
you joined us in the Senate chamber, I was
looking forward to the day that I could stand
up publicly and to support you and to stand by
you. Because it is a very difficult issue for
many people. But because you bring us to the
floor, we have to bring it to the floor.
Every person here has to search their own
conscience, their own conscience. And it has
absolutely nothing to do with gay rights or
lesbian rights or black and white rights or -
it has to do with human rights, what's right
for people.
And that's really what I was
listening, and that's what I heard. I think,
as I was thinking through this bill -- and
it's been difficult for me. I've got to tell
you, it's very, very difficult. I'm a staunch
Catholic. I've had to deal with that. I come
from a very conservative family. I represent
a very conservative community. It's not easy.
But what I can say about the Puerto Rican
community that I represent and the community
that I represent is that we're decent people.
We're poor people, but we're decent people.
1930
It's very hard to hear what you
went through. I -- I'm sure -- I'm sure that
African-Americans, my people, the Puerto Rican
people, the people that you mentioned, the
people from Yugoslavia, are going through the
same thing. It's very, very hard to walk into
an area that you think -- when you know
someone hates you, when you know your life is
at stake.
I am the mother of two boys that I
am very proud of. I want to leave them a
world that doesn't have this problem. This is
a horrible problem.
I am so sorry that there are other
members who are not here because it's very
hard for me to believe that ideology would
separate us on this issue. It's impossible.
It's impossible. It has to be that everyone
in this room is united on this issue. We were
all elected by the people. All of us were
elected to represent all people. And it's
impossible that we wouldn't be unanimously
supporting your bill and supporting you as a
human being.
And all of us should apologize to
1931
you publicly for what some people did. And if
we were part of that unconsciously, then I
apologize on behalf of those horrible people
that harmed you. And people who have bad
thoughts.
I think you're right -- now, as a
good Catholic I will tell you that Catholics
say, you know, you shouldn't have bad
thoughts. And part of your message is you
shouldn't even have that thought. And I think
that's a wonderful concept. You shouldn't
even have the thought of harming another human
being. You shouldn't even have that thought.
And I thank you for bringing that to my
consciousness, because I hadn't really
considered that before at all.
I'd like to be part of a
Legislature that supports human rights, all
human rights. And that's why I stand by you
and you can count on me and I trust that we
will bring this to a vote, that we will
discuss it. And whatever fears we have, bring
them to the floor. Whatever fears we have -
you know, someone like -- I normally, as you
know, I normally don't address this issue,
1932
because it's a very passionate issue for me.
Because I wouldn't like to see a Puerto Rican
child walk down the street and be afraid, or
an adult be afraid, anyone be afraid. You
shouldn't walk in America's streets and be
afraid because your skin is black, because
your skin is brown, because you walk
differently, because you talk differently,
because you have a disability. Not in
America. That doesn't happen in our country.
It happens in somebody else's country, but not
here. Not here.
And that's what your legislation
does, and I really trust and pray in God that
we can support this legislation, that we will
urge every colleague, the people who are
absent, the people that are absent in every
one of those chairs, that they come, that they
listen, at least listen from their offices, or
that they read that transcript that this young
lady is passing, and that they really think
about what this means, and that we bring it to
that vote at some point. At minimum, a
debate. At minimum, a debate.
Thank you, Madam President.
1933
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
Let me preface my comments just by
saying that in light of Senator Duane and
Senator Santiago's comments and all the other
comments of my Democratic colleagues, I would
urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote your
conscience on this one. This one is as
important as any other piece of legislation
that we have considered this session or that
we will be considering this session.
Madam President, since about the
end of 1992 it's pretty well documented that
in the City of New York every single one of
the seven FBI index crime categories that are
tracked have shown precipitous drops in crime,
including, most notably, murder rates, down
about 60 percent. What has not gone down?
Bias crimes.
And Senator Duane laid out for us
one of the problems, which is the lack of
reporting that's currently not required under
state law. Although I will suggest to
everyone here that as a result of the very
1934
acute problem that we have in the city of New
York, there is a bias crime unit in the NYPD,
and they do do some tracking.
So let me share with you some of
the numbers that allow me to suggest that we
have a tremendous problem on our hands. There
are an average -- over the past 10 years,
there have been an average of 511 bias-related
crimes every year. That's about 10 every
single week. And I would suggest to everyone
that there is unbelievable underreporting of
these crimes. And we don't know how many of
these crimes are never brought to the public
light, how many of these crimes are violent in
nature and how many are not, what the end
results are, what policy ramifications there
might be to attempts that we have to remedy
this problem. We don't know.
So that is one aspect of this
legislation that is absolutely essential. Now
let me suggest to you something else, because
I think there's somewhat of a misconception
about this piece of legislation and that maybe
this only affects homosexuals, that we're only
doing this to protect homosexuals. Last
1935
September 20th, Sunday, 10:00 p.m., in South
Ozone Park, Queens, just south of the district
I represent, Mr. Rishi Maharaj, standing on
his doorstep with members of his family
present, and down the street come three
individuals who set upon him with a baseball
bat to his head, beat him until he's
unconscious, and put him in the hospital. His
crime? He was of Indian descent. There can
be no more disgraceful action on anyone's part
than this.
And let me suggest something else.
Because I've heard the argument that an
assault is an assault, it's not worse in one
case, it's not worse in another case. I
reject that. I repudiate it on its face. An
assault that is driven by pure, naked hatred
and ugliness is worse than an assault driven
by some other motivation.
Plus, plus, let's get a little bit
into the psychology here of the bigot, the
racist. What's the profile? The profile in
most cases -- well, let me do this -- in all
cases is the racist, the bigot is ignorant.
Period. In all cases. In most cases that
1936
individual is also stupid. But always
ignorant. What does it mean? It means that
his bigotry and his racism is not inborn, it's
a learned behavior. Learned behavior. Picked
it up. Picked it up because somebody taught
it to him or picked it up because of cues that
he got from society or the lack thereof, and
then when incidents happen and there's no
response, there's no redress, it validates it.
It means that if there's no
reprisal, if there's no response on the part
of government it sends the message that this
is okay. Well, it's not okay. It's never
okay. And we've failed. Being one of the
handful of states that has not enacted hate
crime legislation, we've failed. The most
diverse state, not just in the United States,
the most diverse entity, the most diverse
geographical jurisdiction in the world, we
have it here. We represent it. I represent
parts of it in Queens County. And we don't
have hate crimes legislation that protects
people on the basis of who they are, their
ethnicity, their gender, their age, a
disability, and sexual orientation? Let me
1937
hit this one head on. Let me hit this one
head on. Because it's my belief -- and I
don't think anybody is going to dispute this,
publicly at least -- that if we struck from
this bill the provision of sexual orientation,
that protection, that the bill would pass.
Would pass. It would probably be let out onto
the floor, would pass, would become law.
Let's think about what that means
for a second, because it's frightening. It
means that somebody who would allow that to
happen, who would allow it to pass if we take
sexual orientation out of it believes,
probably, most likely, that if we it be
enacted this legislation with those
protections for all the other individuals that
would be protected, the ones we've left in, we
may deter some violent action against those
people. And so by extension it means that
they recognize this legislation could be
efficacious, it could protect homosexuals from
violent crimes.
And Senator Duane has articulated
more eloquently and more passionately than
anybody else could just how real this problem
1938
is, how palpable it is, and how it does not
wane as other crimes wane. This problem
continues, it persists.
We cannot continue with this
inaction. We must act. And as a concluding
point here, let me share with you how close
this hits home for me. Because I would also
suggest that most legislators in this room
know of bias-related incidents that have
happened within their own districts. And let
me just tell you one has happened that's very
close to my heart.
My brother attended school in
Jackson Heights in Queens. And he used to
play basketball on the Garden School
basketball team. And one of the players on
the team was a gentleman named Danny Doyle.
Six foot five inch, Irish kid, nice guy, my
brother Andy tells me. Danny Doyle's a nice
guy, friendly, everybody liked him. He's
terrific. Well, a few years ago Danny Doyle
was convicted of murder, along with two other
individuals, in the death of Julio Rivera.
His crime? He was gay, and he was out on the
street. Gay man, out on the street. So they
1939
killed him. So they killed him.
And we don't have a hate crimes
legislation in this state? Day in and day
out, people are being discriminated against,
intimidated, harassed, and abused physically,
and there is no response from this government.
We don't stand up and say "We're not going to
tolerate it anymore" because of some obscure
reason that I believe to be perverse. It's
wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen on both sides
of the aisle, this one is vitally important.
Let's vote our conscience on this one. This
one let's say, you know what, let's get above
the politics, let's get above all the
rhetoric, let's get above the debate and let's
do the right thing on this one. Because we
may be wrong. Maybe this legislation won't
work. Maybe. But if we're wrong and it does
work and we don't enact it, it means that
there are people out there that we represent,
our constituents, who will be victims and we
could have prevented it. We could have
prevented it by our action today. Let's act
accordingly.
1940
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I think after what we've heard from
many of my colleagues, the reasons to support
this motion to discharge and to support this
legislation to me are abundantly clear.
I want to focus on one aspect of
this, though, that I think should be very
important to all of the members of this house.
We're talking about a crime problem. We're
talking about a very serious crime problem,
one that has not declined when other areas of
crime are going down.
And I think that in the Senate, in
my brief experience here, issues relating to
criminal justice, issues of crime and justice
and personal safety are taken very seriously.
I think there are a lot of members of the
Senate who think of themselves and portray
themselves to their constituents as being
tough on crime. But I think it's very
important to recognize that if we are not
tough on the area of crime that expand as all
1941
other areas contract, we are not truly tough
on the crimes that matter in the state of New
York in 1999.
I have listened to this debate for
a number of years. It's the first time I've
participated as a legislator. And I must say,
I do not, as I get into this more, really do
not understand the arguments against
bias-related crime legislation. I don't see
the validity. And no one has stood up to me
and said, "If someone sprays graffiti on your
door that says 'Joe loves Marie,' that's no
more of a crime than if they spray swastikas
on your door and say 'Jews, die.'"
No one believes that. And yet we
have this opposition. People say one form of
vandalism is the same as another, one form of
assault is the same as another. I don't think
that if you think it through you really
believe it either, ladies and gentlemen. And
I urge you to think this one through.
There is a difference between a
random act of violence against an individual
and an act that has the purpose and the effect
of instilling terror in an entire group of
1942
people. And a bias-related crime is no more
the same as just a random act of street
violence than the assassination of a president
is the same as any other act of murder.
Assassination has a dual purpose. You kill an
individual but you negate the right of people
to participate in a democracy. You hurt all
people.
And bias-related crime -- and we
have it, I'm sad to say, in my district as
well as the others, and I think in every
district in the state we all are aware of
these experiences -- this is something that is
a different sort of crime. And if anyone here
can honestly say that as a gay person or a
black person or a white person or a Jew or a
Christian. It doesn't have a different effect
on you and your entire community when you know
that someone was targeted because of who they
are and what they are rather than what they've
done. I don't think that's really an honest
assessment.
