Regular Session - April 11, 2000
2240
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 11, 2000
3:08 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
2241
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 God bless counsel and 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 10th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Friday,
April 7th, 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.
2242
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo, from the Committee on Consumer
Protection, reports:
Senate Print 143B, by Senator
Nozzolio, an act to amend the General Business
Law;
1091, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the General Business Law;
2016A, by Senator Bonacic, an act
to amend the General Business Law;
2100, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the General Business Law;
2530, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the General Business Law;
3212, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the General Business Law.
Senator Padavan, from the Committee
on Cities, reports:
Senate Print 3264, by Senator
Maziarz, an act to amend the Real Property Tax
Law.
Senator Spano, from the Committee
2243
on Labor, reports:
Senate Print 4117A, by Senator
Spano, an act to amend the Workers'
Compensation Law.
Senator Volker, from the Committee
on Codes, reports:
Senate Print 110, by Senator
Volker, an act to amend the Penal Law;
393, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
789, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
966, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
1265A, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Civil Rights Law;
1481B, by Senator Balboni, an act
to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules;
2059, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules;
2139, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law and the Criminal Procedure
Law;
2795, by Senator Rath, an act to
repeal Paragraph F of Subdivision 1 of Section
2244
70.30;
2943, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
3337, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
3419, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
3441, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
4276, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Civil Rights Law;
4789A, by Senator Lack, an act to
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules;
6026B, by Senator Morahan, an act
to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law;
6644, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
6647, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
6974, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
Senator Morahan, from the Committee
on Veterans and Military Affairs, reports:
Senate Print 684, by Senator
2245
Larkin, an act to amend the Real Property Tax
Law;
1913A, by Senator Bonacic, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
6445A, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Highway Law;
And 6740, by Senator Kuhl, an act
to amend the Highway Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills reported direct to third
reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Meier, on page
number 8 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 185, Senate Print Number 6272,
and ask that that bill retain its place on
Third Reading Calendar.
2246
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, and the bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome,
Senator.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could adopt the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution 3696.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
adopting the Resolution Calendar, with the
exception of Resolution 3696, 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,
if we could take up Resolution Number 3696, by
Senator McGee, have the title read, and move
for its immediate adoption.
2247
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator McGee,
Legislative Resolution 3696, memorializing
Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim
April 2000 as Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Awareness Month.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
Senator McGee has consented to the resolution
being cosponsored by all the members. If
there's no objection from the Minority, we'll
put every member on the resolution unless
somebody indicates to the desk otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: All members will
be put on the resolution, Senator. If any
member does not wish to be put on this
resolution, please notify the desk.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President. We just passed Resolution 3695,
which we are -
THE PRESIDENT: We are
anticipating passage, Senator.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes. -
2248
National Library Week, and I would also like
to offer that up to anybody in the chamber -
or to everybody unless they have an objection.
It classically has been sponsored by everyone,
and we didn't have time to circulate it.
So I'm offering that up if anybody
wants to be on it -- does not want to be on
it, notify the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Makes sense to
me, Madam President.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on Resolution 3696. 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,
2249
earlier today you and I had the honor of
meeting with a distinguished guest to our
chamber today, Ambassador Erato Marcoullis of
Cyprus.
Mrs. Marcoullis has been the
Ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus to the
United States since 1998. Currently, she is
also accredited as the High Commissioner to
Canada and the Cypriot Ambassador to Brazil.
Throughout her remarkable career,
the Ambassador has served the people of Cyprus
both within Cyprus's government and as their
representative on the international stage. As
an ambassador, Mrs. Marcoullis has represented
the people and interests of Cyprus to several
nations before nine sessions of the United
Nations and at numerous world conferences.
We welcome the ambassador to New
York State today as part of her ongoing effort
to build international support for a just and
viable resolution of the Cyprus problem, based
on the relevant U.N. Security Council
resolutions calling for a bizonal, bicommunal
federation. And as you know, the nation of
Cyprus has been separated since 1974.
2250
I would like to urge the United
States' continued support for the resolution
of the Cyprus problem and the humanitarian,
human rights, and cultural issues that it has
created in its efforts to encourage all of the
involved parties to engage in substantive
talks leading to a solution.
