Regular Session - May 25, 1999
3263
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE
STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 25, 1999
3:09 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
3264
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: The invocation
today will be given by the Reverend Peter G.
Young of Blessed Sacrament Church in Bolton
Landing.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Dear God, we gather today to
discuss our concerns as citizens. We are
mindful that many in our world do not enjoy
such freedom. Grant us the wisdom to conduct
our legislation with dignity and sensitivity.
May these Senate deliberations
enrich the lives of our New York State
citizens, and may we pray today for this newly
elected Senator who will tomorrow become our
colleague.
We ask You this now and forever.
Amen.
3265
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, May 24th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Friday, May 21st,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of myself, on page 59 I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 223, Senate Print Number 2094, and ask
that said bill retain its place on the Third
3266
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, and the bill will retain its place
on Third Reading Calendar, Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I also wish to call up my bill, Senate Print
2101A, recalled from the Assembly, which is
now at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
224, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2101A, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I offer up the following amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
3267
on behalf of Senator Bonacic, on page 12 I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 338, Senate Print Number 3892, and ask
that said bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, and the bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
at this time could we adopt the Resolution
Calendar, with the exception of Resolutions
1529 and 1557.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
adopting the Resolution Calendar, with the
exception of Resolutions 1529 and 1557,
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,
at this time if we could have the title read
3268
on Resolution 1529, by Senator Seward, and
move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Seward, Legislative Resolution Number 1529,
Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of Herkimer
Area Resource Center, on Thursday, May 27,
1999.
THE PRESIDENT: On the
resolution. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
may we please have the title read on
Resolution 1557, by Senator Marcellino, and
move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
3269
Marcellino, Legislative Resolution Number
1557, urging the New York State Congressional
Delegation to effectuate a repeal of the
oxygenate mandate for reformulated gasoline.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, this resolution is very
significant. The other house will be taking
it up probably tomorrow or the day after,
whenever they can, as immediately as possible,
because it is imperative that we remove the
substance MTBE from our gasoline.
It was put into the gasoline by the
EPA as a means of cleaning up our downstate
air. The trade-off, however, seems to be that
the product has an affinity for water, and it
seeps its way into the groundwater. And it's
been found in various wells and water supplies
throughout the state and throughout the
Northeast region.
Other states have taken the road of
3270
a ban on the substance in the states. We feel
here that it would be better, in light of
recent scientific evidence that the MTBE
additive has really no effect on the pollution
emissions of cars, mainly due to the fact that
the cars are much better made today and the
emissions controls on them are much more
significant and much more capable of doing the
job, we feel it's time that the EPA remove
this requirement and remove the threat to our
water supply. That's what this resolution is
all about, and it's extremely significant.
Madam President, I offer this
resolution up to anyone for cosponsorship.
And I would ask if anyone wishes not to be on
it, that they -- with the approval of the
Chair, that they notify the desk, if that's
okay.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
Senator Marcellino wishes to open his
resolution for sponsorship.
SENATOR SKELOS: Any person who
would like to go on the resolution or -- are
you all right with putting everybody on it?
Why don't we do this. Why don't we
3271
put everybody on the resolution, and then
anybody who wishes not to cosponsor the
resolution, they should indicate to the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Anyone who does
not wish to be a cosponsor of the resolution
should notify the desk.
Senator Skelos.
The question is on the resolution.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could now
take up the noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
248, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 3162C, an
act to amend Chapter 271 of the laws of 1994.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
3272
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
354, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 1718, an
act to amend the Public Health Law and the
Education Law, in relation to prohibiting the
dispensing of controlled substances.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 9. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
527, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3817, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to the presiding judge in juvenile delinquency
3273
proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
530, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3985A, an
act to amend the Domestic Relations Law, in
relation to orders of protection.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
3274
657, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 968, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
policy coverage for persons with cancer.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
bill shall take effect on the 180th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
731, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 676A, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
assaults committed in the presence of certain
children.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator Paterson.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
780, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3265A,
an act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
extending the additional 1 percent sales tax.
3275
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47. Nays,
2. Senators Dollinger and Gentile recorded in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
842, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2463C, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to enacting the Motor Vehicle
Renter's Responsibility and Protection Act.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
988, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3427A, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to an order reducing or dismissing an
indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
3276
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1019, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 4040,
an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to permitting the State
Liquor Authority.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1044, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4703, an
3277
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
making certain technical corrections.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1045, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4704, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
conforming the personal loan limitations
imposed on foreign banks.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
3278
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1047, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1273, an
act to amend the New York State Urban
Development Corporation Act and others, in
relation to food processor economic
development assistance.
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: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1048, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 3663,
an act to amend Chapter 915 of the laws of
1982.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
3279
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1053, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 4850,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to indemnification.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay the bill
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
could we take up the controversial calendar
now.