I urge you that if we are going to
be serious about crime, if we are going to be
tough on crime, that this is a bill we must
1943
bring to the floor. This is a bill we must
make law. I don't want to be here for another
year of debate and another recitation of
incidents that could have been prevented. And
I commend to all of you that if you think it
through, you will see that the arguments
against this piece of legislation don't really
hold water. We are talking about an
identifiable type of crime that we can address
with carefully drafted legislation.
And I think I would like to echo
something else that Senator Hevesi just
mentioned, and you have to really look into
your hearts on this. It has been told to us
for many years that if we would take out the
provision on sexual orientation, this would
pass the Senate. That means that people are
willing to say it's wrong and it's an
additional sort of criminal penalty to act
with a racist intent and target a white person
or a black person or to target a Jew or to
target a Muslim, but that we're going to take
a pass on targeting someone because they're
born to be a gay or a lesbian. That is a
disgrace if that is true. I hope it's not
1944
true. And I hope we will pass this bill this
year.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, Madam
President. The hour is late. I will be
brief.
But I would like to hone in on one
point that has not been perhaps mentioned as
adequately as it should. In the deep
labyrinths of this bicameral Legislature,
there are a group of controversial bills that
unfortunately will never see the light of day.
And they will never see the light of day
because they are called controversial bills.
Three weeks ago it was campaign finance
reform. Today it is hate crimes. And it will
be followed by another bill that one of my
colleagues will introduce to discharge.
We are paid, and sometimes not
paid, to be a deliberative body. We're not
deliberating today on the merits of a bill
that is on the calendar, as much as we would
want to. We're deliberating whether we can
discharge or not discharge this bill.
1945
Ladies and gentlemen, let's do what
we're supposed to do. Let's deliberate, let's
debate, let's discuss. Perhaps differ, as I'm
sure we will. Perhaps attempt to alter, as
I'm sure we will. But at least allow us to be
permitted to vote, not just to discharge a
bill, but to vote on a bill. Open up this
process to the light of day.
As Justice Brandeis once said,
sunlight is the best disinfectant. Take all
these controversial items out of the darkness
of the labyrinth that it is buried in. Bring
it to the fore so we can discuss this
legislation, discuss it as a bill and not just
a bill to discharge it.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I rise to speak in favor of
discharging this bill, bringing it to the
floor for debate. And the reason is very
simple.
First of all, understand what this
1946
bill does, as I read it. This is not
revolution, ladies and gentlemen. This is
what we've done all kinds of other places in
our Penal Law. This bill says that if you're
charged with a bias crime and you're convicted
of a bias crime and an underlying assault or
other serious attack, you, under the
discretion of the court, can be required to
serve your sentences consecutively, not
concurrently.
Now, we've done that. This is not
revolution in our Penal Law. We've done that
with all kinds of offenses where we simply say
to the courts, we believe these offenses are
so egregious that they should be consecutively
imposed instead of concurrently imposed. You
don't get to serve time for both crimes at the
same time. They're serious enough so that you
have to serve separate time for each crime.
That's what this bill does.
Understand what else it does. It
already takes a protection that we accord to
people in this state. Now, if you are
physically assaulted because of your race,
your color, or your religion, you can be
1947
guilty of an additional crime. So we already
protect people because of their race, we
already protect people because of their color,
and we already protect people because of their
religion. If a crime is directed against me
because I'm a Catholic, this bill -- the
current law already protects me. What does
this bill do? It simply adds another category
of people that we protect.
And what does it protect? Senator
Hevesi, Senator Schneiderman said it
perfectly. It protects those who are attacked
on the basis of their sex, those who are
attacked on the basis of their disability, and
those who are attacked on the basis of their
sexual orientation. We're taking a right and
a protection that we already give to people of
race, color, and religion and we're extending
it to people because of sex, disability, and
sexual orientation.
This is not revolution. We've
already done this in our employment laws.
We've tried to do it with respect to sexual
orientation in our employment laws, but we've
already done it in a whole bunch of other
1948
laws. This is not revolutionary. This is
evolutionary, and an important evolution.
Senator Schneiderman talked about
being soft on crime. I'm astounded that we're
debating a crime bill in this house and the
members on the other side of the aisle either
aren't in attendance or aren't going to
participate in the debate. This is -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: You know, there
are many members in the chamber, there are
many members not in the chamber, performing
their functions. If we are going to start now
pointing out who's here and who's not, then I
can go through this conference and point out
attendance records for every single member on
this side of the aisle.
If that's what you want to do,
Senator Dollinger, we can start doing that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President -
SENATOR SKELOS: But there are
many things that are going on right now within
your conference, within our conference, where
1949
people are acting responsibly and their
legislative duties.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I'll withdraw that comment and I
retract it. I think Senator Skelos is
correct, and I apologize to the Majority for
it.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What I simply
want to emphasize, Madam President, is that
this issue, the question of this issue is an
important one. And I simply call attention to
the fact, as Senator Snyder did, that this is
an issue of being tough on crime. This is an
issue of being tough on a certain group of
criminals.
And I think we can rightfully ask,
if we don't pass this bill, who are we
protecting? Who is it that we're protecting
by not making this a more egregious crime?
I would simply close with this
point, Madam President. I have a suggestion
for Senator Duane. I think it would be an
even better bill if we included crimes against
1950
personal property in this bill. Because my
opinion is that you can also have bias crimes
that are -- result in personal property.
Going into a cemetery and hacking off the top
of all the graves that have a Star of David on
them is not mere vandalism. Going into a
public bathhouse, as they did in Rochester,
New York, and painting racial epithets on the
wall is not simply graffiti. And burning a
cross on someone's front lawn is not simply
trespass.
That's what this bill is all about.
It simply says that we will not protect people
whose motivation in committing a crime is hate
against their victim. This is a victims'
rights bill. It's a tough on crime bill. It
ought to be on the floor and ought to be
debated in this house.
And again, I repeat my comment,
Senator Skelos. I think that's a fair
comment. I do apologize. And I sometimes, in
my debate, perhaps get overzealous.
But I think this is a bill that
tends to create great emotions. And I think
it's a bill that ought to be debated by this
1951
house.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Madam President,
I don't think I've spoken at a time when
motions to discharge were being made five
times in my life. Nevertheless, they do serve
a useful purpose. In all the years that
I've -- this is my 43rd year in the Senate as
a member, and four years earlier I was
counsel. In all those years, I was in the
minority for one year. And we had another
device, I think, by amending bills, and
another way of expressing and bringing to
public view.
But you have served a decent
purpose, Senator Duane. And sharing -- when I
heard you, Nellie, Senator Santiago, I share
your pain. I share your feeling. It was very
evident in every word that you said.
So it's not that there isn't a
personal revulsion against the idea of
negating and excluding any human being from
our love and affection and respect. That's
not what we were brought up on. Our
Constitution states that our creator has
1952
endowed us with inalienable rights. Which
could go beyond the inalienable rights, our
Creator. We were created by Almighty God in a
divine image.
Is there anyone here in this
chamber or outside this chamber that should be
hated for no reason at all? This mindless
thing that Senator Oppenheimer reminded us
when she made reference to what was happening
in Serbia, what happens in many ways
throughout societies throughout the world.
These are terrible things.
Terrible things. We address crimes when they
are identified and legislated. And we should.
I don't know where they failed you. There was
a big failure when you were -- suffered
assault and battery and you weren't even
notified when it came up to court. That was a
sin. That was a monstrosity. That should not
have happened.
I mean we can't call ourselves a
civilized society when things like that go on
and you don't even know about it. Not even an
opportunity to say "ouch" publicly. And you
had every right to do it.
1953
But we are created in a divine
image. We're only around here for a short
while. It's a trice, really, when compared to
an eternity. But we have an eternal destiny.
And we will have to account. And I don't know
how we can address that problem by saying that
we're going to legislate against hatred. We
legislate against the manifestations of it in
crimes and offenses as we identify them. But
we also have an affirmative responsibility in
the formulation of conscience.
Madam President, you are preceded
or you preside and you introduce someone to
invoke divine blessings on the work that we
are about to undertake and, if not, to engage
in our contemplation of the responsibility
that we care with the trust that has been
placed in each and every one of us. But we
have that. What do we do with our children?
They don't even have the right to contemplate.
Contemplate. That's been all ruled out of
being against our system, our system of
freedom. I don't see -- freedom of what, I
don't know.
But we ought to be very positive
1954
about the education of our youth, the
spiritual element that goes into the
formulation of a sound conscience. Not this
dirty, sordid spiritual depravity of denying
personality to human beings.
I heard nothing here that offended
me. It touched me in every way. But our job
is to do it in a most affirmative fashion. We
do it in the education and in the raising of
our children, in the formulation of
citizenship, in following through in
circumstances, such as you found yourself in,
vigorously.
And I believe it was Senator
Paterson who mentioned the fact that in the 62
counties the DAs have been sensitized to this.
They should be, if they are not. These things
are simply not acceptable. They should not
be -- I mean, they should offend each and
every one of us in a most profound way.
But the answer must come from us.
It must come from the people, Madam President,
from all of us. We must reject it with the
utmost power that we have at our command, and
we must enlist our maximum effort.
1955
I feel indebted to you, sir, for
having brought this up. I -- a motion to
discharge is -- sure, a lot of things come up,
and it's your way of ensuring that we are
entertaining a wide variety of approaches to
human problems and social problems. But you
touched on something -- not in the formulation
that I see, but you touched on something that
needs further formulation.
How we do this in a constructive,
affirmative way, with our people in the
families, societies, the smaller, the larger,
and nationally, the things that happen
nationally that offend us. And if we witness
the daily tragedy, as Senator Oppenheimer -
you know, this is so obvious. And it's
dramatized to an extreme degree. But only to
a degree, because that problem exists. It's a
part of the human condition, part of the
challenge that we have for our service here on
earth before we have to meet our Maker.
So you've raised a very significant
spiritual argument and spiritual
consideration, and one which we should take to
heart. And our response should be
1956
constructive in addressing the myriad problems
that we face day-to-day, so that it does
fortify and reinforce an orderly society and a
society where interpersonal relationships are
respected, that we have love and positive
concern for each other.
It's not enough that I don't do
anything wrong to you. How about doing
something right? If you go through life not
having done wrong to anybody, you haven't done
a doggone thing. There's an affirmative
aspect to our responsibility, moral. All of
you, by your presence here and by the
sentiments you've expressed, I think have
expressed it eloquently on the floor in your
own way. But we have to channel it in
constructive directions.
I know, as Senator Hevesi brought
up, it may be -- have a good effect, it may
not. I'm not sure that -- unless we identify
those wrongs and offenses and go after them
seriously. But the rest of it is a very heavy
responsibility. Some of it we can help
legislatively; some of it we must, using
whatever poor powers we have in our office to
1957
encourage that attitude in the public at
large.
So I think this was a constructive
time that we've dedicated. And I'm grateful
for it. And I believe we should take it to
heart, and I think most of us do. And I don't
agree with -- I don't agree with this at all
as the approach. But certainly raising it and
putting our minds and conscience on a problem
that is real, real for everybody -- and it can
be real for everybody, under one circumstance
or another -- one that demands more attention
than so much more legislation than we consider
every day.
This stuff, I've been here 43 years
and I've seen a million bills. Some of them
I've seen a million times. But this is very,
very important. It's so basic to our reason
for being here. And it also measures the kind
and should reinforce the quality of our
response in what we do across the board.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nanula.