I thank the Ambassador for
including us in her plans and her commitment
to the safety and the well-being of all
Cypriots and the stability of the Republic of
Cyprus.
Madam President, if you would, as
you always do, welcome our distinguished guest
to the chamber today.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Skelos.
And it was indeed my honor and
privilege to meet with Your Excellency the
Ambassador earlier this afternoon to discuss
many issues of common concern to us, not only
in New York State but on the Island of Cyprus.
Welcome. I extend to you every
courtesy of the Senate, and we hope you have
an enjoyable visit.
2251
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Crime and Correction Committee at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Crime and Correction
Committee at this time.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Where?
THE PRESIDENT: In the Majority
Conference Room, 332.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
I offer the following amendments to
Calendar 187, Senate Print Number 6297, and
ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
2252
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
339, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 96B, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to altering mileage.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
469, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 6242, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to possession, sale and use.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
2253
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
479, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 6669A, an
act in relation to adjusting certain state aid
payments to the Schenectady City School
District.
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, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
535, by Senator Padavan -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
2254
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
542, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3181, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law, in relation to the offense of
bail jumping and failing to respond.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 16. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
563, by Senator Lack -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
570, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 5897A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to mandatory continuing education.
2255
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2001.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
571, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
577, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 6321, an
act to amend Chapter 759 of the Laws of 1973.
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, 53.
2256
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
593, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 6523, an
act to amend Chapter 43 of the Laws of 1994,
relating to establishing.
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, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
594, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 6576, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the Tug Hill region.
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.)
2257
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial calendar,
starting with Calendar Number 563.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
563, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 6975, an
act to amend the Arts and Cultural Affairs
Law, in relation to subpoenas.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Madam President, if Senator Lack will -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LACK: I'm sorry, I can't
hear, Madam President. There's too much talk
around here.
What was the -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
2258
President, I just asked for an explanation.
SENATOR LACK: Oh, thank you. I
couldn't hear.
This is a very simple bill, Madam
President. A few years ago the Museum of
Modern Art in the City of New York received
some paintings on loan in which questions were
raised about whether or not they were indeed
stolen from Jewish citizens in occupied
countries of Europe during World War II by the
Nazis. These people were later executed, and
art that belonged to them might indeed have
been transported to the United States and hung
in the Museum of Modern Art.
The District Attorney of the County
of New York, Robert Morgenthau, seized the
paintings pending an establishment, by their
provenance, of exactly who owned them. The
Museum of Modern Art took the New York
District Attorney to court.
The case went to the Court of
Appeals of the State of New York, which
decided in favor of the museum because of the
extant statute, which is Section 12.03 of the
Arts and Cultural Affairs Law -- which New
2259
York has had on the books for a period of
time -- to allow art which is received on loan
from anyplace not to be seized for what we
considered, many members of the Legislature,
to be for civil purposes.
For example, if art that allegedly
belongs to a husband who is engaged in a
matrimonial proceeding -- you wouldn't want
that taken off the wall by a spouse who says
it's really part of the proceeds of the
marriage and wants to take it off the wall of
the museum and seize it while it's in New York
State through some form of civil attachment.
The Court of Appeals held, nope,
the law in and by itself, from what we can
establish, as passed by the Legislature and
signed by the Governor, applies whether or not
it is civil or criminal in nature. Therefore,
the New York County District Attorney has no
power to seize this art.
This bill is very simple. It puts
in the word "civil," makes it quite clear that
what the Legislature and hopefully the
Governor, if he signs it -- and this is
sponsored by Speaker Silver -- meant is civil
2260
seizure.
So that if District Attorney
Morgenthau or indeed any of the 61 other
district attorneys of this state has cause to
believe that art hanging in any museum in this
state is indeed art that was seized by the
Nazis from Jewish or other citizens who were
then later executed, that that art can be
taken into possession of the state, its true
ownership learned, and turned over to them.
Indeed, not long ago in Boston,
"Portrait of a Man and a Woman in an
Interior," a very famous Dutch painting by van
der Neer, was taken off the walls of the
Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and returned to
its rightful owner -- the heirs of the
rightful owner, the rightful owner having been
executed during World War II.