THE PRESIDENT: That completes
the reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
731, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 676A, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
assaults.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
3280
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Rath give us a brief
explanation on this bill?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
This proposal makes it a Class D
felony to commit an assault in the third
degree in the presence of certain minor
children. And it also enhances the penalty
for a person who commits an assault on the
same victim more than once.
The intent of the bill,
particularly in relation to the minor children
witnessing the acts of domestic violence, were
to illustrate the fact that not only is one
person hurt, but many people, for the future,
may be hurt. Not only the victim, but the
child who is witnessing the act of domestic
violence, and then the very strong possibility
that that child will go on to become a
perpetrator of domestic violence themselves.
The facts and figures and all the
information, the best information we have,
shows us that young children who live in homes
3281
where domestic violence is the way of life go
on to become perpetrators of domestic violence
themselves. And so this is meant to act as a
deterrent.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Rath would yield
for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
would you yield for a question?
SENATOR RATH: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson, with a question.
SENATOR PATERSON: First of all,
Madam President, I'd like to assure Senator
Rath that I think this is an excellent bill,
and I'm very proud to vote for it.
I think it's very creative in the
sense that the effects on younger people of
witnessing this violence have not fully been
documented, but we can at least be aware of
the inclination of those who have witnessed
this type of victimization actually becoming a
part of it later in life, which is a tragic
reaction that some people have to witnessing
3282
these types of events.
The question that I have is really
just for the protection of those who might be
assaulted and might be acting in a
self-defense manner. Is there a provision in
the legislation for the primary perpetrator as
opposed to one responding to the initiation of
violence?
And particularly, the reason I ask
the question is that so many times women were
actually in the process of being victimized
and by the time law enforcement arrived, they
may have undertaken actions to protect
themselves and then wound up getting arrested
along with the original perpetrator.
So I just wanted to make sure or
have Senator Rath's point of view about the
whole possibility of the wrong individuals
being charged.
SENATOR RATH: That's a good
question, Senator. And counsel advises me
that the same defense as in any other assault
case would hold forth throughout this.
And all we're doing here is
increasing the penalties to reflect the fact
3283
that we feel it should be a diversionary
effort to have people discontinue violent
behavior of this sort in front of children.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm going to
vote for the legislation, just to make sure
that this becomes law.
I just wanted to suggest to Senator
Rath that the -- all defenses would certainly
be applicable, but it would probably be more
specific if we wrote it into the legislation.
I don't think it's stated as clearly as it
could be.
And I'm very interested in seeing
the bill passed. We all like to see young
people who are witness to assaults, for the
most part that might occur through domestic
violence, to have some protection under the
law.
I would state as an ancillary note
that the fact that we are protecting a class
3284
of people, meaning minors, I think further
establishes the fact that we can protect a
number of classes of people in the context of
hate crimes. And certainly those who might
oppose a hate crimes bill certainly should not
be citing that the law can't distinguish
between the classes of people who are
affected, because this legislation establishes
that it can.
And I can't really think of a
better reason to pass legislation that would
protect a class of people as would that
protection provided to minors through this
bill that's presented to us by Senator Rath.
And I thank her for sponsoring it
and suggest that we all support it.
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
3285
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
842, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2463C, an
act to amend the General Business Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
Senator Dollinger has requested an
explanation.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President. It's deja vu all over again, as
Yogi Berra once said.
The bill that we have on the floor
before us is the Motor Vehicle Renter's
Responsibility and Protection Act. The bill
would amend the General Business Law to repeal
the hundred-dollar liability cap for damages
to a rental vehicle. It would also allow the
sale of optional vehicle protection that would
be made available to the renter.
The reason for the bill, as I
stated the other day, Madam President, is that
this is a response to a number of companies
over the past ten years that have gone out of
business because in New York State the
hundred-dollar cap has been in place. All
3286
other states have removed the hundred-dollar
cap. We believe it is prudent to do the same
in New York.
This is a pro-consumer bill. This
is a pro-small business bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will Senator Libous yield to
a couple of questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
would you yield to a couple of questions?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I would be happy to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: You're right,
it was deja vu once, it's deja vu again.
When we had the discussion last
week, or it may have been the week before, I
raised the question, and I think you properly
pointed out that there was a reduction in the
number of rental car companies. And I was
looking to try to find the cause of that and
find out whether this bill was going to
address the cause of that -- you know, create
a causality.
3287
And my question, through you, Madam
President, is what are the premiums for fleet
insurance in the rental car industry, and how
have they grown or been affected in the 11
years that we've had the limitation on
liability and we've banned the CDWs? I
mean -- and particularly, I'm talking about
the fleet coverage solely for property damage
to the rented vehicle. Liability and damage
to other vehicles would be separate charges.
But what about the -- what has the
effect of that been? Because that would be
the only cost, I presume, for -- that would be
incurred by virtue of our having passed this
bill in 1988.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
in response to Senator Dollinger's question,
we checked into it and talked to some of the
companies and some of the folks in the
industry.
