Regular Session - February 26, 2001
924
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
February 26, 2001
3:10 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
925
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: With us today to
give the invocation is the Reverend Peter G.
Young, from Blessed Sacrament Church in
Bolton Landing, New York.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Dear God, as we gather on this
Monday, well-rested and refreshed from a week
of leave from our Albany assignments, we can
sense the priority legislation issues with
enthusiasm. The privileges to serve and to
represent our constituents stimulates our
calendar of bills.
To respond to their needs, we call
on You, O God. We can't do responsibly the
work of the Senate without Your guidance and
wisdom. We pray that You will do this and
guide us and help us in this work.
926
Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Friday, February 23rd, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Thursday,
February 22nd, 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 Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President. On behalf of Senator
Balboni, I wish to call up Senate Print Number
858A, recalled from the Assembly, which is now
at the desk.
927
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
43, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858A, an
act to authorize the congregation Shira
Chadasha.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President. I now offer the following
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, thank you. I give written notice,
928
as required by Rule XI, that I will move to
amend the Senate rules by adding a new rule,
XV, in relation to ethical standards of
members, officers, and employees of the
Senate.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, it has
been received and will be filed in the
Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: All the
housekeeping has been accomplished at this
time?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it has,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: May we please
take up Resolution 590, by Senator Johnson,
have the title read, and move for its
immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Johnson, Legislative Resolution Number 590,
commemorating the 125th Anniversary of
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church, to be
929
celebrated Sunday, March 4, 2001.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
Senator Johnson would like to open up the
resolution for cosponsorship, so if we could
put everybody on the resolution. If anybody
wishes not to be on it, they should notify the
desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Any member who
does not wish to be on this resolution, please
notify the desk.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I just rise for a point of order.
With respect to the amendment that
Senator Fuschillo just read, what level of -
which reading does that bill take its place
930
on? My understanding is that was an amendment
to a bill that was on third reading in the
calendar, and that those amendments, my
understanding is they -- according to the
rules, they would be placed on the first
reading. Or does that bill keep its place
on -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I think we are beyond that part of the
calendar. The amendment has been offered.
We've moved to resolutions. So if we could
now stand at ease for one minute.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Point of
order.
THE PRESIDENT: Your point is not
well taken, Senator.
The Senate stands at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 3:15 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 3:17 p.m.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar at this time.
931
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
56, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1204, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
continuing education.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
70, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 763, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and
the Public Authorities Law, in relation to
authorizing cities.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
72, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 67, an
act to amend the General City Law and the
Penal Law, in relation to creating the crimes
of urinating or defecating in public.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
932
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
81, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 807, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the taxation of certain state
lands.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
83, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1311, an
act to amend the -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
85, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1454, an act
to amend the General Municipal Law -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day, Senator.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
100, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 438,
933
an act to amend the Surrogate's Court
Procedure Act, in relation to computation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial reading of
the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
56, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1204, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
continuing education.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could lay
it aside temporarily.
And I would ask all the members to
please come into the session as their bills
934
are called up, so that we can debate them.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
70, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 763, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and
the Public Authorities Law, in relation to
authorizing cities.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: An explanation
has been requested, Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Madam Chairman,
this legislation authorizes New York City,
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at local options,
to authorize, empower, and direct the Long
Island Railroad and the Metropolitan North
Commuter Railroad to develop and implement
demonstration programs imposing monetary fines
on the registrants of vehicles for the failure
of operator of said vehicle to obey the
railroad crossing signals indicating the
approach of a train.
This is a very important piece of
935
legislation. There are a lot of accidents at
railroad crossings. And what this intends to
do is to have a five-year testing program on
having cameras located at these railroad
crossings.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Madam President. I was
wondering if Senator Trunzo would yield for a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm wondering whether or not the
remote control device would in any way change
the right of the aggrieved party to appeal a
ticket that one might receive at a point that
they're operating a vehicle and the remote
control device is used.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I can't quite
hear you, I'm sorry, Senator. The door, when
it opens, I can't hear very well.
936
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry,
Senator. Madam President, I'm asking about
the appeal procedure for vehicular violations,
whether or not that's changed at all by the
use of the remote control device.
SENATOR TRUNZO: No, there is no
appeal decision on this. What they're doing,
they're taking a picture of your car, the
license plate, and that you cross the railroad
track. The cameras would do that
automatically as you're crossing the railroad
track if the gates are down, take the picture
of your vehicle -- not anything inside, they
don't see you or anything, just the vehicle.
And whoever is registered is the one that will
get a fine.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator.
Will the members please take your
conversations out of the chamber. It's
difficult to hear.
Go ahead, Senator. Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I had a little trouble hearing the
937
end of Senator Trunzo's answer. Would it be
much of an inconvenience if you'd ask
Senator Trunzo to explain that one more time.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course,
Senator.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes, Madam
President.
Basically, what this does, there's
no appeal on the decision. It's a study
that's going to have to be done. Because if
the gates are down, a camera would be at those
gates -- it would be posted already that there
is a camera -- and it would take a picture of
the vehicle, the license plate of it. It does
not look into the vehicle as to who the driver
is or isn't.
And, you know, a violation can be
handed based on the fact that the camera has
picked up your license plate as you're
crossing the railroad tracks when the gates
are down.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. That actually satisfies my
concern on this issue. I just have one
additional point of fact that I'd just like to
938
raise about the legislation -- I think that
will complete the discussion on this bill -
if Senator Trunzo would yield again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Trunzo,
do you yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes, I yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm wondering, what is the penalty
for a violation? Are there points taken off
the license? If a picture is taken of a
vehicle passing in front of the train tracks,
or a similar violation, what is the penalty?