The J. Paul Getty Museum in Los
Angeles, the Chicago Art Institute, and indeed
the Metropolitan Museum of Art itself have had
to take paintings that are hanging on the
wall -- legitimately bought, I might add, in
many cases, but which provenance shows were
really stolen art taken by Hitler and his
2261
henchmen during the war.
In fact, the other jurisdiction
that has a law similar to this one is Germany
itself, which has now gone on the Internet
putting paintings on display. So that if you
can show the provenance and show that it
belonged to your mother, your father, your
grandfather, your grandmother, a great aunt,
and you can show that there's a history that
that could-be-very-famous picture indeed
belongs to you and your family, it should be
returned to you and your family.
That's all this bill does.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I appreciate Senator Lack's
explanation. Would he just yield to a couple
of questions, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
yield? Senator Lack, do you yield?
SENATOR LACK: Oh, yes, I'll
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
2262
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, this is the first time I've
seen this particular part of the Arts and
Cultural Affairs Law, and I just have a couple
of questions about its scope. Does this only
apply to objects of fine art? Would it
include rare books and rare jewels? Are those
included within the scope of this?
SENATOR LACK: Sure, it's fine
art.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
you, Madam President, if Senator Lack will
continue to yield.
Does that include jewels? I mean,
it would include, under the same scenario that
you described of confiscation by the Nazis -
SENATOR LACK: No, there's a
definition, I think, somewhere in that law of
fine art. The answer is no. It includes the
type of art that comes under the Arts and
Cultural Affairs Law.
I don't have a definition right
here.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if Senator Lack
2263
will continue to yield.
SENATOR LACK: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
apply only to prejudgment remedies, or does it
apply to postjudgment remedies as well?
SENATOR LACK: It would apply to
anything which we're now viewing, Madam
President, in the criminal sense.
What we're doing, by inserting the
word "civil" into this statute, is taking it
completely -- and what I think, in my opinion,
was the reason for the Legislature originally
passing this, was to make sure that none of
this art that comes into the state of New York
is liable to civil seizure by the types of
action, Madam President, that Senator
Dollinger and I would both envision in which
there is some type of private proceeding going
on between parties in which the plaintiff or
the defendant, as the case might be, might try
to seize the art solely by virtue of the
fact -- and attach it solely by virtue of the
fact that it is located in the state of New
York.
That type of action is not at all
2264
what we're talking about, which is -- indeed
would restore, again, what I consider to be
the original intent of the statute. Leaving
only the situation that came up that involved
the District Attorney of the County of New
York.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Again,
through you, Madam President, if Senator Lack
will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just so I
make sure I understand it.
You're saying that for criminal
purposes, if the allegation is theft and it's
a prosecution by the district attorney, he
would have the power to seize those paintings
as part of a grand jury subpoena or a subpoena
duces tecum to bring the paintings to the
court until the criminal process resolves the
ownership of that painting -- but if it were a
civil remedy, that they would be immune from
attachment or seizure. Is that correct?
SENATOR LACK: Madam President,
that's absolutely correct. That, in my
2265
opinion, was once again the original intention
of the law that New York and other
jurisdictions have passed as well.
It is only -- and I think it
probably began with the Swiss gold situation
of late, that it has been possible to trace
the fact that in addition to gold, as in the
Swiss gold situation, there has obviously also
been hundreds of millions of dollars of
valuable fine art that was also seized in the
Holocaust.
And, by the way, this bill is
general in nature. I use the Holocaust
because that was the germinating situation
that gave rise to this particular bill, and
indeed the action that was before the Court of
Appeals. But this not at all applies to
events limited only by the years 1933 to 1945.
Indeed, it conceivably could
pertain to a theft of fine art that took place
six months ago. Although it's doubtful that
it would, because a piece of fine art that was
stolen six months ago would be fairly well
known and you wouldn't expect to see it
hanging in a museum. But a piece of art
2266
expropriated by the Nazis 60 years ago
conceivably would not be.
And therefore, if it comes into New
York or indeed other jurisdictions that are
now passing similar things, I think it is
perfectly proper that the district attorneys
of our state examine it, put it together, and
if the provenance could be proved to the
satisfaction of the court that would be
hearing the question, that the art be turned
over to the heirs.