One of the reasons for this
legislation on the floor today is the fact
that many of the companies, particularly the
smaller companies that have gone out of
business -- there's some 300 companies that
3288
have since gone out of business -- cannot
purchase fleet insurance. Fleet insurance is
extremely expensive from the carrier. They
don't have the money to purchase the insurance
to give them any coverage.
What's happened over the past ten
years is that because of this, and because of
the hundred-dollar liability cap, they have
taken and absorbed the losses in their
day-to-day business operations. And because
of that, we have seen a loss and a decrease of
about 46 percent.
So in response, Madam President, to
the Senator's question, is that fleet
insurance is not available because it is
cost-prohibitive.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President.
Just so I understand. If they
don't insure the car through fleet insurance,
you're not suggesting, Senator Libous, that
these insurance companies are leaving the
fleet without insurance coverage? Because I
assume that that would apply not only to
collision insurance but liability insurance as
3289
well. A car has to be insured. It can't be
driven in the state of New York without
insurance. Where does the insurance come
from?
SENATOR LIBOUS: In the state of
New York, under present law, that automobile
is insured for up to a hundred dollars as far
as the liability to the consumer. All right?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct.
SENATOR LIBOUS: The business
owner has to absorb the cost. And that's why
these businesses have gone out of business,
because they cannot afford the cost.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Again,
through you, Madam President.
Do you have any statistics that
show how much the cost increased between
1988 -- obviously there was a fleet insurance
cost in 1988. That cost has gone up, I
assume, since -- based on what you've said to
suggest that it has gone up since then. I'd
just like to know, do you have any statistics
to show how much has fleet insurance gone up
so that that would create an extra cost?
Because that's the only extra cost that would
3290
be caused to rental insurance companies by
this -- by virtue of what we did in 1988.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
this bill does not pertain directly to fleet
insurance, and we don't have any direct
numbers on fleet insurance. I would recommend
that if the Senator is interested in that,
that he might want to contact some insurance
carriers and some others in the industry who
might be able to afford that insurance.
What we're dealing with is the
liability right now to the consumer, to the
renter, to the car -- to the business. And
that's what this bill is addressing. It is
really not addressing an issue, Madam
President, as to what costs are for fleet
insurance. That's certainly a business issue
that has to be dealt with.
The issue that we're addressing
directly in this bill is the fact that
optional insurance can be purchased for
collision damage when someone is renting an
automobile.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President.
3291
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'll be more
than happy to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, do
you know what the average cost is for the
collision coverage for an automobile in New
York state for a year? How much does just the
collision rider cost?
SENATOR LIBOUS: That I don't
know, Madam President. Obviously, that is in
the personal insurance policy, as I mentioned
last week. All of us who have personal
automobile policies pay for the rental policy
right now as far as collision damage is
concerned. I would guess that that varies,
Senator, from company to company.
As a matter of fact, Madam
President, I am now shopping myself, because I
own four vehicles, and looking at what costs
are for automobile coverage. And I find that
it varies dramatically from company to
company.
3292
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It may vary
significantly -- through you, if Senator
Libous will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you continue
to yield, Senator Libous?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'll be happy
to.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It may vary
significantly. But do you have any sense of
what the average cost is for collision
coverage in New York state, how many hundred
dollars of -- you would pay or less than a
hundred dollars you would pay for full
collision coverage even on a new car?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I don't have the answer to that, but I don't
think it's relevant to the discussion before
us. Because it is -- right now, if you have
an insurance policy in New York state for your
own personal automobile and you rent a car,
you're covered under that policy. And right
3293
now, this law has not been changed. So what
that cost is depends on what the company
charges.
What we're dealing with here in
this legislation, Madam President, very
simply, is that we are going to make available
to the consumer optional coverage if they do
not have the coverage on their credit card or
if they do not have the coverage on their
personal policy.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President, just so I make
sure I understand it. And if they -- through
you just to Senator Libous, if he'd yield for
a question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure. Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What we're
really doing in this bill is we're shifting
the responsibility for collision coverage
exclusively to the renter. Isn't that the
case? If they buy the insurance, they're
3294
covered if the vehicle is stolen or cracked
up. If they don't buy the coverage and the
car is stolen, then the rental car company
could sue them for the value of the car
because they're personally responsible for it;
correct?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Right now -
Madam President, through you -- Senator
Dollinger, right now if you use a credit card
or if you have your own coverage, you're
already paying for it. No additional charge
to the consumer.
The only time there would be a
charge is that if the consumer has no coverage
and does not have a credit card to purchase
the insurance, then, again -- and I stress
this -- it is optional. Then it is up to them
to make the decision whether they want to pay
for that insurance at the time they rent a
car.