SENATOR TRUNZO: At this time it
is -- it was $250. It's up to $400 at the
first offense. The second, within 18 months,
is then $350 to $500. The third, within 18
months, is $600 to $750. That's the penalty
to try to discourage people from crossing
those railroad tracks.
There's been an awful lot of
accidents throughout the -- especially in the
downstate area. They have so many of those
railroad crossings that that's the problem
939
that we've been having. Deaths, people have
been dying.
This bill has been introduced since
1996 by Senator Levy. It's passed every year
since then, including last year, unanimously.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well done,
Madam President. I hope it passes unanimously
this year.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Read the last section.
Senator Duane, excuse me.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm wondering why this bill is a
demonstration bill rather than just putting it
into effect.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I didn't quite
940
hear you, Senator, I'm sorry.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering why
this bill is calling for a demonstration
project rather than having the bill be just
put into law in perpetuity.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Well, we want to
see whether or not it really works. Like I
understand that even in the City of New York,
we have traffic lights, people who try to pass
their -- a traffic light that's changing, it
takes a photo of the car and they get a
ticket.
It's the same thing with the
railroad crossing. The study is mandatory for
the Long Island Railroad and Metro North
Railroad, and the counties of Nassau and
Suffolk and the City can do it or not do it.
But during that five-year period,
we may be able to see how many people
really -- how many accidents really do occur,
how many have been fatal. Like in 1996, there
were 44 accidents, eight people were killed.
In '97, it was 42 and seven people died. In
1998, there were 34 accidents. There are a
tremendous amount of accidents that happen at
941
these railroad crossings.
And, you know, we'd like to make it
statewide. But doing this as a study within
the metropolitan area would be some way of
giving us the actual facts as to whether or
not it's feasible or not.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
I understood the sponsor to say that it was
mandatory for Nassau and Suffolk. Because I
understood that it was just that they were now
allowed to put this experimental program in.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Nassau, Suffolk,
and New York City can opt into it. The
railroads, it's mandatory that they do a study
of certain stations, railroad crossings.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
942
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Have those
stations been predetermined?
SENATOR TRUNZO: No. There's
been no gates predetermined yet.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yeah, one more
time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator
yields for one question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor knows what other states have put
this plan into effect to use the photos at
railroad crossings.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I didn't quite
get your question, Senator.
943
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
any other states have put this photo-IDing
system into effect at railroad crossings.
SENATOR TRUNZO: At this time,
Senator, we don't know of any other state
doing it. It's possible it may be done in
other states.
But again, this is something we
feel very strongly -- Senator Levy, in his
days, felt very strongly about it. And we
just kept carrying it forward, with the hope
that Assemblyman -- and I forget who the
cosponsor is in the Assembly -- Lafayette
would carry this bill in the Assembly.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President. Actually, the sponsor
anticipated my last question. I was wondering
who the Assembly sponsor is of the bill.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Your last
question?
SENATOR DUANE: Last question.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Okay, yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Is this your
final answer?
No, the last question is you don't
944
know who it is, who the Assembly sponsor is?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes, Senator.
Assemblyman Lafayette.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect in 30 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we return to motions and resolutions. I
believe I have a privileged resolution at the
desk. I would ask that it be read in its
entirety and move for its immediate passage.
THE PRESIDENT: Motions and
resolutions.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
945
Legislative Resolution Number 589,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim April 6, 2001, as Missing Persons Day
in the State of New York.
"WHEREAS, It is the intent of this
Legislative Body to create public awareness
concerning the devastation occurring as a
result of the unexplained disappearance of a
loved one; and
"WHEREAS, Friday, April 6, 2001, is
the observance of the 23rd birthday of Suzanne
Gloria Lyall, a University at Albany student
who has been missing since March 2, 1998; and
"WHEREAS, A bright, creative, and
talented computer science student, Suzanne
Lyall touched countless lives with her poetry,
radiant personality, and cheerful, infectious
smile; and
"WHEREAS, The youngest of three
children of Doug and Mary Lyall, Suzanne
Lyall, of Ballston Spa, New York, disappeared
at the age of 19 in the prime of her life,
while preparing for a brilliant future; and
"WHEREAS, In 1999, legislation was
enacted which required all colleges to adopt
946
plans for investigation of reports of missing
students and violent felony offenses occurring
on their campuses; and further required that
such plans include agreements with local
police agencies for coordination of these
investigations; and further required the
Division of Criminal Justice Services to
operate a toll-free, 24-hour telephone number
that members of the public may call to obtain
information as to resources available to the
public to assist in the location and recovery
of missing persons; and
"WHEREAS, In 2000, the New York
State Senate passed legislation known as
'Suzanne's Law,' which provides for increased
penalties for certain crimes committed on
school grounds; and
"WHEREAS, The State of New York
intends to make April 6, 2001, a day of
recognition for the need to further enhance
efforts to locate missing persons in New York,
noting the missing persons epidemic in this
state and the impact this epidemic has on the
families, people close to a missing
individual, and the community as a whole; and
947
"WHEREAS, Currently there are an
estimated 4,000 people labeled missing in
New York State, of whom approximately 700 are
18 years of age or older; and
"WHEREAS, it is the consensus of
this Legislative Body that we should attempt
to bring comfort to the family members of
missing persons in the State of New York who
suffer from continuous grieving and who are
condemned to carry the burden of uncertainty
as a result of not knowing the true
circumstances of their loved one's
disappearance or whereabouts; and
"WHEREAS, This Legislative Body
reaffirms its ongoing crusade by observing
April 6, 2001, as Missing Persons Day in the
State of New York; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to memorialize
Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim April 6,
2001, as Missing Persons Day in the State of
New York; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That a copy of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the Honorable George E. Pataki, Governor of
948
the State of New York."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
colleagues, you've heard this resolution. And
this resolution really asks the Governor to
declare April 6 as Missing Persons Day. And
this really is to commemorate Suzanne Lyall,
who on March 2nd, as we heard, was returning
to the SUNY campus here in Albany from her job
at Crossgates Mall, almost three years ago -
disappeared, has never been heard from since.