As to -- to answer Senator
Dollinger's question that it would be the
termination of a criminal proceeding, if one
could really find those who were involved in
the Holocaust, I think -- it would be nice to
think it would be the termination of a
criminal proceeding. But since the only thing
left is the property rights, for the most
part, it would still be nice to see that even
if it's two generations later that property
that belonged to the family was indeed
restored.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But again,
through you, Madam President, if Senator Lack
2267
will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
continue to yield?
SENATOR LACK: Of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator Lack,
you just made the point that I was trying to
get up to make, which is that a criminal
proceeding in this context, in the context you
described, for art seized during the Holocaust
or for rare books seized during the Holocaust,
there really is no criminal proceeding.
Because unless we were able to identify an
80-plus-year-old criminal, we're not going to
have a particular defendant that will be
charged with the crime.
In addition, it seems to me there's
a huge jurisdictional question involved of
whether the United States can prosecute a
German citizen for a crime that occurs on
German soil.
And so my question is, is this
really -- by allowing the criminal equivalent
of seizure, aren't we really, in essence,
2268
creating a civil remedy that has the guise of
a criminal proceeding that has a district
attorney attached to it?
And again, I'm just trying to make
sure I understand what this bill does. But
isn't that what we're really doing? And if,
for example, it were the theft of art from Van
Gogh that even goes earlier than that, that
goes to the latter part of the last century,
aren't we really allowing the equivalent of a
civil tort recovery for this art, and use this
to seize it?
SENATOR LACK: Madam President,
the answer to that is simple. There's already
been a Court of Appeals action. In no way,
shape or form was the form of the subpoena
issued by the County of New York, through its
district attorney, in question in the Court of
Appeals action.
The Court of Appeals only
interpreted the effect of the section that's
in question in this legislation as to whether
or not it applied not only to civil but to
criminal as well.
The Court of Appeals did not see
2269
that it was necessary to inquire as to whether
or not the District Attorney of the County of
New York had jurisdiction to issue the
subpoena as the District Attorney of the
County of New York.
And I'm sure, Madam President,
Senator Dollinger will appreciate the district
attorneys of this state have power only in
criminal proceedings, and that neither in the
underlying court, the First Department of the
Appellate Division, or in the Court of Appeals
was there a question as to whether or not it
was germane for the County of New York,
through its district attorney utilizing the
grand jury's ability, to inquire into whether
or not this was stolen art during the period
known as the Holocaust.
That has always been accepted
without question. What was not accepted was
the applicability of this statute as to
whether or not it extended not only to civil
but criminal as well. The Court of Appeals
held that it applies to criminal. And since
it did apply to criminal, it bound the
district attorney to follow it.
2270
That's all we're trying to correct.
To the extent that it protects a civil
situation, we are restoring -- perfecting, as
it were -- the Legislature's original
intention. It is only bound to criminal
matters.
If a district attorney issues a
subpoena and a court determines that that
district attorney operated ultra vires to the
power inherent to the district attorney, so be
it, and the subpoena will be thrown out.
That is not the question before us
in the Legislature or involved in this
particular bill. This bill, in my opinion,
restores the original intention of the
Legislature with respect to a civil situation.
District attorneys decide, in their
own power, whether or not to issue subpoenas.
Are those subpoenas valid? Become a judge,
Senator Dollinger, and you'll find out and be
able to make that determination yourself.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As you know,
Senator Lack, I tried, and the voters said no,
so -
Madam President, just briefly -
2271
SENATOR LACK: I wish I could be
in Monroe County and be a voter, Senator
Dollinger.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly
on the bill, Madam President.
I appreciate Senator Lack's
explanation. My problem is I'm not sure I
agree with the underlying basis for the
statute in the first place.
It seems to me that when there's a
dispute between owners of a particular
object -- be it fine art or cash or
whatever -- that there's a dispute, it might
be in the state's best interests to say, okay,
we will create a special category of fine art
which is often loaned around the world, and we
will make it immune from a prejudgment seizure
or attachment.