And if I may also, Madam
President -- and through you to Senator
Dollinger -- 85 percent -- and this is an
important note -- 85 percent of all cars
rented in this state are rented by people from
3295
outside of the state. That's a very important
fact.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President, if Senator
Libous will continue to yield while -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'd be more than
happy to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Go
ahead, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
isn't it safe to say that you would like to
make rental cars as cheap in New York state as
possible so that 85 percent of those tourists
don't have to pay extra fees to come to New
York? Wouldn't you want to keep the cost of
rental car insurance down in an effort to
boost our tourism?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
that's exactly what this legislation is doing.
And yes, Madam President and Senator
Dollinger, that's what I want to do.
Let me give you an example. They
just did this in Illinois -- which this bill
3296
is patterned after, as a matter of fact, the
Illinois legislation. I'd like to read to you
the success, the tremendous success that
they've had there.
And it said basically that in less
than one year, the results have been
astonishing. Automobile rental rates have
declined on average more than 25 percent. For
example, the average rate for renting a
full-size car in Chicago had been reduced from
$64.99 per day to $41.99 a day. Even with the
collision damage waiver, the cost -- the
per-day cost is less than the $51 per day.
And it reduced the rates.
And, Madam President, additionally,
in nine short months, more than 60 new rental
car companies or new branches have opened in
Illinois, and these additional companies have
purchased more than 2400 new cars. And
it's -- it's seen rates go down.
We expect to see rental rates go
down in New York state with this legislation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President.
I have some different statistics,
3297
Senator, that suggest that in Illinois the
rate has gone up from about $20, on average,
to $21.65, while in New York the rate from
December 1996 to April of '99 has gone from
$23 to about $26.30. The rates in Illinois
have gone up 8.25 percent; in New York,
they've gone up about 12 percent.
Is that consistent with the numbers
that you have, Senator?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
it must be that the numbers that I have are
accurate. And, Senator, you might want to
check the sources that you received those -
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I suspected
that would be the response, Senator.
I have no further questions. I'd
just like to address the bill, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, on the
bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: We talked
about this bill last time. And with all due
respect to Senator Libous, I don't believe
there's any justification given on the floor
3298
thus far to pass this bill and to transfer to
consumers the exact problem that we passed the
statute in 1988 to overcome, which is the
predatory practice at that fragile moment when
you're renting a car when someone says "You
need to buy collision coverage."
And the reason why we passed this
statute in 1988 is because what we found was
that too many people were being told at the
rental car outlet that "Collision coverage?
We think you need it." No one said what
Senator Libous said or what Senator Libous
perhaps would advise him, that anybody would
advise him: "Did you know that if you buy
this with a credit card, you may not need it."
May not need it. Some credit cards provide
that protection; others may not.
They also didn't say at this
critical moment when you're renting a car,
"Oh, by the way, guess what, if you have an
automobile and it's got collision coverage,
you're probably covered anyway."
And what we found was that the
predatory practice was that they simply said
"You need a collision damage waiver. You
3299
should have collision coverage." And the
information that the consumer needed to make
an intelligent choice about whether to buy it
or not wasn't given. And as a consequence, in
1988 we passed this law.
I would suggest to Senator Libous
that there is no evidence before us right
now -- none, zero -- that the cost of insuring
those vehicles went up from 1988 to 1999 as a
consequence of our capping the liability to
the consumer at a hundred dollars. There's no
evidence of that. And in the absence of that
evidence, we're making public policy for some
unknown reason. We're about to change the
policy of this state without a justification.
And I would suggest to Senator
Libous that the actual cost of the collision
damage coverage for your automobile, even if
it's a brand-new one, as I know many of these
rental cars offer, that that cost for
collision is about $2 a day, tops. Buy a new
car, get it insured for collision, and it
costs you about $600 for the collision
coverage.
What we're doing in this bill is
3300
we're authorizing the rental car companies to
charge up to $9 a day for that cost that you
could buy in the marketplace for $2 a day.
What happens to the other $7 a day that
consumers are going to pay? And I would just
suggest to Senator Libous that that extra $7 a
day is what we used to call -- if government
were doing that, we would call that a tax.
Because what we're doing is we're charging -
we're allowing someone to collect a fee that
frankly doesn't bear any relationship to the
price for the goods in the marketplace.
So what we're going to do is we're
authorizing the imposition of a $7-a-day tax
on the rental of a car in this state. That's
what we're doing. And we don't do that now,
but we're going to do that in the future.
And I would suggest to everyone in
this room that before we impose a tax like
this that will not build any new roads, will
not build any new highways, will not do
anything for the benefit of government but
instead is going to put $7 a day in the
pockets of the rental car companies, that
before we do that we should have a valid, a
3301
strong, and a justifiable reason for doing it.
And if Senator Libous had stood
here and said, "Gee, Rick, look, the cost of
collision damage has gone way up because of
this cap. Since the consumer isn't paying
their fair share, it's been shifted over to
the auto rental companies." And you could
justifiably say, "Wait a second, Rick, it's
time for the consumer, since the cost has gone
way up, to bear a bigger burden of the cost."
I could buy that argument. But I don't see
that before us today.