SENATOR NANULA: Thank you, Madam
President. On the motion.
So many good things have been said,
1958
and I won't stand today to present the legal
arguments. They've been made. Emotional
arguments that are from the heart have been
made. I want to just speak what I believe to
be a little bit of common sense.
And with respect to that, from a
commonsense perspective, I look at the bill
very simply, in that this bill or this motion
to discharge to create a bill would create a
special distinction for crimes motivated by
hate. And we can talk about murder or
assault. There's already laws on the books to
cover those crimes. This isn't about the
crime. It's about the motivation. It's about
the fact that this crime was created, this
assault or murder was enacted because the
person who committed that crime was motivated
to do so out of a sense of hatred, out of a
motivation to hurt and to maim because of the
differences between that person and the person
they were setting out to inflict pain upon.
And in 1999, in a country that was
created, most fundamentally, in all men and
all people being created equal -- and as
Senator Santiago said, the sad statement that
1959
in 1999 we have to even sit in a chamber like
this one and talk about a bill like this, I
think is a great tragedy.
But nonetheless, when you see acts
like the one -- hear about acts like the one
that was tragically, tragically committed on
Senator Duane, we have no choice but to stand.
We have no choice but to bring forward a piece
of legislation like this one.
And I'll tell you what I think is
sad. I think it's sad that this issue has
devolved in a political debate. Why? Well,
the issue of homosexuality has been brought
up. And all of a sudden everyone has to take
the party line. The liberals take their party
line, the conservatives take their party line.
In my opinion, this bill isn't
about the homosexual agenda, this bill isn't
about gay rights or registering your vote in
an area that is inconsistent with what your
political platform is. That's hypocrisy, in
my opinion. And it's a shame that this
chamber, on so many issues, has to divide
itself on party lines. We devolve so far away
from what is, in effect, a human rights issue,
1960
a human rights issue, when we simply say, "Oh,
I can't support that because I don't support
the gay agenda. And this motion to discharge
protects sexual orientation."
Well, that's wrong. That's wrong,
in my opinion. The people of this state
deserve better than that. Tom Duane deserves
better than that. And clearly, unfortunately,
this issue has become political because our
conference is standing up with a motion to
discharge. And whenever our conference is
standing up with a motion to discharge, it
usually means there isn't a bipartisan
approach. The conference that has the
responsibility of criticizing those rolling
the rock up the hill, the people on this side
of the aisle, believe that the people in the
majority aren't doing their job. And in my
opinion, that's simply what's happening here.
I think it's common sense. I think
it's common sense that we should put these
platforms aside. I think it's common sense
that we should get together in a bipartisan
fashion. And I think it's common sense that
we should put out, as a Senate chamber, a
1961
responsible bias-crime bill.
I hope, Senator Bruno -- and I'm
happy to see you here at this point in the
discussion -- that we can do that in a
bipartisan fashion and protect every
population that deserves protection under this
bill.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
As we come to the close, over the
next year -- or, depending on how you define
it, the next two years -- of a century that I
think has been notable for the incredible
advances that have been made, advances in
science, technology, and in the human spirit
and in the spirit of tolerance, I would also
remind everyone it's the close of what has
been without a doubt the most violent or one
of the most violent, tragic centuries in terms
of suffering and death imposed on whole
populations because of hatred, because they
were different. If that isn't the tragic
dichotomy of this century, what else is?
1962
Nothing, nothing can ever compare
to the Holocaust. Yet we've seen in Rwanda,
more recently, we see in the Balkans that same
kind of hatred and killing and death. That's
not -- not about wars. It's about killing
women, children, old people, noncombatants,
helpless people because they're different,
because they go to a different church or
synagogue or mosque, because they're from a
different ethnic group. And certainly in the
Holocaust there was a genocidal attempt
against the Jewish people and there was also
wholesale slaughter of Romany Gypsies because
of who they were. And, yes, of gay men and
women and of people of other minority
religions and of people who were not from
minority religions but had the courage to
stand up against what was going on.
You can get very jurisprudential,
because this is legislation. And I know
opponents will say, well, murder, assault, all
these crimes are already crimes. And they
protect everyone, as they should. Well,
they're right, but.
I would remind my colleagues, in
1963
many other areas of the law we do precisely
what this legislation would do. We do make an
educated value judgment, a discernment as to
the motive and impose different sanctions for
conduct that comes -- that while it may appear
from an objective purview to be the same bad
conduct, we impose greater sanction where we
deem the motive to be peculiarly unacceptable
to our values.
For example, do we not make assault
or murder of a police officer carry a greater
penalty than an assault or murder of any other
citizen? And in doing that, do we any way put
down the other citizens? No, we still protect
them. But we are delivering a message about
our values, about our values, about how we
value those who protect us as police officers
and about how reprehensible an assault we
regard it when someone is motivated to shoot
or strike out at a police officer. Because we
take that as an attack on not just a fellow
human being but on our entire body, on our
entire value system. Someone is assaulting
our fundamental societal values in assaulting
people who are doing their job of protecting
1964
us. And we give greater sanctions to that.
So, I mean, I've read the memos in
opposition. Those who would couch it in some
jurisprudential thing, I daresay they'd
support increased penalties, and have in the
past, for assaults on police officers. And
we've entertained in past years other
legislation protecting other categories, for
example, of public servants doing their duty.
And do we not on a national basis
make an assault or murder of a president or
vice president a greater offense, an offense
tried at a different level? Yes, we do. Why?
Because we're making a value statement, we're
making a statement of what our values are.
That's viewed as an assault on our fundamental
democracy, to assault the person or persons
chosen by the public to lead us.
And do we not -- I have in my years
here seen legislation sponsored by Majority
members that passed this house to provide
greater penalties when one assaults a senior
citizen. And we certainly, as we ought to,
make greater penalties for certain crimes
committed against children or disabled people
1965
than against the body of the whole.
And in doing that, we don't
minimize or denigrate at all those same crimes
committed against the public at large, but we
focus on two things, the fact that people
because they either represent us, as a police
officer does, or because they're particularly
vulnerable. We punish those in a special way
who would take advantage of that
vulnerability, whose motive is mugging senior
citizens because they can't fight back and
it's an easy mark. We punish that especially,
and we ought to.
We are making a statement in those
laws, a statement not about -- we're making a
statement that we are particularly offended by
those who are motivated to take advantage of
such vulnerability. We do it all the time.
So I say to the opponents, your intellectual
house is not in order when you try and make
this, oh, it's just a matter of jurisprudence,
we protect everybody with the general laws.
There are times when we do and we ought to put
special emphasis, special sanctions down
against people who are motivated by not just
1966
ordinary criminal intent but have a
particularly vile motivation for striking out
at a particular group, such as children,
senior citizens, or those who are different in
ways that we've already protected, race and so
on.
Now, that's what this legislation
is about. It's not a partisan issue. This
governor has called for anti-bias crime
legislation. The past governor did. People
in both parties have called for it. A series
of attorney generals have submitted different
types of legislation like this in the state.
It's not partisan. And it's intellectually
honest because -- and, you know, you've heard
it -- there are tragic, tragic examples of the
consequences of that kind of hatred and so on.
But I think the best reason for
this isn't just to reassure those who are
different than the majority that we want to
protect them from the haters. It's important
as a value statement of what we as New Yorkers
prize. And, you know, you can say motive,
motive, motive. I believe in the death
penalty statute there's a special -- singled
1967
out, for example, of professional killers,
hired killers. Why? Because their motive
isn't anger, their motive isn't normal human
emotions. It's just greed. So we say, okay,
you're among the baddest.
So we do this. We look at motive.
And we ought to look at it here, in this
century, that's seen so many tragic genocidal
attempts -- tragic -- that's seen a Holocaust,
that's seen literally tens of millions of
people slaughtered. We ought to nip that kind
of hatred in the bud. We ought to make a
special statement that says that's not
acceptable to us as New Yorkers.
What's wrong with that? Show me
how that doesn't fit into our whole scheme of
law where in so many other instances we've
singled out particularly bad motives with
extra sanctions because we want to make that
statement right now. This is a real no-no
because it strikes at our fundamental value
system.
And I appreciate what Senator
Marchi said about the positive things we ought
to be doing in education and in other ways to
1968
combat the seeds of hatred, to explain
differences, to encourage tolerance, explain
why that's such a -- that tolerance -- and as
I said, this has been a century that has seen
this dichotomy. The good thing in this
century is I think we have seen a growth in
tolerance, a growth in opportunity for all, a
much, much wider appreciation for diverse
cultures and, yes, sexual orientations. And
we now, I think, as Americans are aware of the
variety of religious beliefs that our American
family encompasses, and we've grown tolerant
for that, and that's good.
But there are haters out there. In
this year, 1999, we know there are haters out
there. We've seen their evil work, we've seen
their helpless victims. And it's time for us
as New Yorkers to say, no, this is
particularly offensive. Yes, we want to
protect all of our citizens against murder,
mayhem, and assault. But we also want to
deliver the message that when your motive's
hate, we're going to stop you. There's an
extra sanction there. Before you join up and
form a whole club, before you join some of the
1969
hating societies that have engaged in more
widespread massacre. You know, when Hitler
started out with his cronies they didn't
have -- I venture to say that there are Ku
Klux Klan klaverns, yes, even in this state of
New York, that have as many members as Hitler
started out with. Because he started out with
a handful of haters, and the hatred grew and
grew and grew.
So I think we ought to deliver to
those haters out there this message right now:
No, not in the state of New York. Your
motive's hate, your victim's singled out
because they're different, they're different
from you, their religion's different, their
ethnicity's different, their language is
different, their parents came from a different
place, their affectional preferences are
different from yours, we say no, we're not
going to tolerate that.
That's not a partisan issue. It's
an American issue. It's one that ought to be
on the floor of this house. We ought to pass
this bill. I urge a yes vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman.
1970
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, as I believe it is probably
generally understood in this house, the bill
which is the object of our consideration this
afternoon is a bill which I've carried in this
house for the better part of a decade. The
bill bears the name of a different Senator,
for purposes of this parliamentary approach,
but it is a bill which not only I have carried
but which is the Governor's first-priority
bill in his 1999 legislative program.
I feel very deeply about this bill,
and I have for some time. But I think the
focus of my attention has never been greater
than it was today when a comrade of ours, a
fellow Senator, stands up before us and
describes a personal experience which he has
had which etches more sharply in my
consciousness the dilemma of this problem than
anything I've ever heard before in this
chamber. Because as the old saying goes,
there but for the grace of God go we. There
but for the grace of God we are. We're here.
We have him right in our midst, and he's told
us what he personally suffered.
1971
Now, multiply that exponentially by
thousands and thousands of cases and add to it
the agony which has been superimposed on this
problem by the AIDS epidemic. Because the
AIDS epidemic has generated not only hate but
fear. People feel that those with AIDS are in
some way stigmatized in a special way.
They've got a death sentence upon them, and
some have even dared to suggest that it's the
Lord's means of taking vengeance upon a
special class of people. This demented kind
of thinking needs to be repudiated.
But far more than that, in a body
that's this collegial -- and you know this is
my only term I shall serve as president of the
Senate Club. The Senate -- the Senate for me
has a very special meaning. We're a group of
people who care very much about each other.