But I would suggest, Madam
President, that after judgment has been
rendered and the painting has now been awarded
by the courts of this state to Senator Lack,
2272
the mere fact that it's posted in the Museum
of Modern Art -- there's already been an
enforceable court order from this state's
courts that says he's entitled to the
painting. I would suggest he should be able
to sequester, replevin, attach, recover that
no matter in whose possession it is.
I would point out -- Senator Lack,
I'm sure, appreciates this -- that if there
were a million dollars in New York State that
was owned by me that the courts of this state
concluded Senator Lack owned, that he had a
right to that million dollars, he should be
able to come in and attach it, replevin it, do
whatever is necessary to prevent me from
taking it away. It would be a normal part of
our enforcement of judgments.
I guess I'm willing to go along
with this, Madam President, but I would ask
that someone rethink this whole statute. I
understand that we want to be a mecca for art
and we want to borrow it and loan it, take it
on loan from other places. But I would just
suggest it would be very frustrating to be a
Holocaust victim or to be anyone and have an
2273
adjudication from this state's courts that the
particular piece of art on the wall is mine
and be told that I couldn't use the normal
judgment enforcement mechanisms to recover
that piece of art.
And, Senator Lack, I'm going to
vote in favor of the bill. This is a change.
I understand why the Court of Appeals tossed
it out. But I would ask everybody to go back
and rethink this bill right from the start.
Because it seems to me if it's your painting,
no matter whose possession it is in, you ought
to be able to use all of our recovery devices
in this state to try to get it back.
And I'm not so sure I agree with
the logic of this. And if we had a chance to
overturn this whole statute, I think I'd take
a serious look at doing it. I'm not opposed
to Senator Lack's amendment, but I would
suggest we rethink this whole idea.
SENATOR LACK: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Madam President, I
of course would like to thank Senator
Dollinger for his input.
2274
This bill is obviously of a limited
nature, pertaining to criminal proceedings.
It was introduced at the request of the New
York County District Attorney, specifically to
overrule a Court of Appeals decision in which
many members of the Legislature, myself
included, and including Speaker Silver, think
is not the intention of the original law.
And I certainly appreciate Senator
Dollinger's pointing out that perhaps he
disagrees with the original law. That's a
matter for another time and another place.
There are many reasons why this law is on the
books. This is no intention whatsoever, since
we're trying to make legislative history here
in case, just in case this goes before the
Court of Appeals again and they can have a
record, that this is not a repeal of the
specific section.
It is, however, a legislative
attempt to take a Court of Appeals decision
and say for the purposes of which you decided
that decision in re Museum of Modern Art, that
was not the intention of the Legislature.
This statute should be inapplicable to
2275
criminal proceedings specifically, those
brought for the types of things that I've
talked about that occurred during the years
commonly referred to as the time of the
Holocaust.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
briefly on the bill.
Madam President, though I have
great appreciation for Senator Dollinger and
his comments about the more global aspects of
the original legislation, and maybe we should
reexamine, I do want to commend Senator Lack
for bringing this bill.
I believe that this is a solid
piece of legislation and really recognizes
that the situation that he outlined in terms
of the situation with MOMA is going to happen
again. Almost as sure as we're all in this
chamber right now, that situation is going to
happen again. And should it arise, the
passage of this legislation will provide the
2276
proper tool for the District Attorney -- or
any district attorney in New York State, for
that matter -- in order to do what is right.
So I commend him on bringing this
piece of legislation.
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, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Local Government Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Local Government
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could take
up Calendar Number 535 at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
2277
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
535, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1397, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
making citizenship document fraud.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Padavan, an explanation has
been requested by Senator Paterson, I
understand.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
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, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
controversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
2278
if we could return to reports of standing
committees, I believe there's a report at the
desk. If we could have it read.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio,
from the Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and
Correction, reports:
Senate Print 1480B, by Senator
Meier, an act to amend the Executive Law and
the Social Services Law;
2402, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Correction Law;
3105, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Correction Law and the Education
Law;
6807, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Correction Law and the Executive
Law;
6942, by Senator Morahan, an act to
amend the Executive Law and the Penal Law;
7073, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Correction Law;
And 7087, by Senator Nozzolio, an
2279
act to amend the Correction Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills ordered direct to third
reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there isn't,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please recognize
Senator Smith.