And I would just suggest that this
is a rental car tax. Let's call it for what
it is. And the problem is that this tax is
going to end up in the pocket of someone other
than government. This is going to be a
$7-a-day contribution to the rental car
business.
Senator Libous is correct. There
are fewer rental car companies in this state
than there were 11 years ago. I would suggest
there are fewer businesses of all varieties, a
consolidation that's happened. And there's
not one shred of evidence that that
3302
consolidation was driven by this consumer
protection statute.
The policy reason for putting this
in place in 1988, which was to protect
consumers at the time they bought this type of
insurance, is as relevant today as it was
then. In the 11 intervening years, we've done
one thing. We've forgotten the reason why we
did it in the first place.
Don't forget that. We will be back
here. The same practices that occurred at the
time of purchase of this insurance will occur
again and again and again. And your consumers
and my consumers are going to pay an
unnecessary $7 a day.
And how much does that come to,
Senator Libous? My guess is that -- guess.
That's all I've got. I would suggest that
there've been lots of guesses today. But my
guess is that there are about 5,000 to 8,000
cars rented in this state a day, every day.
Multiply that by $7, the difference between
what you could buy the insurance for versus
what they're going to charge, and suddenly you
have a $35,000-a-day tax that's going to be
3303
imposed on consumers in this state.
Even if most of them live
out-of-state, I would suggest it's a
disincentive to our tourist business. And if
they live in our state, it's frankly what they
used to call a rip-off.
I think this is a bad piece of
legislation. With all due respect to the
chair of the Mental Health Committee, I don't
see this as pro-consumer, I don't see this as
pro-business. I see this as sanctioning a
practice that we called a rip-off in 1988. We
ought to call it a rip-off in 1999.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
with the consent of the minority, could we
have the last section read for the purposes of
Senator Rath and Senator Skelos voting.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR RATH: Aye.
3304
SENATOR SKELOS: Aye.
Please withdraw the roll call.
THE PRESIDENT: The roll call is
withdrawn.
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
I really didn't intend to speak on this. But
because I guess I have a little history on
this legislation, I thought maybe I ought to
say something.
Back in 1988, I represented an area
around the airport in Buffalo. That's where
all the rental car people are. There used to
be a lot of little ones there, and of course
the bigger ones.
Well, the bill that is being talked
about here passed in 1988, and all the little
people came charging into my office, and I
remember came charging into all sorts of our
offices, and they said if this legislation
persists, if this situation persists, all the
big people will be all right, they will be
able to handle this and they will remain in
the state, and you'll get rid of most of the
competition. And what will happen is for a
3305
short period of time, maybe the rates will go
down a little bit, and then they'll go up.
Which they have.
Now, what happened was we didn't
change the legislation, and those little
people are gone. The people around the
airport now, I can think of only one smaller
rental car operation that's left.
Now, you can tell me all you want
that this legislation in 1988 had nothing to
do with those people leaving. But what
happened to them? They left. The big people
are still there. And those big people's
rates, by the way, went up. And this is an
interesting issue, because I think it points
up the fact that sometimes we don't realize
what happens, particularly in the insurance
business and in some of the business around
this state, when competition is knocked out.
We have a situation right now, and
those of you who are from New York City,
whether you realize it or not, you're the only
part of the state right now that is not being
impacted by lower airline rates. And the main
reason that you're not being impacted by it is
3306
because we have been trying for several
years -- we have a task force on airlines'
rates, which we've gotten very little
publicity about because the people in
Washington are grabbing all the publicity.
We've been trying to get gate slots at La
Guardia, at Kennedy, and at Newark from the
Authority who owns the gates down there, and
we haven't been able to do it.
And the result has been we haven't
been able to get the competition. And without
that competition, the rates for airlines,
particularly in New York City, have remained
extremely high.
Upstate, we've been able to get
some airlines in, some new airlines, and the
result has been the rates have been falling in
places like Buffalo and Rochester and
Syracuse. But without competition, that's not
going to happen.
Fascinating issue, because you can
call all this sort of stuff you want taxes and
all that sort of thing. But the truth is what
happened in 1988 clearly and unequivocally
helped the bigger leasing companies. They
3307
were able to survive and went through it and
so forth. The little people went out of
business because they were impacted by the
legislation that passed in '88, and the other
people were able to handle it.
The question I think we have to ask
ourselves, though, is who really was benefited
by that. And I think what Senator Libous is
trying to do is to make sure that everyone is
benefited, the little guys are benefited. Oh,
yes, we understand that some of the insurance
companies don't like it, although they haven't
conveyed that dislike to very many of us that
I'm really aware of, except that we've heard
through the grapevine that they don't like it.
And of course that's the regular insurance
companies.
The truth is, Senator Dollinger,
I'm afraid I just don't agree with you. I
don't think that the 1988 law, although it was
intended to be a consumer protection issue -
I think Senator Libous's bill is the
consumer-protection issue.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
3308
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, can I be heard before the -
THE SECRETARY: -- effect in
90 -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I don't -- I
hadn't intended to speak for the second time.