And if you just take a look at what goes on
next door as we slice our salami or eat our
pears or apples or whatever, there's a real
collegial sense of comaraderie, and we like
each other. And in fact, at times we have a
real feeling of wanting to help in any way
that we can.
1972
And then we get into this situation
in which we have a sharp apparent line of
division between a number of us on this issue.
And I say to you that this needs a little more
time for reflection. Let me start at the very
beginning. Let's hypothesize for a moment
that you're a young man. Let's suppose you've
reached the age of puberty and you wake up one
morning and you suddenly realize that you have
a slightly different point of view, that your
point of view impels you to be attracted not
to the women in society but to the men, that
you have a homosexual rather than a
heterosexual view of the world. It's not
something which you did by preference, it's
something which happened to you
psychologically for reasons that are far too
complex to be explored on this floor.
I'm being terribly candid about
this because I think we have to get to the
heart of this matter once and for all. Is
that predilection, which is something which
has happened to you and which in many ways you
may wish did not happen to you, a reason why
you should be narrowly defined for the rest of
1973
your life as an object of special hate and
contempt? I think not.
It's not as though you were doing
something wrong, it's as though something had
happened to you which makes you a little
different from perhaps the majority of
society, but which causes you to join a group
which has a different outlook on life. Is
that a reason for feeling that you must be the
object of crimes that are specially directed
with a feeling of the most intense type of
burning hatred? I don't believe it is.
But that's what's happening in our
real world. And let's be candid. What's
going on with this bill is very simple. I
know it because, as I've told you, I've pushed
it for many years. It is the fact that this
bill deals with homosexuality and the fact
that this bill involves a specific delineation
of crimes that are committed against
homosexuals which causes it to be opposed
repeatedly in several special quarters. I'd
like to tell you something which I believe is
a hopeful indication of something very
significant. I was at the Friendly Sons of
1974
St. Patrick's dinner this year, and I was
paying my usual courtesy call on members on
the dais, and Cardinal O'Connor beckoned me to
come over. He's an old friend whom I've seen
and worked with on many issues before. He
said, "Roy, I want you to know that I think we
may have a new approach to the bias-crime
bill, and I hope we'll have a chance to talk
about it before this session is over, because
certain attitudes are changing and we need to
discuss this."
I think what I'm hearing from the
cardinal -- and I haven't had a chance to meet
with him yet, and I hope to do it in the very
earliest moment -- is that there is a new
perception that some other approach must be
taken which will recognize the special
character and the intensity of this particular
issue as it divides society.
Now, I may be overly optimistic in
my anticipation, but I believe that with the
Governor having had the courage to make this
his top priority, with the highest and most
respected Catholic leader in the state, if not
the nation, going out to reach especially to
1975
one who's been an advocate of this type of
legislation, saying let's see if we can't work
something out, that there's a different wind
blowing on this issue.
Now, I would like to say to Senator
Duane that Tom, you and I of course have
discussed this at great length during this
session. You were gracious enough to forbear
in the handling of this in the manner in which
you found it necessary to do today because I
believe you're laboring under a deadline for
various motions and resolutions, and I
understand and respect why you felt it had to
be done.
But I say this to my colleagues. I
think that there's going to be a change. And
I especially address this to my very
distinguished and frankly beloved friend, the
Majority Leader of the Senate, Joe Bruno.
Now, Joe's just had a 70th
birthday, and from that vantage point of
mature consideration, I think I can even
detect in him a sense of ripening
deliberation, if I can put it this way, which
may cause him to have a slightly different
1976
approach to this in the days ahead as well.
I'm being a little bit presumptuous
in daring to suggest this, but we're close
enough and I've got enough gray hairs myself
so that maybe he won't misunderstand and be
upset with me for suggesting it. We've got
something cooking here, my friends, and it
could be terribly important for all of us.
Now, let me point out to you that
what really happens is that there's a sense of
unidentifiable revulsion which seems to take
overtake certain people. In some people that
becomes a hatred which has to be acted out for
psychological reasons that are also very
complicated. But have you not noticed the
degree to which your biased friends, those who
wish to act out against minorities of any
kind, seem to have a certain demented
intensity? It's almost unbelievable the
concentrated way in which these people want to
inflict harm on others.
That's why I think we have to be
especially sensitive to the need for
escalating the penalties for dealing with such
people, because they have involved themselves
1977
in an internal form of escalation which causes
them to be abnormal in their intense need to
hurt those who are of certain categories, so
we must try to deter them with equal
intensity.
Now, it's been plainly stated by
Marty Connor, I think as eloquently as I've
heard it, that there is escalation throughout
our penal system for special categories of
crime. He's spelled it out so that I needn't
go back over that ground. But there's no
question that the Conservative Party
memorandum, which I hold in my hand, I think
is in error when it says "New Yorkers know
that discrimination is illegal. We also know
that adding a specific category to existing
law discriminates against everyone not in the
category. This legislation is unnecessary,
and we urge you to vote against it."
This is a unique form of
topsy-turvy reasoning. We're saying, if you
accept the Conservative memorandum, that the
law discriminates against everyone not in the
category. Now, look, let's face what's going
on in the real interplay here. It is the
1978
Conservative Party and to a degree the
Catholic Church -- which for reasons that we
needn't go into, but some of which have great
validity, undoubtedly -- have a formal
opposition to this situation. But there -
there is change, as I've described it already
to you, and I predict that within the next
hopefully several weeks before we leave here
for the end of this session that there's going
to be a difference and we're going to be able
to pass Governor's Bill No. 1. It's my
fervent hope that that's the case. I hope
this is not naive.
I will not vote for your motion
because I don't wish to either symbolically
indicate a disloyalty to my leader, for whom I
have the highest regard -- but let it be noted
that I don't fly under a false flag. I resent
the fact that it's taken this long to get a
chance to vote for this. I think we should
get it onto the floor.
I'll even remind the leader and my
colleagues that he has said to us in an
earlier conference this year that there will
be a chance in a Republican conference to
1979
discuss this once again. I'm as confident as
I can be that that will be an illuminated
discussion which will reach an enlightened
conclusion, and I trust and hope and pray that
that conclusion will enable us to pass this
type of legislation in the year 1999.
THE PRESIDENT: To close debate,
I recognize Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President and colleagues.
I've listened, as you have, to the
debate on the issue of a hate/bias crime bill.
And I rise really to just say what has been
said before by many of my colleagues. The
debate that took place here was constructive
in that points of view were aired. But the
debate was out of order. And yet we had that
debate. And unlike some other circumstances
recently where debate on the issue was not
allowed, in this house we have talked about
the issue.
The debate, Madam President, is a
procedural motion to get a bill to the floor.
And if people are disturbed over their
inability to get a bill to the floor, then the
1980
discussion should relate to that particular
issue, on the rules of this house and not on
the merits of the issue that is not on the
floor, a hate/bias-related bill. That is not
on the floor.
The debate that's gone on for a
couple of hours -- and I say again -- was not
on the issue of a procedural motion to
discharge a bill. But the discussion took
place because the feeling was that there are
strong feelings and that this was a way of
airing those feelings.
But I don't want to have anyone in
this chamber mistake a vote against this
motion to discharge as relating the feelings
of the people that are voting against a
procedural motion to discharge.
Senator Connor and Senator Goodman
and so many others related the things that we
have done together in this chamber, and with
the other house, as relates to people who are
violated by criminals. Senator Volker had a
bill that we passed that specifically related
to increased penalties for hate crimes against
any discernible group. That bill never passed
1981
the Assembly.
And I was always troubled, Senator
Duane, as to why that bill never passed the
Assembly, because that would have covered the
issue that is on the floor that we have talked
about here in the bill that you attempt to get
to the floor. I still am puzzled on why that
bill, which was a hate-related-crime bill,
could not make it through the Assembly.
So I am left with the thought, and
it disturbs me greatly, that the issue really
isn't trying to do something about criminals
who violate people, groups, in some harmful
way, but the issue is more political. And
that's very disturbing, if the issue is
political, because we're trying to get to a
result. We are in this chamber having done
Jenna's Law, two-time violent offenders
staying in, the graffiti laws, the gang
violence bill that did pass both houses.
We did all of those things
together, and we have reduced violent crime
substantially, protecting the public here in
this state, which is a credit to both sides of
the aisle and to the other house, and to this
1982
Governor, who has provided the leadership to
help us make this state a safer place for
people to live.
We will go forward, and we will
continue to do things together. And we are
open. And Senator Goodman talks about me in
terms of a birthday. And, Senator Goodman, I
prefer to relate that I have just celebrated
the 30th anniversary of my 40th birthday. But
we will -- you're figuring that out?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: We will stay
open. Senator Duane, we've had some very
constructive discussion. We will stay open on
issues that are important to members of the
Senate, individually and collectively. And we
will keep the discussion open, because we feel
that the process should be an open process for
discussion.
But, Madam President, as I close
debate, I want to just again reiterate that
the vote that is being cast is on a procedural
motion to discharge to get a bill to the
floor. Period. And it is not in my way
relating to the merits, approval or
1983
disapproval, of any of the substance that
would be in a bill if it were to be debated on
the floor.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the motion to discharge, signify by
saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Roll call.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. The
Secretary -- I see five members standing. The
Secretary will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
1984
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: If I may explain
my vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
You know, frankly, I don't really
know that much the politics of the Assembly,
and I'm not very familiar with the politics of
this body as well. I'm new.
I do want to say that my having
been beaten up and my having been slammed in
the face and had beer bottles and epithets
thrown at me at the time it happened didn't
feel political, it felt frightening. And
frankly, the first time, when the case went on
without my being there, for a long time,
because in law enforcement and with the DA it
was as if it had never happened, in fact I
made believe that it hadn't happened to me
1985
either. And I would have sympathy for other
people who told the story of what had happened
to them, but because it didn't really matter
or count, it was as if it hadn't happened to
me.
And I -- I hope -- at the time I
didn't think there was a greater purpose to
it, but that I had just gotten beaten up. But
I hope maybe there is a greater purpose to
that having happened, and maybe today's
discussion was a part of that.
I want to thank from the bottom of
my heart my colleagues in my conference,
because frankly, after they permitted me some
leeway and some freedom, which is really above
and beyond I think what often happens in this
partisan body. And I am really very grateful
to you for allowing me that kind of free rein
over an issue that matters an awful lot to me.
I want to also commit to, as I have
before, to trying to come to a bipartisan
solution. I've been heartened by the
Governor's statements. I was heartened by
what did happen in the Assembly this year.
I've been heartened by the outreach of my
1986
colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
including the Speaker. And I just want to
commit to continuing that effort -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, I
want to interrupt you to notify your time is
up.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
-- to see that we do have inclusive
bias-crime-related legislation enacted this
year.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, how do
you vote?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the affirmative,
Senator. Thank you.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
1987
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Holland.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
1988
President. I rise to explain my vote.
I was sitting in my office when I
started to hear this debate. And of course,
since I am knowledgeable about the Senate
rules, I could certainly have stayed there and
been absent for this vote, since it requires
an affirmative vote in the Majority to bring
this motion to discharge to the attention of
the chamber.