Her mom and dad are here, Doug and
Mary Lyall. Since that time, you can only
imagine the suffering and the anguish.
Suzanne is one of three children. But they
have spent a large part of their life over
these last several years doing everything and
anything that they can to help other families
who are suffering tragedies, help other
people.
We are discussing with them a
memorial here in New York State that would be
designated on behalf of missing persons here
in New York.
We've already passed legislation
949
that related to their efforts that creates a
hotline. Because what they found for weeks
was when they reached in to get information,
there were so many agencies out there that it
was hard to have continuity. We now have a
hotline that a person can call.
We did other things on campus as
relates to their efforts. And we passed
Suzanne's Law, which has not passed the
Assembly. But they have been diligent, they
have over 25,000 signatures now. So we're
hopeful that by passing this again, we focus
attention on April 6, Missing Persons Day, the
birthday of Suzanne Lyall.
And again, I want to thank my
colleagues for their support. But I want to
thank Doug and Mary for being so unselfish
with their time and with their efforts, and
just recognizing how difficult it is every
time you have to revisit all of the things
that have happened when a child leaves work,
you talk to that child on the phone, as they
did, and then don't hear a word in almost
three years.
So our thoughts and our prayers are
950
with you. And I appreciate your support for
this resolution. And we will be discussing
with the Governor naming April 6 as Missing
Persons Day.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise in support of this
resolution.
This isn't something that's so
terribly unusual. This is the second young
woman that has been -- I think it was Karen
Wilson, I forgot her name, that was absconded
with and never heard from, never been found,
nothing has happened. For the Lyalls, there's
been no closure to this tragedy. And also for
the Wilson family, no closure. Happened right
here at the university where I teach at.
And it's truly a tragedy, and
particularly for young women that go away to
school, that they're never heard again from
their families. So I think this is so
important.
And of course the Lyalls are
neighbors of mine in a neighboring district
951
which I share with Senator Bruno. And the
tragedy that they have had to deal with, with
never knowing where their beautiful and lovely
daughter is or whatever happened to her, is
really a tragedy.
And we're trying to move forward -
in this house, at least -- to do something
about these abductions and these missing
people. And unfortunately, the other house
hasn't seen to pass it.
But I applaud Senator Bruno in
going forward with this resolution to declare
April 6 as Missing Persons Day.
My very deep sympathy to the
Lyalls.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution.
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I just rise -- as I mentioned to
the leader, and Senator Farley just mentioned,
Karen Wilson was from Plattsburgh. And I
believe this was at the same area, the same
school.
And we all remember the anguish and
952
the heartache and how tragic it was and is for
the Wilsons, and we're sure it is also for the
Lyalls.
So it is most fitting that we pass
this resolution today.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time return to the
controversial calendar and call up Calendar
Number 56, by Senator LaValle.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
56, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1204, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
continuing education.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
953
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Paterson, this is a bill that we passed last
year that simply clarifies for the Department
of State something that they are unsure of,
that would allow them to approve continuing
education courses for licensed and certified
real estate appraisers that must have in their
cycle 28 classroom hours every two years, that
would allow for distance learning and the
benefit of the computer-based programs that
they have.
As you well know, Senator, the Bar
Association has for attorneys just gone online
so that we can take our continuing ed courses
via the Internet.
And this would allow the same thing
and give the Department of State the
clarification that they need in order to
approve these courses for the appraisers. As
I understand it, I think real estate brokers
already have that ability. We're doing this
for the licensed and certified real estate
954
appraisers.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator LaValle would yield for
a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
same thing that exists in CLE, the continuing
legal education, is now going to be extended
to the real estate appraisers. And you've
assured us that the real estate brokers are
already able to do this.
SENATOR LAVALLE: That's correct.
SENATOR PATERSON: What is the
criteria for which we would decide that a
profession becomes eligible? Would it be the
fact that we want to encourage people in those
areas to keep abreast of what would be the
changing issues that relate to their
profession? Or is it that the profession
itself makes it difficult -- adds to the
955
difficulty of appearing in a geographic
location to conduct classes?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Here, of
course, Senator, we're not really making that
kind of policy decision.
But just to go back, we as a
Legislature, for each of the licensed
professions -- there are 38 in the State Ed
Department -- here we're not talking about
State Ed Department courses, but we're talking
about Department of State-licensed and
certified professions such as the real estate
appraisers.
But all we're really saying is that
the continuing ed programs that we as a
Legislature approve on a regular basis for
each of the professions -- we want people in
each profession to move forward and have
greater education. But today, the world has
so changed with the use of the computer and
the Internet, it makes it more convenient for
people to not only satisfy the minimum
requirements that are required under
continuing education, but, you know, even to
go beyond that because of the convenience that
956
is now offered by the computer.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if you would ascertain for me
whether or not Senator LaValle would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for a question?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I'm not sure
there's much more I can add to the head of the
pin, but I will try, Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, of the 38 licensed and certified
professions on the head of a pin, how many of
them -
SENATOR LAVALLE: There are 38.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right, 38.
-- how many of them are engaged in
continuing education formats where the
computer and the distance training is
utilized?
SENATOR LAVALLE: See, here,
Senator, we as a Legislature are not -- we're
957
not involved in that, because the State
Education Department, I believe, has the
discretion to approve that.