I don't know whether Senator Schneiderman had.
But I have just a couple of follow-up points
to Senator Volker's comments.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, go ahead.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Couple of
quick things -
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
Senator Volker's episodic evidence -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator -
Senator Dollinger, are you on the bill or do
you have a question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I am on the
bill, Madam President.
3309
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
Senator Volker's episodic view of the little
people who went out when the consolidation,
like many consolidations -- I point out that
little airlines went out of business, little
rental car companies, little car companies
went out of business. It's a time of
consolidation.
And I challenged Senator Libous the
last time we were here to prove to me that
this particular statute, which outlawed the
sale of collision damage waivers and the
hundred-dollar cap on personal responsibility,
that that caused them to go out of business,
that it increased their premiums, that it
resulted in an increase in insurance so that
only the big boys could play in the
marketplace.
Senator, if that were the case, I
would suggest that the logic for this bill
would get stronger. But I haven't heard that
case made, and I'm waiting to see that it's
made. If we were, as a consequence of this
bill, drastically increasing the cost for
3310
individual insurance for these vehicles when
they're rented, and that they couldn't compete
because big sellers of this service were able
to discount, then I would say Senator Libous
may have a point.
I would point out, however, that
that is not the case. There is no evidence to
support that point. There's no correlation
between supposedly increased premiums and the
passage of this bill.
And I would just sum up by adding
one other thing. I always have sort of a
"through the looking glass" approach to this
chamber. I always walk in here and sometimes
figure that I have walked into that land on
the other side of the looking glass. And I
feel like I'm here today, because what I hear
is that this is a pro-consumer bill. It
repeals the fundamental piece of consumer
protection, which is a hundred-dollar cap on
the consumer's liability in the event the
vehicle is stolen or damaged. It protects the
consumer. It says no matter what happens, if
it's stolen from you and it's not your fault,
the most you have to pay is a hundred dollars.
3311
When this bill becomes law, if it
someday does, the answer will be if it's
stolen from you, you now owe the insurance
company $12,000. How that could be perceived
as benefiting the consumer -- I would suggest
it looks like that came from the Cheshire Cat,
because it's just not real. The pro-consumer
decision made in 1988 is still a good one.
And to do this now is really, as I
said before, it was a rip-off in '88. It
would still be a rip-off.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I just
wanted to add to Senator Dollinger's comments,
which I think make the case very well that
this is a particular burden to people in New
York City, many of whom do not own cars and
would be compelled to always pay this
additional $7 a day into the pockets of the
car rental companies.
I realize it's not been a great
3312
month for the people in New York City in this
house, but at least in this piece of
legislation I hope we can give everyone a
break, as those extraordinarily persuasive
people in the Rockland County legislature are
not pushing us for this bill.
This would have a severe impact on
many communities in New York City where no one
owns a car and where all of those people would
be required to buy the collision damage
waiver. And I urge everyone to vote in the
negative, certainly everyone from New York
City.
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'd like to
answer that question, because that's a good
one.
Senator, I would assume that most
if not all people in New York City who rent a
car would use a credit card.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Many
would. Many would not.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yeah, I would
guess that most -- I don't know too many
people that write a check or pay cash to rent
a car.
3313
And they would be covered under any
major credit card that covers the account, so
that they would not have to pay for the
collision damage waiver.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, Madam
President.
Senator Dollinger says over and
over again that this is anticonsumer because,
in his last statement, on the current law the
obligation is no more than a hundred dollars,
but if this becomes law then that individual
would be responsible for $12,000, $15,000,
whatever the value of that car is, should it
be stolen or totaled. And that's what I heard
him say.
Now, Senator Libous, if you would
yield -- Madam President?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'd happy to
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Is it not true
that a rental agency would not rent that car
if, A, as you said several times, the person
3314
had a credit card that covered it, or, B,
their insurance policy covered it, or, C, they
bought insurance that would be available by
the rental car agency? Am I correct in that
assumption?
SENATOR LIBOUS: That's correct.
SENATOR PADAVAN: So therefore,
under no circumstance would the renter be
responsible for the $12,000 or $15,000 that
you keep telling us about, Senator.
Well, you're going to have to
put -- the rental agency's going to do one of
those three things with you, or in cooperation
with you. They're not going to let you walk
out of there bare. Because if they did that,
then they're relying upon your ability to come
up with that money. And that would be a very
bad business decision.
So I would suggest to you, Senator
Dollinger, that your hypothesis just falls
flat when you apply some logic, if not the
proposal that's before us.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
3315
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President. Madam President, may we have a
slow roll call on this?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: May we have a
slow roll call on this?