But I came down to vote no as a
cosponsor of the underlying bill, to
underscore the Senate's rules and the Senate's
procedures, and that I understand what a
motion to discharge is, and as a cosponsor of
this bill, firmly committed for years to its
passage, to come down and to vote no to
support the aims of the Senate Majority and
the rules of the Senate and the order that we
have in the Senate and that I can feel
entirely comfortable not staying in my office
and being absent but to come down and
underscore the parliamentary movement that
the motion to discharge is.
And therefore, Madam President, I
feel very comfortable, for purposes of this
1989
motion to discharge, in voting no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack, you
will be recorded as voting in the negative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
1990
SENATOR McGEE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: To examine
my vote briefly.
Even though obviously, Senator
Duane, this is a technical, mechanical
exercise, it still is a marvelous, I think,
example of how democracy works, that we can -
that we still have the capacity and the
freedom to speak on this issue. And I'm happy
that you brought forth this motion to
discharge.
And I just -- I'm reminded of the
multitude of different cultures and religions
and people from different nations, some of
them from nations that are warring against
1991
each other, but when they find themselves here
in New York they somehow understand the
meaning of what America is and stands for.
And I think this is antibias, this is an
antihate bill, it's a message and we should be
sending it to the citizens in our state. It
means that we will not tolerate this hate
based on the difference between us, and I
think that it supports the notion of what
America means.
Certainly there are still parts of
the state where I cannot go because of the
color of my skin. There are parts of my own
borough where I am deathly afraid to be caught
at night by myself because I know that it is
dangerous, because people do hate me not
because they know me, not because I've done
anything to them, but simply because of my
color. So I understand that.
We are the government, and we
should be sending this message. And so, Madam
President, I vote yes because I think this is
the right thing to do, even though this is
simply a motion. It's a motion that is so
important, I think we should pass it.
1992
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
SENATOR NANULA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: I rise to
support this motion.
Senator Bruno and others have
alluded to the fact that it may be procedural.
But I'm on the Investigations Committee with
Senator Goodman, and we have voted this bill
out on several occasions over the past ten
years, and it has never seen the light of day
on this floor.
If the rules are to be changed -
and I would urge Senator Bruno to form a
bipartisan committee to change the procedural
rules so that some of the bills that we do
1993
vote out of committee do see the light of day
on this floor.
I believe the issue is of such
importance that for the past ten years that we
have been providing this legislative body with
motions to discharge out of frustration, utter
frustration that we cannot get these bills out
of committee when they have been voted out of
the committee to see the light of day on this.
So if this is the way we have to do
it, I will continue supporting the procedural
motion in order to have it see the light of
day. I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Just
briefly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: What is
1994
very upsetting and painful is that last year
the Governor came down to Westchester County
and in front of several hundred people in
Westchester said that he felt dedicated and
supportive of this measure and that he was
going to work in the direction of its passage.
There are so few states that do not
have to bill, it is an embarrassment for me
that our state, which is so incredibly
diverse, doesn't have this bill. I mean, it's
less than two handfuls. I really think the
other side of the aisle has to give very
serious attention to this now. It's really
getting to be an embarrassment for us.
I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
to explain your vote.
1995
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
My understanding of the Senate
rules that the motion to discharge this bill
is in order. In fact, it's under Rule 11.
Today was set as the last day for motions to
discharge. So based on time agreed upon
earlier this session by the two parties, and
based on the Senate rules -- and based on the
actual rules themselves, you can vote against
this motion and defeat it, but it is a
misnomer to state that this motion is out of
order.
The reason that I point that out is
because we have tried to get action on this
type of legislation for about 13 years, since
I introduced a bill on March 5, 1987. Senator
Goodman has basically the bill we're looking
at today, and Senator Duane sponsored it.
The point is the reason that we
wanted to suspend the rules and bring the bill
to the floor, which we do all the time -- when
we bring bills to third reading, that's a
motion to suspend the rules to bring a bill to
third reading, all the time -- is because this
1996
is an issue that has hurt so many people and
has intimidated so many communities.
Finally, on the issue of whether or
not the Assembly could pass Senator Volker's
bill, I wouldn't have any problem if the
Assembly passed that bill. But the procedure
is political. Because as we explained before,
we already have on our books laws that would
protect people, but what we want to do is to
classify those protections just as we did in
the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
My final point, New York State has
never passed the civil equivalent of the
federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 that doesn't
even have the protected class that's so much
in dispute today. I have never been quite
satisfied that I really know why we can't pass
hate crime legislation in New York as we have
in so many other states.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
The Secretary -- Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: That's
correct.
1997
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado.
SENATOR ROSADO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: No.
1998
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President.
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
I normally don't do this, but because of this
issue, let me just clarify a couple of things.
George, if I just might say,
Senator Onorato, the bill that you're talking
about is not the bill that's in Roy's
committee. That's another civil rights bill.
The bill is in my committee. I just want to
make that clear. It's been in Codes for some
time.
1999
This house, over the years, passed
bias-crime bills on a number of occasions.
And the reason -- and I normally don't get
into this. I was the person who went down to
the second floor with the previous governor
and offered to negotiate and was basically
told by the governor's counsel at that time
that they had won the political issue and they
really weren't interested in negotiating.
This house not only passed the
death penalty, by the way, which covered the
crime that Senator Duane was talking about out
in the West, we also passed gang violence.
And the gang violence piece came out of our
bias-crime bill. We pulled it right out of
that bill because we couldn't get the Assembly
to do our bias-crime bill. So we pulled the
gang violence out, which they passed, the
Governor signed, which is now in law. And
which has been used, by the way, on a number
of occasions for bias-crime situations in
regards to gang violence, because most of the
most serious crimes that are involved in bias
crimes are gang violence issues. So that -
let me just explain that.
2000
The problem, I think, with this
issue -- and let me just say, Senator Duane,
so you don't think you're alone in this house,
I was assaulted nine times in 1968 as a police
officer. The interesting thing about it is
you talk about people who are susceptible to
assaults, not one of those were we able to
maintain prosecutions for the assaults
themselves, because assaults on police
officers, especially at that time -- and even
now -- are so common that you have to have a
serious injury before courts will even
maintain them. I only point that out because
that's something I think most people don't
understand.
As far as we're concerned, as
Senator Bruno has said, we are very, very
sympathetic to this issue. And over the years
we've passed legislation that would deal with
any discernible group. And we have been ready
to pass that bill for years. Unfortunately,
this issue is political.
And, Senator Duane, you haven't
been here, and I understand your feelings.
But in the long haul, the problem here I think
2001
is that we have done as much as we can under
the circumstances, many of us believe. We
would like to negotiate an overall bill, but
the problem in the long haul is -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: -- the
likelihood of it happening is very unlikely.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
your two minutes -
SENATOR VOLKER: I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
You will be recorded as voting,
Senator Volker, in the negative. Thank you.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon,
excused.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the absentee roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Holland.
2002
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Abstained.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 24. Nays,
30.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: Yes. With
unanimous consent, I'd like to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 468, Senate Bill
2003
2942.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DEFRANCISCO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, I believe there's a motion at the
desk. I ask that it be read in its entirety.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Breslin, Senate Print 1832, an act to amend
the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
authorizing a residential parking permit
system in the City of Albany.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: This parking
permit bill has been in this house for a
number of years, and in fact several years ago
passed with only a couple of dissents.
It's a parking permit bill with a
home rule message. That home rule message
would allow our Common Council here in Albany
2004
to set up a parking permit system in and
around the capital to protect the viability of
our residents here in Albany, and to protect
the value of their houses and their quality of
life.
This is not a monumental bill.
Similar bills have been passed in this house
routinely with home rule messages. During the
past two years, Senator Saland sponsored a
bill, with my support, and it passed. Senator
Nozzolio had a bill for a parking permit with
Democrat and Republican support; it passed.
Senator Spano, a similar bill. Senator
Oppenheimer, from the Democratic side, a bill
I voted on in the positive. And one other
bill as well passed.
This is a bill that's important to
the constituents in Albany, a bill that
shouldn't be viewed on a partisan basis but
viewed in the true spirit of our home rule
system here in this body. This bill, if it
comes out on the floor, I believe would be
voted on in the affirmative, as many members
on the other side of the aisle have voted on a
positive basis, a yes basis, before.
2005
I urge both sides, my friends on
both sides, and colleagues, to vote in the
affirmative on this motion to discharge.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of accepting the motion to discharge
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is defeated.
The chair recognizes Senator
Skelos. No?
Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, Madam
President.
I believe there's a motion at the
desk. I ask that it be read, and then I would
like to be heard on the motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Smith,
Senate Bill 2951, an act to amend the Civil
2006
Service Law, in relation to employment of
peace officers and police officers.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you.
This bill will prohibit the
employment as police officers or peace
officers of an individual who has been
convicted of any offense or violation of a
civil rights or human rights law.
Currently, officers are not
required to leave their jobs, and it is solely
up to the police department to take
disciplinary action. In numerous studies it
has been shown that most officers have been
allowed to stay employed and repeatedly commit
the same infractions over and over again. In
other instances, the officers just move from
one jurisdiction to another, committing the
same heinous acts.
This bill requires the suspension
without pay of an individual for 30 days,
pending a hearing and the determination of
charges. And if found guilty, the person is
subject to immediate dismissal.
2007
Police officers are responsible for
upholding the law and protecting the rights of
all members of society. Their job is often
difficult and sometimes dangerous. Experience
from around the world shows that constant
vigilance is required to ensure the highest
standard of conduct, standards necessary to
maintain public confidence and to meet
national and international requirements.
This bill is imperative in the wake
of Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, Anthony Baez,
and the list goes on. Common patterns of
ill-treatment by police have been identified
throughout this country in what has been
deemed high-crime areas. Studies further show
that this type of behavior is prevalent in
communities of color.
I'm not saying that if this bill
had been in effect we would not have had the
tragic, unnecessary, brutal death of
Mr. Diallo. As a person who was raised to
believe that police officers are your friend
and that they're the good guys -- and
surprisingly, I still believe that the
majority of our cops are good, decent human
2008
beings. But take it from someone who has been
maced, arrested, manhandled, abused, libeled,
and falsely charged and lied about by an
officer out of control, we have got to make
some changes, and now is the time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Markowitz.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, I rise to support this motion to
discharge. And I want to thank Senator Smith,
who probably has been most recently victimized
by out-of-control police.
We've talked about this issue.
We've tried in so many different ways at so
many different levels to address the issue of
policing. And we know that in the final
analysis, policing involves a relationship
between two individuals, one who is the
authority figure -- who more than likely
carries at least two weapons, his stick and
his gun, and possibly other weapons -- and a
citizen. Some of the citizens also have
weapons.
We also know that policing is very
2009
dangerous. It's a very dangerous job for
those officers involved in it. But more
importantly, it is a professional position.
And we expect to have standards related to
professionals in our society. We want them to
do their jobs in the most professional manner
as it relates to policing of citizens, whether
or not there is crime involved.
And so what Senator Smith's
legislation would do, if we could see that
legislation come to the floor and have a
debate on it and hopefully have a consensus on
it, this is one small piece in a larger puzzle
to try and make certain amendments and
corrections as it relates to policing. I
think that it would professionalize it more
because it would raise the standards.