Here the Department of State was,
for whatever reason, uncertain, because there
was a -- I believe in the statute the term
"classroom" was interposed. And so they say,
Well, this is really not classroom
instruction, so we had better go to the
Legislature so that we have all our i's dotted
and our t's crossed.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I appreciate that. There was some
ambiguity, because the rules specifically
included "classroom" as a designation, and in
this case we're going to use a different type
of training.
I was just trying to determine
whether or not we're going to have to do this
again in any other areas, and to suggest to
Senator LaValle if he would yield for another
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
958
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I think I'll
make this the last question for Senator
LaValle.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with the last question, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I wanted to
know if perhaps the Department of Education
has any other issues like this, so that we
might sum them up in one piece of legislation.
That's why I wanted to know how many of the
licensed professions are receiving this
distance training, so that -
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, this
is a rather easy question, because this bill
applies specifically to the Department of
State. And I may have brought confusion into
the discussion by trying to show an analogy of
Department of State and 38 licensed
professions and continuing education.
That's in another world. This bill
does not deal with this. This deals
959
specifically with the Department of State that
licenses and certifies real estate appraisers.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I thank
Senator LaValle for the clarification.
The question that I was just
raising was the issue of what tends to be a
procedure here, which is to address these
situations individually. Senator LaValle
assures us that this is a unique case where it
is coming up in this specific situation
probably because of the designation and the
terminology really more than the intent.
But as a general rule, which
apparently the Department of Education has
promulgated, there is a desire to make it as
convenient as possible for those professions
who receive continuing education in a fashion
that does not conflict with the day-to-day
duties that they discharge now. And the
advent of computerization and other equipment
that accommodates distance learning is very
960
good, it makes it easy for the student. I
hope that it will even gravitate -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator.
If the members could please take
their conversations out of the chamber.
Go ahead, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I don't know,
Madam President, the members may be right. I
don't really know how much I'm adding to this
discussion. But suffice it to say -
THE PRESIDENT: We like to hear
you, Senator. Go ahead.
SENATOR PATERSON: What I was
just saying is that I'm hoping that this will
even work itself down to the lower frequencies
of education where people do have other
concerns and it is difficult for them to learn
and to improve themselves through our
educational system.
So I think it's a good idea that
probably should be expanded to the greatest
degree that we could possibly achieve.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
961
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to
explain my vote, briefly.
While Senator LaValle and Senator
Paterson were sort of counting the heads on
the top of the pin, I want to make sure we
don't lose sight of one aspect of this. And
that is by increasing the availability of
education to appraisers, we are doing
something which does have an impact right back
in my community. We have had a major fraud
case in Rochester, New York, that involves
excess appraisals of real property and bank
loans for greater -- for amounts that exceed
the value of the real estate under which the
property was sold.
So the notion of real estate
appraisers getting additional education and
training to refine the property values that
are used as the key to our banking system and
962
home mortgage system -- to the extent that
this bill gives them access to more training
in more places, it's a good thing. Don't
forget that real estate appraisers have an
enormous impact on the viability of the home
loan banking service, both right here in New
York State and elsewhere.
And it's funny that we would
mention home loan banking when a
representative of the Federal Home Loan
Banking Board, former Senator Franz Leichter,
happens to be in the chamber.
So the importance of appraisals for
loan purposes, for mortgage loan purposes, is
critically important. It makes our banking
system work. And real estate appraisers
provide a critical ingredient in that, and
this bill is an attempt to increase their
capacity and skill. I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
be recorded as voting in the affirmative on
this bill.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
963
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
72, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 67, an
act to amend the General City Law and the
Penal Law, in relation to creating the crimes
of urinating or defecating in public.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Senator,
this bill is one that we've debated I believe
four or five years running now.
And it is basically the same bill.
It has three parts. It allows a
municipality -- it's enabling legislation that
allows a municipality to set up urban
commercial zones. If they choose to set up
this urban commercial zone, they can regulate
the conduct of individuals within that zone
such as lying or sleeping on the sidewalks,
with certain exceptions that over the years
have been put in there for persons who are
lying on the sidewalk due to a medical
emergency -- and a lot of these exceptions are
964
little technicalities that you've raised,
Senator, so we've put them back into the
bill -- a disabled person using a wheelchair,
operating or patronizing a commercial
establishment pursuant to a permit that is
functioning on the streets, sitting on a chair
or bench supplied by a public agency, sitting
on a sidewalk or a bus stop or other
transportation site, sitting on a sidewalk
while engaged in artistic activity, engaging
in activities regulated by the National Labor
Relations Act, such as picketing.
And these are exceptions that would
be provided should the city -- a city so
decide to establish one of these zones.
The second part of this bill would
allow municipalities to make it a misdemeanor
for a second offense and a violation on a
first offense for intentionally urinating or
defecating in a public place or on a public
sidewalk.
The third part prohibits aggressive
begging, which is defined as "occurs when a
person begs by word, gesture, signs or other
means with the intent to intimidate another
965
person into giving money or goods by engaging
in threatening conduct which by its nature
places a reasonable person in fear of harm to
his personal property." This would be a
Class B misdemeanor.
Those are basically the three major
points, Senator. I know you are intimately
familiar with this bill, and I welcome your
remarks and support.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, there's always something new to
learn about this legislation, and that's why I
wondered if Senator Velella would yield for a
question. And obviously he must be still
learning, or he wouldn't have been reading his
text.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, the
only reason I was reading is I know you are so
sharp I didn't want to take the possibility of
making a mistake and misstating something so
that you would seize upon that. That is why I
read it.
But I certainly would yield to your
question.