THE PRESIDENT: I see five
members standing. The Secretary will call the
roll. Slowly.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was recorded as
3316
voting in the negative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
Senator Padavan's comments. And at least as I
understand it, what we're talking about is
optional vehicle protection. It's not a
mandatory sale. You don't have to buy the
collision damage waiver. You don't have to
buy the insurance. The way I read it, the
bill refers to optional vehicle protection.
And I would suggest that the
insurance company will never be in a situation
where the vehicle will be uninsured. What
they'll do is they'll insure the fleet
generally, they'll charge the consumer. If
the consumer doesn't buy it, they'll simply
take, in the event the vehicle is stolen,
3317
since it is optional -- it's not a mandatory
purchase. You're not required to purchase it.
And under those circumstances, the
scenario that I've discussed is a possibility,
which is you don't buy it with a credit card,
you don't have your own car, and instead you
drive away saying "I don't want the collision
damage coverage. I want the liability
protection, I want everything else, but I
don't want the collision," somebody steals the
car, and the consumer will be held liable.
That was the whole point of the
hundred-dollar cap, is that if all those
things happened, the cap would be a hundred
dollars.
Again, Madam President, I really
think we're right here on the other side of
the looking glass and we're talking about this
as though it were a consumer protection bill.
Why there are no consumer groups in here
asking for it to be passed and all are in here
saying don't pass this bill would suggest to
me that on the other side of the looking
glass, in that real world we're supposed to
live in, this is a bad consumer bill.
3318
I vote in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative on this bill.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes.
3319
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise to explain my vote.
I've listened very carefully to the
debate on the floor this afternoon. And once
again, I'm always surprised at debates which
make us the nation of New York rather than the
state of New York, and a failure to understand
that there are 49 other states in the Union.
I've listened to the other side, very
carefully, explain about the liability of
$12,000, $15,000. And I must admit, I didn't
know we had this wall at our state borders.
All those other problems that, if
we adopt this, that must be going on in those
3320
other states -- Illinois, which just repealed
it, states like California and Texas, states
in which, you know, thousands of people
travel, tens of thousands of people, to rent
cars -- and all that liability that they must
be experiencing.
I must admit, Madam President, I
guess I don't read the newspapers well enough.
I fail to have read any article about a
$15,000 liability some poor traveler in
California or in Texas -- the one thing I do
see in newspapers, however, and I invite all
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
to take a look at it, is travel sections in
Sunday's newspapers. Read them sometimes.
And when you do, look at all those ads for the
rental car companies. And look at the bottom
print, when they have "Special, $19.95,"
"Special, $23.95," look at the small print:
"Not available in New York State." You'll
find that in every car ad in every Sunday
travel section in every newspaper in the
country, and you'll see it again next Sunday.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack, you
3321
will be recorded as voting in the affirmative
on this bill.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President.
I've heard the debate. We've
answered questions this afternoon. And I just
would like to cover a couple of very important
points that I think have been missed in this
entire debate. This bill is very much
pro-consumer and it is very much pro-business.
And I think the statistics really speak for
themselves, and they ring a bell loud and
3322
clear. And I want to share them one more
time.
Over the past ten years, we've lost
46 percent of the car rental companies in this
state. So whatever we did, that wasn't
pro-business. We had 572 locations; we now
have 319 locations. The accident frequency
for rental cars increased by 250 percent
because there was no renter responsibility.
You know, on this floor we talk
about a number of different issues. You hear
things about personal responsibility. You
rent a VCR, you smash it up, you're liable for
it. You rent a tuxedo, you rip it, you're
liable for it. You rent a car in New York
state, total it, and you can walk away for a
hundred dollars. There has to be some
personal responsibility.
But yet there is coverage for this.
The coverage is available. Those of us who
have automobiles and have policies, we have
collision coverage on those policies. We're
covered if we rent a car. If you carry a
major credit card -- and I have to be very
candid. I don't think there's a rental car
3323
agency in the country that will rent you a car
without a credit card. If there is, I'd like
to be there. I'd like to talk to them. And
any of the major credit cards has collision
coverage. So for those individuals who claim
they don't have personal policies, it's
available.
Then the insurance is made
optional. If you have neither, the insurance
is optional. I would think, as someone who
takes personal responsibility for my action,
if I had neither the credit card or a personal
automobile insurance and I were to rent a car,
a piece of property that didn't belong to me,
I would want to take responsibility for that
piece of property if I were to take it out and
damage it. That's the way I was brought up.
And I would pay, Senator Dollinger.
I would pay for that $7 or $2. It all depends
on what the company wants to charge. It could
be as little as 1, it could be zero.
The point here, I think we're
pretty clear that there is coverage for the
consumer. And on -- if you look at the bill,
Madam President, if you look at the
3324
information on the bill, we are going to put
it in big type right on the front of the bill
that talks about the responsibility for the
consumer. Because we care deeply about the
consumer, and we will protect the consumer.
Madam President, this is a
pro-business bill, it is a pro-consumer bill,
it is good for the state, it is good for the
consumers of this state. I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I was voting
for Senator Markowitz.