THE PRESIDENT: Motions to
discharge.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
I have a motion at the desk. I
would like to have it called up at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 6786, by Senator Smith, an act to amend
the Executive Law, in relation to granting the
2280
Attorney General jurisdiction to investigate
and prosecute police misconduct.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: This bill,
which is the subject of this motion,
authorizes the Attorney General, under limited
circumstances, the right to investigate and
prosecute when an alleged criminal offense has
been committed by a police officer in
connection with the performance of his or her
regular duties.
It also allows the district -
because the district attorneys have a close
relationship with police officers and often
they do not prosecute the charges brought
against police officers as defendants, it
would also take into consideration the
conflict of interest that may exist.
And for the public, it would be
helpful because often there is a perceived
conflict, and they believe that the -- and it
erodes the public confidence in the judicial
2281
system.
Also, it would eliminate or
possibly eliminate some of the public
criticism, and the actions of the local
district attorneys would be removed from the
politics of the local area.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the motion to discharge -
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if I could just say a word on this
motion for a second.
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I wanted to
thank Senator Smith for bringing the motion.
I just wanted to remind my
colleagues that the Attorney General was the
primary source of criminal prosecution in this
state from the inception of New York State as
a government, and local district attorneys did
not receive the opportunity to prosecute cases
until 1846.
So when we do appoint special
prosecutors under Article 4, Section 2 of the
2282
Constitution, we do it because it is
understood that the Attorney General has a
prevailing state interest in any criminal
activity that goes on, even within the
jurisdiction of local district attorneys.
We already have in our Executive
Law Sections 9 and 10 to Executive Law 63,
which provides that the attorney generals come
into these types of conflicts, such as what
Senator Smith described, where we feel that
there's a prevailing state interest.
And certainly the issue that
Senator Smith has raised has had a widespread
controversy around the state, and this would
provide greater protection and also the
perception of a much fairer and scrupulous
prosecution to allow it.
And so I want to speak in support
of Senator Smith's motion. And since I can
think of no other member that has the greater
support of her colleagues than Senator Smith,
I predict that it will pass almost
unanimously.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
2283
favor of accepting the motion to discharge
signify by saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 22. Nays,
35. Party vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Madam
President, I have another motion at the desk
that I would like to have called up at this
time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 7244, by Senator Smith, an act to amend
the General Municipal Law and the Civil
Service Law, in relation to salary and civil
service exam credits for police officers in
2284
certain cities.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: This bill
would authorize cities of 100,000 or more to
enact various incentives to enhance police
officer recruitment and local residency.
The bill provides certain
municipalities with different options intended
to encourage residency by police officers
within those particular municipalities. It
would be 5 percent or more of their base
salary; it would be 5 points additional credit
on a police officer's or a civil service exam
for local candidates; $500 New York City
income tax credit or a $100 Yonkers income tax
credit; $500 state income tax credit or a
$10,000 real property tax credit for resident
police officers except in the City of New
York; and a $12,000 loan-forgiveness award
over a six-year period for those attending
CUNY or SUNY graduate.
For two years, New York City has
been struggling to attract police recruits.
2285
In 1966 we had 31,000 applicants, down last
year to 6,000 applicants. And in spite of all
of the money that we've been spending in the
recruitment campaign -- up to more than
$10 million last year -- the city officers are
at a lower pay scale than in other places. We
have strained relationships with our police
officers.
However, other cities like Los
Angeles are coming into New York trying to
steal away those good people that may become
police officers.
And this would also encourage more
African-Americans and Latinos to become police
officers.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the motion to discharge -- Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I just want to rise to commend
Senator Smith and to recommend this bill to
all of the members of this house, because
we're dealing with the issue of residency in
New York City as a very creative approach. It
2286
doesn't mandate a residency requirement, but
it addresses a very, very real issue, which is
the recruitment and retention of police
officers in our city.
And I would urge that everyone
should support this as a creative,
market-oriented approach. And I predict that
this will -- this one will pass, by very close
to a majority.
Thank you, Madam President.