966
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, we
have under the law, Madam President, Section
240-25, which is aggravated harassment in the
first degree; we have fraudulent accosting,
which is Section 165.30 of the Penal Law. We
have different sections of the law right now
that I thought would have applied. And we
kind of had this discussion last year, so I
thought I'd look some of them up.
Would you explain to me so that
perhaps I might vote for this bill where these
overarching areas of the law that kind of
cover the individual who is just kind of out
there in the street and may be wandering
around aimlessly and is engaging in disorderly
conduct, which is 240-20 of the Penal Law,
where do these legislations leave a hole that
is covered by this legislation?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, hope
springs eternal. And I really believe that
perhaps if I explain this properly, you will
vote for it for the first time in five years.
But I'm not 100 percent sure that my
explanation would be satisfactory.
But this is an attempt to scoop up
967
all those sections, put them in one place and
have one-stop shopping so that people who
conduct themselves in this rude and offensive
manner will be able to find in the law that
section that they can be punished for for
doing that.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator Velella.
Senator Duane, point of order.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Just because it is somewhat noisy
in here and I know that the rules call for
comments to be directed towards the President
of the Senate, I think it would be helpful to
hear the Senator's responses if he spoke
facing you and into his microphone, if that's
possible.
THE PRESIDENT: That would
certainly be agreeable to me. Thank you,
Senator.
You may proceed, Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: So this will
scoop up all those sections -
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
968
if you could direct your remarks to me,
please.
SENATOR VELELLA: I apologize,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right.
I'm sure that it was unintentional.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, the intention here is to scoop up
all those parts of the law that Senator
Paterson said kind of apply and make sure
they're very clear, concise, so that the
reasonable person will know the type of
conduct expected.
THE PRESIDENT: Very direct,
Senator, thank you.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I am more than impressed
with the manner in which Senator Velella
brings to this discussion so that I can really
picture what this legislation is designed to
do.
If he would yield for an additional
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
969
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Velella.
Senator Paterson, you may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: First, I'd
have to commend Senator Velella, because that
was what my discussion with Senator LaValle
was about. And Senator Velella, astute as he
always is, has decided to bring all these
pieces of legislation together so we don't
have to go through this any other time.
But I want to suggest an
alternative to Senator Velella. And the
alternative is that rather than penalizing a
lot of the homeless for the fact that they are
homeless -- they don't have any place to go,
and eventually they're going to break this law
naturally -- that perhaps what we might do,
and it was suggested by Speaker Peter Vallone
of the New York City Council, is to make
available public toilets, public restroom
facilities that could be utilized and would at
least eliminate the possibility of having this
970
problem any more than we already do -- than we
already do.
As in to eliminate this problem,
Senator Velella. I wondered what your thought
on that was.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, Senator Paterson totally
misunderstands the direction and intent of
this legislation. It is not to punish
homeless people. It is to keep our city
streets safe and clean.
This is exactly -- the idea of this
bill came from Mayor Dinkins, who in the
Democratic National Convention came to the
City of New York, scooped up all these people
and basically created one of those commercial
enterprise zones in downtown New York City so
that the delegates of the Democratic Party
from across this country came to New York City
and said, Wow, this place is really great,
they've got clean streets, they don't have
people lying in the sidewalks, they don't have
people defecating in the streets. And the
Mayor was right.
This is a bill that had its genesis
971
in the mind of Mayor Dinkins. And I'm happy
to have been supportive of it. And I think
that's what we need to do. We need to get out
this clear message.
Now, as far as providing the
facilities, yes, Speaker Vallone did do
something a while back about doing this. We
had those little cubicles that they put up in
downtown Manhattan for public toilets. And
Senator Waldon, when he was here, was the one
who raised this issue. And yes, we did it.
You know what happened? They stole them.
They stole the toilets off the streets. So we
couldn't keep them there.
So now what we're trying to do is
say we're going to establish some standards of
conduct. We have to look at some new
techniques of ideas of providing these
services. But people will be taken up if they
do this and brought to homeless shelters. We
provide homeless shelters. We just can't
provide the toilets with an armed guard so
that they can use them.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
972
President, I'm going to resist the temptation
to ask Senator Velella who "they" is that
stole all the porto-toilets, the criminals.
On the bill, Madam President, I
think that actually Senator Velella has a good
idea, and it comes from having some experience
with these basically misdemeanors and other
violations that are sometimes so specific that
they confuse the whole process in the criminal
court system. And I do actually appreciate
the fact that he'd like to tie them all in, or
scoop them all up, and put them in one law
that would govern this entire process.
I would like to point out the
Coalition for the Homeless and other groups
were really not particularly pleased with what
went on for a short period of time in July of
1992 when Mayor Dinkins -- who is a very good
friend of mine -- but there was that attempt
to create what was probably a safe environment
for the delegates, probably at the risk of the
rights and independence of others.
For that reason, I'll listen more
to the discussion. But my inclination is to
vote against this legislation, because what I
973
think we're doing in the end is taking a
problem whose magnitude is heightened, really,
by our inability to treat people who have less
than we have and is really just exacerbating
the use of law to try to take the place where
our other agencies of government have been
remiss.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
would yield, please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I notice in the bill that on page
2, line 5, the section reads that "such
activities are determined to create public
nuisance, safety hazards, or inconvenience to
persons." I'm wondering if the sponsor would
974
define "inconvenience" for me.
SENATOR VELELLA: You are
wondering if the sponsor would what?
SENATOR DUANE: Define
"inconvenience."
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, we
constantly pass laws that use common English
words that are interpreted by the courts.
Inconvenience will be determined by the court
to be that which the court determines it to
be.
And what the police officer who
writes up the citation -- remember, we're not
indicting these people and committing them to
prison for the rest of their lives. The
police officer will make the common-sense
decision as to whether or not this person is
acting in such an aggressive and antisocial
way so as to inconvenience the average citizen
by a reasonable interpretation -- and that
word is in here. And the courts will
determine it.