3325
(Laughter.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez,
excused.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, just briefly to explain my vote.
I think that I may have even voted
no on the original bill that we passed because
I thought that $100 was quite low. And I
certainly would be very much in favor of
raising that cap. I think that makes sense.
But certainly not to repeal the law which
protects consumers to a large extent.
So I'm voting no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative on this bill.
The Secretary will continue to call
3326
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
SENATOR NANULA: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
President, I'd like to explain my vote -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: -- and in the
process attempt once again to respond to
Senator Dollinger's comments.
He says this is an optional
insurance coverage bill, and in so saying
claims that the renter would be liable for the
full value of that car should it be stolen or
totaled. That is his contention.
But if he reads the bill and
further clarifies, for his own benefit and the
rest of us, what the word "optional" means
3327
here. Now, if you look on page 5, it says:
"This shall be printed in bold-faced type on
the contract. This contract offers for an
additional charge optional vehicle protection
to cover your financial responsibility for
damage or loss to the rental vehicle. The
purchase of optional vehicle protection is
optional and may be declined."
So far you're right.
"However, you are advised to
carefully consider whether to purchase this
protection if you have rental vehicle
collision coverage provided by your credit
card or automobile insurance policy coverage
before you decide whether to purchase the
optional insurance."
So what they're saying to the
consumer, it's optional, but don't buy it if
you're already covered by your credit card or
by your personal policy on your vehicle back
home. That's the optional part.
Now, obviously no rental agency is
going to let you walk out of there with that
vehicle without one of these three options
being exercised. And that's the point I was
3328
trying to make to you, which you choose to
ignore.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Rosado.
SENATOR ROSADO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: No.
3329
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Smith.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Vellela.
SENATOR VELELLA: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
3330
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 34. Nays,
3331
20.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1053, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 4850,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to indemnification.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: May I have a
brief explanation, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is legislation that intends to
extend a state defense and indemnification to
officers, members, and directors and employees
of the State of New York Mortgage Agency,
known as SONYMA.
What has happened over the years is
that we have extended the defense and
indemnification to these categories of
employees, officers, and directors for many
public authority and public benefit
corporations. And just to quickly name a few,
the Local Government Assistance Corporation,
3332
the Greenway Heritage Conservancy, Greenway
Council, the Energy Research and Development
Authority, the Science and Technology
Foundation.
In addition, we do it for the State
University Construction Fund, the Facilities
Development Corporation, Long Island Power
Authority, and even our own New York State
Urban Development Corporation. And, last but
not least, our Housing Finance Agency.
What we want to now do is extend
this same privilege to the officers,
directors, and employees of SONYMA.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. If Senator Bonacic will
yield just to one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, would
you yield to a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I
understand this, this preserves the exception
3333
that if the actions were not in good faith and
were not made for a public purpose, they
wouldn't be entitled to the indemnification?
SENATOR BONACIC: The standard
that they use is the same standard that
applies to all of those other agencies that
I've said. And to answer your question
specifically, it's yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So the
Section 20 -- line -- line 20 through 24,
which deals with the exception, says you
aren't covered if you participate in bad
faith, that's in all the other statutes in the
other agencies that we protect?
SENATOR BONACIC: It is. It's
the same standard.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. No
objection.
Thank you, Madam President.
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.)
3334
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: If I may, Madam
President, I want to announce the fact that
this afternoon from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., there's
going to be a reception at the New York State
Museum featuring the works brought to this
capital by the Whitney Museum of Art in New
York City.
This exhibit will be of exceptional
interest to legislators in particular, since
it relates to the work of artists in New York
done between the years 1900 and 1940. You
will recall that these were years of
tremendous ferment in our society. The
exhibit will touch upon the World War I years,
the prosperity, the Great Depression, the
change in the metropolis from urban -- in the
urban metropolises of our state.
And I think you'll find this an
extremely interesting and approachable exhibit
3335
which you'll enjoy greatly, not to mention the
fact that there'll be hors d'oeuvres and
refreshments served, with a distinguished
group of Albany residents.
May I urge you, ladies and
gentlemen, to attend this exhibit. It's
something sponsored by the Senate, brought
here as the third in a series, the first from
the Metropolitan Museum, the second from the
Museum of Modern Art, and finally this from
the Whitney, all reflecting a concern that we
have with the culture of our state and the
fact that museums should not keep things in
their basements but should share them with
other cities.
I think you'll enjoy it immensely,
and I look forward to personally welcoming you
at the exhibit, along with the Trustees of the
Whitney, the Mayor of Albany, and a great
number of other dignitaries. Please do come.
I think you'll find it a very rewarding
experience. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Goodman, for that announcement.
Senator Alesi, that completes the
3336
controversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR ALESI: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Senator
Alesi, there is no housekeeping at the desk.
SENATOR ALESI: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Wednesday, May 26th, at 11:00 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Wednesday,
May 26, 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)