And I see Senator Balboni coming
over to offer his support.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the motion to discharge signify by
saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: Moving right
along, the Secretary will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 23. Nays,
35. Party vote.
2287
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I have one
last motion at the desk. I would like to have
it called up at this time, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 7245, by Senator Smith, an act to amend
the Executive Law, in relation to the creation
of the Police Cadet Corps Program.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Madam
President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: -- I would
like to defer to my colleague Senator Seabrook
to explain this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes, Madam
President.
This bill establishes a Police
2288
Cadet Corps Program at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice of the City University of New
York. This bill directs the Commissioner of
the Division of Criminal Justice Services to
create, in consultation with the CUNY
Chancellor, to create a new police recruitment
program aimed at training over 1,000 new
officers each year.
This program is designed to prepare
police officer candidates for the complexities
of modern police work in ethnically diverse
communities. This combines college education
with skill development training, law
enforcement, victimization prevention,
community-police relations, mental/physical
skills development, and supervised internships
in the New York City Police Department.
Enrollment targets will be 500
students this year, 1,000 students next year.
The extension of a successful pilot program
from 1993 to 1997 produced 213 new officers,
and therefore it produced 65 percent who were
minorities and 32 percent who were female.
The CUNY students reflect the ethnic and
gender distribution of the city's diverse
2289
population.
The Police Cadet Program provides
the New York City Police Department with
excellent mechanisms to assess officer
candidates' capabilities and character. This
program has proven to be a success in the
past, and it is our hope that we can allow
this program to continue at John Jay College
and be the success that it has been in the
past.
So I would urge my colleagues to
vote and accept this CUNY Police Cadet
Program.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the motion to discharge signify by
saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 23. Nays,
35. Party vote.
2290
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I have a motion at the desk that
I'd like to have called up at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 7275, by Senator Duane, an act to amend
the Executive Law and the State Finance Law,
in relation to police training.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If I may explain my legislation
which is the subject of this motion to
discharge.
As I've mentioned many times, both
on motions to discharge as well as on other
pieces of legislation, I'm a very strong
advocate for the need of the Legislature to
set policies and guidelines which reflect the
diverse state we live in. And based on
current events, tragic current events that we
are all well aware of, I believe it's time
2291
that we look at the issue of diversity in
police departments across the state.
My bill would make grants to police
departments to enhance police officer
recruitment efforts to increase racial,
ethnic, religious, and gender diversity in
police departments. And the bill would also
fund those initiatives by providing grants to
groups in efforts to train existing police
officers in awareness of racial, ethnic,
religious, and gender issues.
The bill would also create a police
training and diversity board, which would be
part of the Division of Criminal Justice and
which would oversee the diversity efforts of
our municipal police departments.
I think that this bill, both by
encouraging diversity and sensitivity and
finding ways to fund those initiatives, is
very important towards effective police
activity in our state, and I urge my
colleagues to vote for the motion to
discharge.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
2292
accepting the motion to discharge signify by
saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative, Madam President.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 23. Nays,
35. Party vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 542.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, Senator Montgomery, you will be
recorded as voting in the negative on Calendar
542.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return to reports of standing
2293
committees, I believe there's a report of the
Local Governments Committee at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath,
from the Committee on Local Government,
reports:
Senate Print 1856, by Senator
LaValle, an act to amend the Town Law;
3717, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
amend the County Law;
4313, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
6093A, by Senator Volker, an act
authorizing the Village of Lancaster;
6249, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Town Law;
6510, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
6707, by Senator Marcellino, an act
authorizing the assessor of the County of
Nassau;
6723, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
authorizing the assessor of the County of
2294
Nassau;
6820, by Senator Seward, an act
making certain findings and determinations;
6836, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
6864, by Senator Johnson, an act
authorizing the assessor of the Town of Islip;
6929, by Senator Marcellino, an act
in relation to authorizing the town boards;
7138, by Senator Johnson, an act to
authorize the Trinity Evangelical Lutheran
Church;
7158, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend Chapter 41 of the Laws of 1971;
And 7199, by Senator Wright, an act
to amend the Volunteer Firefighters Benevolent
Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills ordered direct to third
reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there being no further business to come before
2295
the Senate, I move we adjourn until Wednesday,
April 12th, at 11:00 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Wednesday,
April 12th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)