If they find that the offense or
that the conduct was not inconveniencing
anyone else, under a reasonable standard -
975
which is dominant throughout our law -- then
that person would be found not guilty and
would not have to answer for a violation of
that law.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor could enlighten me with other
areas of law where the standard is
inconvenience.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I did
not -- I'm sorry. Madam President, I'll
respond to that question by just saying I have
not memorized the entire body of law in the
State of New York, and I apologize for not
being able to quote it off the top of my head.
But there are many, many areas of
the law in which our language is interpreted,
and that is why we have so many court
976
decisions and things are litigated.
Inconveniencing the people, based
on this statute, will be interpreted by the
courts, and it will be given a reasonable
standard as we use throughout the law: the
prudent, reasonable man's test.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: If a homeless
person, say, loses -
SENATOR VELELLA: Could the
Senator speak into the microphone? I'm having
a problem hearing him.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, are you
speaking into the microphone?
977
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I'm a very tall person. So perhaps the Senate
rules should call for higher microphones for
someone of my stature.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, if you
could just speak as clearly as possible, you
may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
If a homeless person should lose
their shoe, say, on a narrow sidewalk in one
of these commercial areas and they need to
bend over and put their shoe on, thereby
blocking the sidewalk for a few moments, would
that be considered to be inconvenience?
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, I don't see the dilemma. By the
standards that I just defined to the Senator,
that would not be reasonable to be an offense.
If you lost your shoe and you bent over to
pick it up, any cop that gave you a ticket
would have to be an idiot. That's not
reasonable. It's not an offense.
See, the -- it works.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
978
I actually, even though I wouldn't want that
person to be arrested, I would feel it was
inconvenient to have to walk into the street
to go around that person. But if the
Senator -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, are you
speaking on the bill?
SENATOR DUANE: I am.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm still, Madam
President, trying to just hone down this
inconvenience. I was hoping -
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a
question, Senator Duane?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes. I was
hoping the Senator -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question if the Senator yields.
Do you yield, Senator Velella?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. You
may proceed with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I was hoping that
979
the Senator could just give me an example of
inconvenience and how it would fit in this
bill, because I'm having a very difficult time
envisioning such a scenario.
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, sitting
or lying on the sidewalk to block the
sidewalk, to interfere with the traffic of the
commercial area, pedestrian traffic or
vehicular traffic, under conditions that would
not be reasonable, would be a violation of the
law.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, but we're
getting toward the end of my continuing to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
If a person is doing exactly what
the sponsor has just said a person could be
doing to be captured by this law, what is -
980
what would happen under present law? Would
nothing happen to the person under present
law?
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, at the present time sitting or
lying in the street, obstructing pedestrian
traffic, is not defined in the law as
something that could be punishable.
Under this bill, it would become
punishable as a violation the first time -
you go to court and pay a fine -- or as a -
only a civil penalty will be imposed if you
obstruct, and after a warning. You have to be
asked to move along and intentionally violate
the statute.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield for another question.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm assuming that
the sponsor is talking about a person who,
with intent to cause public inconvenience or
annoyance, obstructs pedestrian or vehicle
traffic, that that's what he's trying to get
at. And I'm wondering if the sponsor is aware
981
that in fact that's already covered under law,
something called disorderly conduct.
SENATOR VELELLA: Is that a
question to me?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, I am
aware.
And as I pointed out a few minutes
ago to Senator Paterson, it's an attempt to
marshal all of these laws together and
establish a code of conduct in our municipal
commercial zones where the municipality
decides that they want to and elect to enact
this legislation. That is what we are
attempting to do here.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to -
SENATOR VELELLA: Final question,
Madam President. Final question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella
yields to one question.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
And so the sponsor's intent is then
982
just to layer laws? In other words, there
aren't enough layers of laws, and the sponsor
wants to make sure that we have enough layers
to encompass the people that he's envisioning
capturing under this law.
SENATOR VELELLA: Is there a
question?
SENATOR DUANE: "Is it layering"
is the question, Madam President.
SENATOR VELELLA: The answer to
that is no, it's an attempt to marshal the
laws.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senators.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I just have one question, if
Senator Velella would mind yielding.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
My question for Senator Velella is
983
this. It seems that there is a case that was
tried before the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals which essentially established that the
New York State law forbidding loitering for
the purpose of begging is unconstitutional.
Does this then not make your bill
questionable as it relates to the
constitutional aspect of it, the begging part,
the so-called aggressive begging?
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, I commend the Senator on finding
that case and bringing it to our attention.
And I would differentiate it by
pointing out to you, Senator, that our bill is
not to punish begging, it is to punish those
who aggressively beg and put citizens in
imminent fear of bodily harm to themselves.
There's a big difference between
someone asking for some money and someone
asking for some money putting you in imminent
fear of danger. And if you've walked the
streets of our cities, you know there are
people that do do that and prey on the
impression that if you don't give them
something, there is going to be -- there is
984
going to be some kind of physical damage done
to you or to your vehicle or to your property
or to you.
So we are trying to punish those
who would aggressively beg, as opposed to
those who are begging. And I don't believe
the courts would find that offensive.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President. Just briefly on the bill.
Unfortunately, I don't see any
other purpose for this legislation -- albeit,
as Senator Velella points out, it's not really
meant to target the homeless and defenseless
people. But I don't really see any other
rationale for it. In fact, the people that I
have seen -- first of all, I don't recall
seeing anyone defecating on the sidewalk. It
doesn't mean that they haven't done it, it
doesn't mean that Senator Velella hasn't seen
it, but certainly I haven't, thank God for
that.