And I believe that now is the
perfect time for us to consider such a bill as
this. So I'm -- I'm in favor of this motion,
and I hope we can get it passed.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Thank you
2010
very much. Thank you very much.
This motion will not answer all of
our concerns. Just like all of us are elected
to serve, if at any time in the future we get
into trouble -- and let's say a regular
citizen gets into trouble -- does the press
cover the average citizen, or does the press
cover us a little bit more? And the reason
why they cover us a little bit more is that
the public has given us a special trust. And
when we violate that trust, we then are held
to a higher standard. And you and I know
that's true, every one of us.
In the same way, police officers
that are empowered by our society and our
state to carry that gun and their badge, they
are also held to a higher standard. And
that's the truth. The overwhelming number of
our police in the City of New York are superb
men and women.
But to make the police force and
all that it must be, it must be a force that
people are young and old, Christian and
Jewish, African-American, Latino, and every
race and creed and nationality must look
2011
towards as people as a force, as a service,
doing the benefit of the public. Trust and
respect must go both ways.
So, Senator Smith, I look upon this
legislation that we're trying to discuss this
evening as just an additional step to help our
city, to help our city make New York's
finest -- and they are indeed, in a nation the
finest -- to make them reach even higher
levels. Higher levels of responsibility, of
abilities, of competence, of respect.
And I believe that if every police
officer had the opportunity to understand the
concerns of many of us, especially those of us
that serve diverse communities in New York
City, they too, because they value their
professions, and I know they do, then they
know that a better police force working at the
optimum can only increase the level of respect
that they have for their work.
And so we are working hand in hand
with the police, the department, and all of us
that value and treasure the important role
that police have in the society and in our
City of New York.
2012
And so, Senator Smith, I commend
you. I have a hunch that in the months to
come, there'll be increasing discussions on
this issue, this Thursday for sure in New York
and for many future times. And a Senator that
just spoke about bias-related bills, there's
that song that Bob Dylan made famous, if you
don't understand, get out of the way, because
the times they are indeed changing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes, Madam
President.
I rise in support of Senator
Smith's bill, because I think that when we
look at the policing that takes place in our
communities and what has to be done -- and I
always tell people that there's a different
type of policing that take place in various
communities. One is called policing, and the
other one is called patrolling the community.
And one needs to understand that there are
some changes, institutional changes that have
to take place when we deal with policing.
We have witnessed probably one of
2013
the most horrendous acts of individuals who
are out of control and that also have a
license to take a life. I had the opportunity
to visit the site where a young man was
slaughtered in the Bronx, Mr. Diallo. And if
one would ever want to see a death chamber,
take a visit to that shrine. And you would
see that there was the dislodging of 41 shots
at an individual, and 19 of those shots hit
the individual. And he was even shot in the
bottom of his feet, so obviously he was down.
The second bullet severed his whole spleen.
He was killed with the second bullet.
But we've seen a systemic
destruction of young men killed by police.
And we constantly use the response that it's a
few bad apples. And a few bad apples spoil
the whole bushel. And bad apples are used for
other things as well, because bad apples are
used by farmers to feed hogs and pigs as well.
So there's a purpose for bad apples.
There was an incident that took
place a couple of years ago in the Bronx,
young men out playing football one night.
Didn't commit a crime. Football hit the car,
2014
police officer grabbed the individual around
the neck in an illegal choke-hold that the
police department has outlawed. This was an
illegal choke-hold that the police
department -- and the instructions is never to
use this type of choke-hold on an individual.
This individual did not commit a crime, but he
lost his life.
So this is not about getting rid of
a few bad apples, because that's what we look
at. This is about how do we begin to educate
and train and also not to allow individuals
who have violated the civil rights of
individuals to be allowed to be on the force.
In that case, the institution which
we have to change, the judge -- in a bench
trial, the judge said that he had never
witnessed such a den of perjury in all his
days on the bench. It has nothing to do with
the police officers or being a police officer,
but it has something to do with an institution
that we allow to exist.
This was not this police officer's
first incident. He had had a litany of
incidents. We have something in New York City
2015
that's called a street-crime unit. And their
job was basically to take guns off the streets
and deal with drug situations with guns. That
was their job, and it was very clear. But
they had a different idea of their job.
Because one of the misnomers, and I
wanted to say this, is that the street crime
unit don't look for rapists. That is not
their job. But they indicated that they were
looking for a rapist that night, the
street-crime unit. That is not their job.
Never been their role at all. Detectives and
those units go after rapists, not the
street-crime unit. That's their role.
But here we had a situation which I
guess when all the facts are given, we will
find out who they really were after or what
they really were after. Because there are no
detectives in the street-crime unit. These
are just police officers.
But here we have an institution
about educating and training police officers.
This bill says, about individuals who have
committed violations of civil rights -- we
just had a discussion here about civil rights.
2016
That was about civil rights. And part of the
street-crime unit was to disregard civil
rights. On a number of occasions -- and I
will say that the majority of the legislators
who look like me have had some police story
that they can tell in this room. That's for
sure. And their kids have some police stories
to tell in this room. Police have decided to
disregard all rights. My son told me that he
was stopped in front of the house, grabbed,
pushed up against the wall, searched, frisked.
And they asked him what was he doing. He
said, "I live right here."
So a clear violation, and
understanding what the role and
responsibility -- there is something called
civil rights, and we talked about it in the
previous bill, and we talked about what should
have been obtained and dealt with in 1964 that
Senator Paterson had talked about.
So I will tell you that there was a
discussion and people will say that the police
were just doing their job and there was an
accident that took place. The reason I am
saying this is because there have been those
2017
who have made statements that the police was
responsible even in that incident. And if
that was so, then the Mayor would not be
making changes systematically in the system.
So there is a need for changing and
discussion.
The Mayor understood that, because
it was late, but he made those changes that
had to be made. Because it is hard to justify
41 bullets. Remember, these are guns that you
have to pull the trigger 41 times.
And it was hard to talk about that
two weeks prior when there was a tiger loose
in New Jersey, across the George Washington
Bridge. And there was a humane way to deal
with that tiger, with a tranquilizer gun.
There was a wild elephant that got loose by
Madison Square Garden a couple of years ago,
and he was never shot at 41 times, because
those were some trained individuals who
understood that they also had to tranquilize
that elephant.
But what we saw here, and in this
incident -- and I think it's important,
because today it was Diallo, it was Diallo.
2018
Twenty years ago it started with Clifford
Glover and Randolph Evans, Baez, Michael
Steward, and Rosario. So it don't just
happen. It's systematic. Systematic. The
institution has to change.
And so we're saying here that this
is a bill -- but there is a bill that has to
deal with residency. There is a bill that has
to deal with a cadet program for police
officers in terms of changing the complexion
of police officers. It also deals with some
innovative programs that we have to deal with
police officers that talk about allowing the
police officers to use their pension fund to
build and develop housing that's affordable
for them to live within the city, that we
should look at ways of dealing with that.
So this is not just about a couple
of bad apples. This is about an institution
and how do you change the institution.
Because we will begin to perpetuate about a
few bad apples. It has nothing to do with
apples. It has something to do -- if every
police officer looked like me, you would still
have the same situation. Because the
2019
institution has to change. How you change
policing. How you educate police. How you
pay police. And your expectations of police.
That's what has to change. And we have to do
some things here in this body that would allow
those things to happen. Had we ridded
ourselves of a number of individuals, we would
have young lives here today.
So I think that it's important that
we have this discussion and that we allow
people to talk about an incident that
everybody seemed to have a little silence
about. Because this has nothing to do with
color. This is about humanity, when 41 shots
take place and 19 times an individual is hit.
And ex-police officers in here and the way
that they were trained and the way we look at
those incidents, obviously, there were some
individuals who had gone mad.
And I will say that it's important
that we look at this and understand our role
and responsibilities as human beings and as
legislators and at the price we pay for being
silent. Because it was Diallo yesterday, and
who knows who it will be tomorrow. But we
2020
have a golden opportunity to take a stand
today.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
let me set the context for my comments a
little bit. I love cops. My grandfather on
my mother's side was a cop. My aunt was a
cop. That entire side of my family were cops.
Before I was elected to the State Senate, I
served as director of management analysis for
the Queens Borough President and liaison to
the New York City Police Department.
Police officers die in the line of
duty with frightening regularity. I attend
their funerals. They are amongst the most
heroic in our society.
Having said that, I want to be very
clear about this. Individuals who oppose
changes to how policing is performed, to the
constitution and composition of the police
force, should not and cannot be labeled
anticop. There was no liberal, there is no
conservative. There is a desire to make a
2021
police force which is ultimately accountable
to the people who put that police force into
place, to make that police force the best
possible police force it can be.
In 1989, Madam President, I was
driving in my car, as a young man. I ran a
stop sign and was pulled over in Forest Hills,
Queens, white neighborhood, by two white cops,
one of whom approached the window and was so
obscenely out of line with me that
discourteous doesn't even begin to approach
it. Yelling and screaming. The classic good
cop/bad cop routine, because the other cop did
not behave in that fashion.
And in the wake of the Amadou
Diallo tragedy, I think we have all paused for
reflection a little bit at incidents that have
happened to us and evaluated them maybe in a
different way than we had at the time that
they happened.
And that's what happened for me.
And I started to look back on this incident
which happened to me and started to think the
following. If I as a white man was a minority
and New York City police force was
2022
predominantly black and the cop who had
treated me so terribly was black, I probably,
in searching for a rationale for his
disgusting behavior, might have assumed that
he was doing it at least in part due to some
racial undertone. And that would have set me
off even more than I was already fired up.
And why is this important? Because
in a day and age when any one of these little
sparks can lead to a huge conflagration, blow
our city up over this racial divisiveness and
very real issues of racism and brutality, that
we need to address them. And I commend
Senator Smith for bringing this concept to our
attention today and would like to shed light
on one particular facet of it that in light of
my experience has made me an advocate for a
policy change that I think is essential.
We have a police department in New
York City that is currently 68 percent white
when the population of whites in New York City
is 43 percent. It's a huge problem. Huge
problem. Want to see the problem get worse?
Let's look in the leadership ranks of the New
York City Police Department. There are 449
2023
captains in the New York City Police
Department. Do you know what percentage white
they are? 94 percent white.
Let's take a look at the inspectors
and the chiefs, the top echelons of the New
York City Police Department. There are 236
inspectors and chiefs. Do you know how many
of them are white? 92 percent of them are
white.
Now let's take an look at the
minority population on the New York City
police force, see where they come from.
75 percent of them live in the City of New
York. What's the current resident-nonresident
composition of the New York City police force?
55 percent live in the city, 45 percent live
outside of the city.
My colleagues, we have an
opportunity here to take another action in
this legislative session and allow the City of
New York, pursuant to Senate Print 3507, allow
the City of New York to act on its own accord
to amend the New York State Public Officers
Law and allow the City of New York to enact
the residency requirement prospectively -
2024
prospectively -- for newly hired New York City
police officers. Which will in some ways
avert the incredible crisis of confidence that
we have right now in New York City. We need
to take this action to increase minority
participation on the New York City police
force.
I reject the notion that housing is
too expensive in New York City. And even if
you can articulate an argument that it is,
well, I can articulate arguments, as can my
colleague, Senator Seabrook, on how we need to
put forward ideas; such as, having the pension
funds in the City, underwrite mortgages at low
interest rates for residents of the City of
New York.