I would hope, however, that we
could assist the city in expanding the access
to toilets. As I believe Senator Paterson has
pointed out, that would resolve some of the
985
problem that this bill deals with.
I don't, however, see any other
purpose except to criminalize people primarily
who are mentally ill, homeless, or some
combination of both of those things, without
ready access to facilities that would allow
them to appropriately address their
biological, physiological needs.
So I am voting against this. I
certainly don't like -- as I've said in the
past, I don't want people to be urinating and
defecating and whatever else they're doing in
my front yard. But at the same time, I
certainly don't want to see the State
Legislature establish a penal law to
essentially give the police license to arrest
people because they don't have a bathroom or
they don't have access to a restroom.
And we know that homeless shelters
put people out after they have their morning
breakfast; they cannot come back until the
evening. So essentially we have a situation
where there's no ready access to necessary
facilities. So what we're doing with this
legislation is establishing a crime for not
986
being able to access such.
So I'm voting against this bill.
And I hope that Senator Velella -- I know that
he's tried to upgrade it and address certain
things that have been raised. My issue is
that we should not criminalize people. And so
I would hope that the Senator would agree to
withdraw the bill and come up with another
approach to addressing essentially homeless,
mentally ill people in our cities across the
state.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
for just a few brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
will you yield for a few -
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I'm looking at Section 2 on the
first page of the Senate print of the bill,
987
and I just want to make sure I understand.
Does this bill limit its effect to individuals
who have already been told or notified by a
police officer that they're in violation of
the ordinance?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So if a
police officer is walking down the street and
sees someone who he perceives as scruffily
dressed or perhaps someone who doesn't seem to
be as well-to-do as someone else and notifies
that person who is sitting on the sidewalk,
that person is in violation. But if the same
police officer sees a very well-dressed,
well-to-do banker-type or a yuppie sitting
there and doesn't notify him, is it correct
that the first person would be in violation
but the second person, just because the police
officer walked by him, is not in violation?
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, the bill does not address -- does
not address the dress code of the individual
violating the law. So that whether you had a
suit on, shorts on, or rags on, the law would
apply equally to all parties. And if you are
988
blocking the roadway or the street or the
sidewalk and you are advised by a police
officer that you are breaking the law and you
should move on, whether you have a tuxedo or
torn, ragged clothes, the law would apply to
you.
It is not, and I clearly say again,
addressed to homeless people. I have a home.
There are many times when I am in downtown
Manhattan walking in the streets and nature
calls. I don't stop on the spot and go to the
bathroom. You don't have to be homeless to
look for a place to go to the bathroom. It
does not affect whether you have a home or
not. That kind of conduct is not acceptable
in the city of New York or in any city in our
state.
And that's what we're trying to
address, just some civility, some common
decency and respect for your fellow man. And
that's what it is. Whether you're homeless or
not, you can't go to the bathroom on our
streets.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor would
989
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
And I'm sure that Senator Duane and
I would be happy to provide you with a list of
facilities in downtown Manhattan that are open
to prevent this problem from occurring for you
again should you be walking there.
The point of my question, though,
really is the discretion that this confers on
police officers. If a police officer sees two
people sitting on the street and tells one of
them "You're in violation" and doesn't, for
whatever reason, tell that to the second
person, is it not true that the way the
statute is drafted, the first person is in
violation, the second person isn't, just
because the police officer, for whatever
reason, decided not to put him on notice that
he was violating it?
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, you have
that problem in any law. If you have a group
990
of people throwing rocks and the police
officer grabs one or sees one rather than the
other, or jumps on it and grabs that one
person, yes, the other ones get away with what
they're doing.
If ten people pass a stop sign or a
red light and the police officer only catches
one, because of the ability to catch them or
because of the conditions, that means that
nine got away with it.
Unfortunately, both of them, under
your description, should be cited if they were
told to leave. If they're not told to leave
because the police officer cannot physically
get to every person blocking the sidewalk,
then you might have some other statutes that
might apply, such as, you know, rioting, if
they're doing something wrong, or unlawful
assembly of some type. I don't know right off
the top of my head.
But the police officer warning a
person, asking them to move on, I think is a
reasonable notice. And if you can't get to
everybody that's doing it, well, somebody
might get away with it, but we'll catch him
991
the next time.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President.
My concern, though, is that unlike
all the other statutes that you have cited, I
don't believe that it's a requirement that you
first be notified by a police officer not to
throw rocks, to be violating the law by
throwing rocks. There's no requirement that
you have to be notified by a police officer
not to riot for you to be rioting. I think
you're confusing two issues.
I understand there's some people
who get away with things and don't get caught.
But the problem here is that I'm not aware of
any of these statutes having a requirement
that if you're not notified by a police
officer that you're violating the statute,
you're not in violation of the statute. This
confers discretion in a way that I've never
seen before.
And I just would like you to
explain why there's that distinction, why in
no other area do you have to be notified by a
police officer that you're violating a law and
992
if a police officer happens not to notify
someone, they're not in violation.
SENATOR VELELLA: Responding to
your question, I would just like to point out
that we built those safeguards in so that
folks who have asked this question -
Senators, Assemblymen in the other house, the
Governor's office, citizens -- will know that
there is a safety valve.
We're not going to have a police
officer walking down the street stopping
somebody who is tying their shoe and citing
them for breaking the law. They're going to
have to give them a warning.
And we have to believe that our
police officers will use discretion and
effectually deal with this law honestly.
They're going to tell people: "You have to
move along." If they don't move along after
they've been directed by a police officer,
then they're violating the law.