We have to remember, that in the
wake of the Colin Ferguson shooting on the
Long Island railroad, remember this, this
legislative body, along with the Assembly and
the Governor, immediately enacted legislation
which enabled police officers from New York
City, Nassau and Suffolk, to travel on the
trains for free. Why? Because logic dictates
that if you have police officers on the
2025
trains, the trains are safer.
Well, if we had a residency
requirement and thousands of police officers
now living in New York City, the streets of
the city would be safer. Plus these
individuals would be more apt to become
involved in civic life, in Little League, and
in every facet of life in the City of New
York.
It is an action that we need to
take, ladies and gentlemen. And it is
something that's not anticop. It's not
something that we need to be attacking people
for supporting. It's something that we need
to do to restore confidence. It's not a
panacea. Not the only thing.
We need to reconstitute the
Civilian Complaint Review Board, a toothless
organization, that has no power to
independently discipline police officers.
There needs to be an additional independent
police monitor. We have to do intensive,
intensive recruitment, as is currently going
on.
I'll remind everybody, that in the
2026
New York City Police Academy right now,
seventy percent of the applicants today are
minority. Why? Five additional points on a
residency -- on the police test for residency.
And we must do aggressive,
aggressive education and recruitment in the
New York City public school systems, which are
85 percent minority, which is problem, Madam
President, in and of itself. But that's where
we need to do our recruiting.
And change this notion right now,
which currently exists, with the day in and
day out attacks on the police department, many
of which are justified, but served as an
impediment for individuals, particularly of
color, to get involved in the New York City
Police Department.
We must address these issues. And
I want to say as clearly and loudly as I
possible can, this is not to be anticop. This
is to be procop, propolice force. And in
order to make sure that our police force more
accurately reflects the composition of our
society, so that the people who put us here,
who enabled the elected leaders to fund the
2027
police force and protect us, have confidences
in those cops, and that if there are tragedies
that exist, then at least we'll know that
we've done all due diligence to insure that
those cops have been properly trained. They
are the best possible police force they can
be. And that we've done everything we can to
avert tragedies such as happened not too long
ago in the Bronx.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, as the hour is late, I will try to
be very brief.
I think it is very important that
we're able to begin to talk about this set of
issues today. I hope we will have a chance to
discuss them more thoroughly as this session
goes on.
I commend Senator Smith for raising
this, because I've been experiencing almost a
sort of a cognitive dissonance going between
New York City and Albany in the last few
months.
2028
I -- and I urge my colleagues who
are not from the City, that we have a very,
very serious problem. It is not just a
problem in the view of the black community or
the Hispanic community. This is a problem in
the view of the overwhelming majority of
people in the New York City. We understand we
have a problem with the ability of our police
officers to work with the communities. They
must work with them if they are to enforce the
law effectively.
This is something, and I speak
again, I -- I -- I have to echo what Senator
Hevesi said, I'm certainly not anticop. I -
I spent two years, before I went to law
school, as a deputy sheriff. I've worked in
-- with law enforcement. I was the lawyer for
the Local Anticrime Group for more than a
decade in Manhattan, bringing civil actions to
back up criminal investigations. And I've
worked with many police officers on those
actions over the last fifteen years. And I
know, particularly from working with me, on
trying -- and in community crime efforts, you
can't effectively enforce the law if the
2029
people in the community wouldn't work with
you.
And, so, this is not just an issue.
It's not -- we're not anticop. We're procop.
We're pro law enforcement. We have to begin
to address this issue.
And I -- I urge you that the issue
of residency, the issue of the composition of
the police force, is not a casual thing. It
is a critical thing for the City of New York.
We have to begin address this issue in a
positive way. We want to work with the police
department.
And I also think that it's very
important in this Senate, again, I'm proud of
the fact that we take our law enforcement
issues and criminal justice issues seriously
in this house, to show some leadership on this
issue.
And I've -- I've -- in speaking
with some of my colleagues, some people have
expressed concern that some people who have
shown leadership in some of the protest and
things, are not to their liking. Well, I urge
you, that if you don't like that, then let's
2030
show some leadership here.
If we don't show leadership, then
we have no right to criticize those who do.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, I rise to support Senator Smith's
motion to discharge. But I also want to be
the bearer of some good news.
Something is happening in New York
City that we should be aware of. And I want
to commend my colleague and the Deputy
Minority Leader, Senator David Paterson, for
being a sparkplug for a committee of concern
that brings healing to the City of New York.
Senator Paterson, along with Dr.
Diane Steinman of the American Jewish
Committee, have formed this committee of
concern, and it has a panoply of inter
religious, an interracial, interethnic groups.
Including the three premiere Jewish human
relations agencies in the nation; The American
Jewish Committee, Antidefamation League, and
American Jewish Congress.
2031
They have been meeting and will
continue to meet. They had a press conference
in March. People of different faiths are
involved. People of different positions; the
President of John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, the Hundred Black Men, the Central
Labor Counsel.
And we believe to -- to resolve
this problem, we must work together as a unit.
Diversity is the sign of New York
City. And in order to achieve our goals, we
have to not only have diversity, but unity.
And I have been asked by their -
and this is all I have to say, because the
next thing I'm going to read is a statement
prepared by the -- by Senator Paterson, and by
the Executive Director of the American Jewish
Committee, and Dr. Diane Steinman.
And Dr. Diane Steinman has asked me
to read this statement, which is only two
paragraphs, to be part of our official record
in the New York State Senate.
It represents the position of Dr.
Steinman and Susan Jaffe, the President of the
New York Chapter of the American Jewish
2032
Committee.
Quote, "As individuals reflecting a
broad cross section of New York, we are united
by the love of our city and the belief that
its diversity is part of what makes it great.
During the days that have followed
the tragic shooting of Amadou Diallo by four
police officers, it has become disturbingly
clear that many of our communities distrust
and indeed fear the police.
"We call on the Mayor and the
Police Commissioner to make a public
commitment, to a comprehensive package that
will assure all New Yorkers that they will be
protected, safe and free from police
insensitivity, disrespect and abuse.
"We share the Mayor's pride of the
dramatic decrease in crime during his
administration, resulting from his strong
leadership and the efforts of so many police
officers throughout the city.
"We call on them to implement with
the same urgency and dedication, a campaign
against police misconduct.
"His policy is zero tolerance for
2033
crime, must be matched by an equal public
commitment to zero tolerance for police abuse
and misuse of authority, as well as suitable,
prompt punishment for violations."
Last paragraph now begins. "For
this campaign to be more than cosmetic, a
comprehensive plan is needed that will have an
impact on the culture of the police
department, long standing departmental issues,
many of which predate this administration,
must be addressed with a goal of systematic
change.
"This plan must include effective
and sustained training of police officers,
that provides for each of them a thorough
understanding and respect for the communities
they serve.
"It must provide for the
enforcement of clear protocols outlining
acceptable police conduct and supervisory
responsibilities.
"It must strive to increase
opportunities for minority police officers so
diversity is effected at all levels of the
department.
2034
"It must promote the development of
a true partnership between police and
community, built through ongoing consultation
and communication.
"We stand for New York that is
humane and safe, in which the institutions of
government treat every person with equal
dignity and respect.
"We call on the Mayor to implement
the policies that advance these goals.
"A great city can expect no less."
Again, in closing, I want to
commend Senator Paterson and Dr. Steinman of
the American Jewish Committee, performing and
working on this organization of concern to
bring healing to New York City.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Lachman.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
I want to thank Senator Smith for
providing an opportunity to discuss critical
issues of law enforcement in our city and our
2035
state.
I was able to address some of my
feelings through an act of civil disobedience
on this very topic of police misconduct and
brutality. But I -- I looked forward to the
time when I could address it as a Senator on
the floor of the New York State Senate.
I think that the tragedy was
something that was foreseen with the Louima
case.
And the Mayor's putting together -
Mayor Giuliani's putting together a task force
which brought to people -- together people as
diverse as Christine Quinn, the Executive
Director of the Gay and Lesbian AntiViolence
Project, Staten Island borough President Guy
Molinari, Felipe Luciano, Stanley Crouch,
others, and together they came up with a
terrific and very doable plan for improving
police community relations and the role of the
police and the functioning of the police
department in our city.
And sadly, and we were to find out
tragically, what happened was, the Mayor just
tossed that report out. Even though people
2036
from very diverse backgrounds came together on
a multitude of points to address what could be
done to make the police department better in
the City of New York.
And what we found is, virtually all
of those recommendations are things which the
Mayor now says are needed.
Although, unfortunately, he has
chosen to focus on, for instance, that police
officers should be more courteous.
And yet I remember just two years
ago, there was a huge campaign about courtesy,
professionalism and respect. Police cars were
repainted. Was that a failure? I guess it
must have been a failure since now the Mayor
is reinventing that wheel.
But it's not enough. And it's not
enough that that be the only major public
thing that the Mayor does.
In fact, very publicly, what he
should have done, and what he still needs to
do, is to put into effect all of those
recommendations.
But sadly, because of the Diallo
tragedy, that now is not enough and more
2037
drastic measures are being called for.
You know, as a Caucasian male, I do
think that a lot of what happened, in terms of
policing, was to make people like me feel
safer. And, you know, that -- that probably
did happen. That did happen. Not probably,
that did happen. And I think that probably
across the board a lot of New Yorkers felt
safer.
But the other thing that happened
is, is that many, many, many New Yorkers felt
incredibly intimidate and threatened by the
police. Not white people like me, but people
of color and particularly and especially,
young people of color.
The very people who we need to
respect the police department and to want to
join the police department.
But what happened is, now we've
lost enormous ground over the past few years
of inaction on this. And young people who are
going to be attracted to the professions, are
not going to be attracted to the police
department. And that is a terrible tragedy
because it creates an enormous setback for
2038
creating a police department that looks like
the city its supposed to be protecting.
That's why drastic measures are
called for now because we have so much lost
time and lost ground to make up for, to
finally create a police department that is
responsive to and looks like the people that
it is supposed to be representing.
We need a police department that
engenders respect and not fear.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Duane.
Senator Paterson to close.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I'm going to defer to the
leader, Senator Connor, to close.
Thank you, Senator Smith, for her
efforts in bringing this legislation forward,
that enabled us to have this discussion.
And to thank Senator Seabrook and
Sampson, Senator Markowitz and Duane, who
joined me a few weeks ago in engaging in a
civil disobedience, that we hoped would bring
publicity to this entire issue.
2039
It's a very difficult issue to
discuss because we all know that law
enforcement officials put their lives on the
line every day. And in many respects are
encumbered by great difficulties and threats
as they try to perform their jobs.
So, that is probably the reason,
the great respect, that we have always had for
police officers, that we do -- that we are,
many times, unable to see that there are some
situations where excessive police force has
been used. Where, unfortunately, there has
been stereotyping and the identification of
those who might be suspects. Where there have
been at times, situations where officers have
gone beyond their authority, to actual
criminality.
These are not the majority of
cases. But they are significant enough that
they have run through the system when we think
of the Diallo case, and the Louima case.
They're just the recent cases.
Clifford Glover, as Senator
Seabrook alluded to, was a young man who was
shot while walking to work with his father.
2040
The police thought he was carrying a gun.
They saw him at five o'clock in the morning.
Randolph Evans, was -- that was in
1973. In 1977, Randolph Evans was shot in an
apartment building by a police officer named
Torzney. At the trial, and the defense of
psychomotor epilepsy syndrome, was asserted by
the defense.
This was a not responsible by
reason of mental disease or defect defense;
not approved by the American Psychiatric
Association, but yet was enough to acquit
Officer Torzney.
In 1979, was a case of Arthur
Miller, a Brooklyn businessman, who was trying
to break up a fight. Became -- was -- was
choked by police officers and died several
hours later.
Earlier we covered the Eleanor
Bumper's case. In this case, a seventy year
old woman, who was disabled and moving slowly,
was -- had her hand shot off.
We also had the case of Michael
Stewart, where eight -- eight police officers
stopped a young art student in the subway. He
2041
was beaten. There were several witnesses that
-- he was beaten by three of the eight police
officers, but no one could figure out which of
the eight were the three that beat him.
So, the district attorney's office
tried almost a joint and several liability
type prosecution. Because even they didn't
have any witnesses that could specifically
identify the officers who beat him.
So, even though everyone, including
the officers, knew that three of the officers
beat him, they all had to be acquitted because
there was reasonable doubt about the eight.
The list goes on and on. And
includes cases such as Louise Ravera case.
The Philip Mie case. A Dominican art student.
Killed very much the same way as Michael
Stewart.
And in none of these cases have
there been any convictions. So, it wasn't so
much the Diallo case, but the tension and
anxiety that people felt, not only from these
high profile incidents, but on the lower
frequencies, the type of incident that Senator
Hevesi described happening to him, that are
2042
making many of us cry out now to reorganize
the rules and regulations of the department,
and to try to create a situation with those
officers who discharge their duties, very
professionally, and very sincerely, would even
get the opportunity to speak in situations
without fear of retribution, so that those who
have not performed responsibly are brought to
justice.
That is really just the notion of
what I wanted to offer, Madam President.
I'd like to thank the Majority for
allowing us this time to express our views on
this issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Connor to close.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President. And I want to thank Senator Smith
for her motion.
As my colleges may have gathered,
the motion was a very useful way to allow
members to discuss their concerns about the
New York City Police Department. Some of the
problems there. And certainly the recent
tragedy.
2043
But as Senator Paterson has pointed
out, there's been a history of tragic
incidents.
And I think what came to mind as
Senator Paterson was speaking, and I don't
remember the names of the victims, but I can
recall four or five incidents where undercover
police officers of color, African-American and
Latino police officers who were undercover.
And, as we know, obviously, undercover police
officers dress like raggedy street folks so
they blend in, have been shot by other police
officers who afterwards, I'm sure, felt
devastated that they had shot a fellow
officer. But because of their stereotypical
view, you know, saw an African-American man
holding a gun on somebody and assumed he was
the bad guy and shot him, only to find out it
was a police officer making a proper arrest.
So, these tragedies happen.
The answer to them, obviously, is
training and training and training, and
recruiting people who are comfortable policing
neighbors they're comfortable in.
When Senator Duane pointed out the
2044
Mayor's task force, after the Louima case,
which was, well, I had some representatives of
what you would regard the liberal community,
was by and large, a pretty conservative body,
they came back with a report addressing that
Louima thing, that was by no means antipolice.
I think the first or second
proposal was to dramatically increase the pay
of New York City police officers, as well as a
number of variety of recommendations for
enhanced training and recruitment.
Now, with all due represent to
Senator Skelos and my colleges from Nassau
County, maybe it's just my Brooklyn basis, but
I think being a police officer in New York
City is a lot tougher job. And I'm not trying
-- looking for debate, but it's a tough job.
It's -- let's put it this way, it's at least
as tough as being a police officer in Nassau
County. And I think from what I see on T.V.,
it's tougher.
Why are our police officers paid
dramatic -- thousands and thousands of dollars
less? That doesn't make any sense.
Just by virtue of the density of
2045
the population in New York City, the kind of
urban environment there is there, of course
it's a tougher job than the average suburban
police officer; I mean, that has it's own
problems, but would encounter. So, why do we
pay -- why are our police officers paid
literally, I think the differential is nearly
twenty thousand dollars a year, is starting
pay. I mean, why -- you know.
And there's an old saying, Madam
President, you get what you pay for.
I mean, if you want to have a
professional police force, that feels
professional, you want to attract -- and we do
have rules now in New York City, that you need
a half of a college degree to be a police
officer. We're going to attract more and
more, better educated people, and more and
more minorities who have gone through CUNY for
example.
Let's pay them. Let's recognize
that it's not the old job it used to be. It
doesn't just take a brawny guy with a night
stick walking a beat. It takes a lot of
professionalism, judgment, knowledge.
2046
Knowledge of not just the law, but
you have to have the knowledge of sociology
and psychology. And, you know, it's a tough
job.
And the people who have the skills
to be the finest police officers, in many
cases, can make more money doing something
else. Or taking the test and becoming a
Nassau County police officer. And, so, let's
-- let's recognize this and pay them.
One of the proposals that came out
of a group of members, in the wake of the
Diallo tragedy, was a proposal to -- I mean,
he's not here today, but Senator Waldon
proposed that we take a look at the police
cadet program. The ones that existed in CUNY.
Inexplicably, Mayor Giuliani ended the
program. This is not -- I'm not looking to
start a fight with the Mayor. But he ended
it. Yet that program, for a modest
investment, was able to enroll a thousand CUNY
students, through college, as police cadets,
without any overt outreach to any particular
community, such that more conservative people
who think affirmative action isn't fair, they
2047
got a high percentage of women, Puerto Rican
and Latino and African-American enrollees,
because, let's face it, the student body at
the City University represents the city and is
a diverse population. And when you encourage
those young men and women to go into a police
cadet program, invariably they reflect the
city. And they reflect the finest in the
city, as well as it's diversity.
And here they had an opportunity to
have a four year college program in
conjunction with the police department.
Now, you say, I don't know what got
ended. I don't know why the Mayor ended it.
I'd like to see it reinstituted. It's a way
to have a professional police force.
Policing with all -- I think my
colleagues all, we all have the greatest
respect for professional police officers. We
know that's a tough job. That's the toughest
job out there.
And the fact of the matter is,
there have been national proposals for a
national police academy, along the lines of
our military academies.
2048
You know, once upon a time, if you
go back a couple hundred years, we recognized
that being an officer in the military wasn't
just -- you know, once upon a time the officer
in the military was the guy who could recruit
a thousand people and say, I'm the colonel.
And you just needed a lot of guts and bravery.
And that's what you did.
We recognize some time back that -
obviously we wanted -- it was a profession.
We needed more professional training. We had
military academies. We had officer training
programs. Well, we -- with an academic
element, with another element. And there have
been proposals for a national police academy.
And I respectfully suggest that we
ought to encourage CUNY to take the lead in
setting up this cadet program as a -- as a way
to recruit and train and professionalize
police officers.
The New York City Police Department
has had a dramatic growth in size. The
average police officer on the New York City
Police Department, I believe, has less than
five years on the job, as they say. And is
2049
under age twenty-seven or twenty-eight. The
average sergeant, I believe, has only seven
years or six years on the job, to be sergeant.
And the average sergeant is under thirty now.
And that's not to say youth doesn't
have its wisdom. And whatever. But what's
gone, a whole -- you know, we had the fiscal
crisis in the '70s. A lot of police officers
were laid off and let go, and went into other
areas. So, we're missing a whole generation
here.
We had an aged out police force.
They're retiring. The experienced officers
are retiring. The experienced sergeants are
retiring.
You know, you now put a young cop
on the beat, and he don't have that twenty
year veteran sergeant to put his arm around
him and say, look, you got to use some
judgment around here. Every guy who's sipping
out of a brown paper bag, on his own stoop, is
not a criminal, to be hassled, frisked,
roughed up a little bit, you know. A lot of
them are just plain working guys and they got
nowhere else to sit after work except on their
2050
front stoop. And if they're not throwing the
bottle on anybody or giving anybody any
trouble, you don't necessarily have to make a
bust out of the whole thing.
That's -- we all know that's the
judgment that goes into being a police
officer. And that takes some wisdom.
When the sergeant's only been on
the job five or six years, it's hard to get
that kind of on the job mentoring, that was
always the traditional way police officers
professional ethic was formed, on the job
mentoring.
It's tougher now. It's a bigger
force. A younger force. The level of
supervision doesn't have that much experience
on the job.
So, these are things we have to
address.
You know, there's a lot of talk
about residency. Well, so many police
officers don't live in the city. And the
people say, well, that was always true. But
I've noticed something in the last fifteen or
twenty years. And it's this. Yes, a lot of
2051
police officers, fifteen and twenty years ago,
in New York City, lived in Long Island or
Rockland or Westchester or in the suburbs.
But by and large they were young -- mostly
young men, and some young women, who grew up
in New York City. Grew up in New York City.
Had military experience, which is a very good
thing. A lot of our cops now, they don't have
that military background. Had a couple of
years in the military. Came back. Took the
test. Made the force. Became cops. Lived in
the city a year or two. Got married. Had a
family. And because of housing reasons, and
so on, moved out to Long Island or moved up to
Rockland, or elsewhere.
But when they went back on the job
in the city every day, they weren't in alien
territory. They were used to that concrete.
They grew up on that concrete. They played on
those concrete streets. They bounced balls
off of those tall walls. They're used to the
big buildings. The crowded streets. And the
diversity of the population. Because you can
change the vowels at the end of the names or
the -- whatever, New York City's always been
2052
diverse. Maybe it's different groups now that
form the major minority communities. But back
when it was, you know, Irish cops with Jewish
neighborhoods, and whatever, but they were
used to that. They grew up in the city.
This newer generation of police
officers, a lot of them grew up outside the
city. And in many cases there are the sons
and grandsons and granddaughters and daughters
of that other generation of police officers.
And they take the test. They want -- it's in
their family. It's their tradition. They
want to be cops. But when they go back to New
York City, the physical surroundings, the
culture, the whole way the economy works on
the streets, in the neighborhoods, is very
alien to them. And that can be very
frightening, as anybody knows. It can be
frightening to be in a strange place. And the
diversity of people they encounter is very
different to them. They're not used to it.
You know, their fathers and
grandfathers generation, they may have had
lived in Long Island, or elsewhere, but they
grew up in the city. They weren't strangers
2053
when they went to work in the city.
And that's a problem. And I don't
know what the solution is. But I think more
people ought to pay attention to that, as a
problem that may have encouraged some of the
alienation we see between the younger police
force and the people it serves and protects.
So, Madam President, I think it was
important to have a discussion on the record,
in the Senate, of these issues.
I don't think anybody's against the
police force. Indeed, we want to see the most
professional, best trained and well paid
police force that we can possibly have in New
York City, to protect all of the residents of
New York City.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Connor.
All in favor of accepting the
motion to discharge, signify by saying aye.
(Response of Aye.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(Response of Nay.)
2054
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is defeated.
The Chair recognizes Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Wednesday, April 14th at 11 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On the
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, April 14th at 11 a.m.)
(Whereupon, at 7:54 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)