Those are the very safeguards,
Senator, that I believe you would insist on
having in any type of law like this, so that
people aren't just haphazardly selected out of
993
the crowd and told, "You violated the law, you
go to court and answer for this." You've got
to be warned, you've got to disobey the
direction of the police officer, and you've
got to be blocking the roadway or the
passageway.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, on the bill.
I do not see that this provides a
safeguard. I think that that escalates the
potential for arbitrary or discriminatory
actions by police officers under this proposed
statute.
I don't think -- I just am not
aware of any other area of criminal law where,
if a police officer gives you a notice, it
changes the underlying offense. And I think
that's a very, very dangerous provision.
I understand the offensiveness to
many people of this type of conduct. I
certainly don't think that this is a provision
that is intended in any sort of malicious way.
But I think it is something that would provide
for the opportunity and in fact create all
sorts of conflicting opportunities for
994
inconsistent enforcement, based on the
community, the neighborhood, the discretion of
the police. The police in our society are not
without, you know, prejudices and angers that
everyone feels.
I think this makes it far too
discretionary, and I am going to once again
vote against it. But I certainly enjoy the
annual discussion of this, and look forward to
discussing it for many years, as I don't think
it -- hopefully it will not be passed in the
other house.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. Madam President, if the
Senator would yield to a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President.
995
My question is, is there an age
limitation attached? And I'll give you an
example why, when you talk about aggressive
begging. One of the issues that has been
occurring in school systems is bullying by
older kids of younger kids. And this
description that you provide speaks to a type
of aggressive begging that is intimidating to
children.
So I'm curious as to how this would
affect -- what impact this would have on an
age group.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, it was
not my intent -- although if this were helpful
in preventing bullies from extorting money
from innocent young children, I would be more
than happy to say that I was the sponsor of
it.
But all of our laws, all of our
laws do not differentiate on the age. That
would be the juvenile court. So if someone
was cited for doing this and violating it,
they would go into the juvenile court. And if
that in fact were determined to be some
wrongful conduct under the juvenile statutes,
996
they might be a YO or they might be
adjudicated a juvenile delinquent or something
like that. We're not making criminals of
young children.
But if this were to help in some
way to stop bullies from extorting money from
other, innocent children, I think it would be
a help.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'll
defer other questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I don't usually have difficulty
finding a bathroom in commercial areas in my
district or surrounding areas. And generally
997
I can go into, you know, a restaurant or some
other place of public accommodation and be
allowed to use a bathroom. The same cannot be
said for a person who is disheveled or who is
homeless and can't bathe on a regular basis or
who may be mentally ill. So already, this
legislation is more geared towards people who
are not like me. Or, from what I can tell,
the rest of us here.
Each and every example which was
raised -- one who follows another person in or
about a public place, or places another person
in fear, is already guilty of harassment in
the first degree. Someone who acts with the
intent to cause public inconvenience is
already guilty of disorderly conduct. And
someone who accosts a person in a public place
with intent to defraud is guilty of fraud -
or fraudulent accosting, I guess. And any
kind of physical menacing is already covered
under menacing, at least in the third degree.
So I fail to see why this
legislation is necessary at all. The only
reason that I can think of that this
legislation is being put forward is because it
998
points to our failures in the area of mental
health and housing. Because let's not kid
ourselves about who this legislation is
intended to capture in our criminal justice
system. It's people who are either homeless
and poor or mentally ill, either or both.
It's not intended to go after people like us
or our siblings or our children. This bill is
to be used against homeless people and people
who are mentally ill.
Let's look at what the real issues
facing our state are and not just pass
superfluous other criminal bills. Let's
really address real needs for real people.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 72 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Duane, Gonzalez,
Hassell-Thompson, Mendez, Montgomery,
Paterson, Santiago, Schneiderman, A. Smith,
and Senator Stavisky.
Ayes, 48. Nays, 12.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
999
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
81, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 807, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the taxation of certain state
lands.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill provides that certain
lands in the town of Parish, in the county of
Oswego, shall be subject to real property
taxation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- would
Senator Wright yield to a couple of questions,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
1000
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In the
sponsor's memo you indicate that the parkland
represents a disproportionately high share of
the total acreage in the town. How big is the
park?
SENATOR WRIGHT: 2,418 acres.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: How big is
the town?
SENATOR WRIGHT: That I don't
know, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Wright will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Then how can
we evaluate whether it's a disproportionately
large portion of the town? Just since I'm not
familiar with the community, is it many square
1001
miles or a hundred square miles?
My concern is, Senator Wright, to
sort of get an idea of how big a portion of
the real property tax this property would pay.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, Senator,
the town officials indicated to me it was
disproportionate, so I took them at their
word.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if Senator
Wright will continue to yield for another
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright -
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What is the
total amount of tax levy raised in the town of
Parish?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I don't know
that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Wright will
continue to yield.
1002
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: You point out
that the fiscal implication -- you make
reference to a fiscal implication of $30,000.
How much of the community's tax revenue that's
generated does that sum represent?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, I don't
know the percentage, Senator, but $30,000 is
real money in the town of Parish.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Wright would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I assume that
that $30,000 would be real money to any
community in the State of New York. Isn't
1003
that a fair statement?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I would
certainly agree.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if the Senator
will yield just to one more question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Certainly, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger, with a question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does the
$30,000 include school taxes?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I believe that
calculation was based on all real property
taxes levied, yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, just on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This proposal
by Senator Wright, I know that there are a
number of other towns that are listed in that
1004
section of the statute, all of them located in
Chenango, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston,
Ontario, Oswego, Otsego, Rensselaer, Steuben,
and Yates counties. We have declared that
certain parcels of state land involved in the
state reforestation or state parks or game
farms, game management areas, that these are
areas which are currently exempt from taxation
because of course they're owned by the
sovereign, by the State of New York.
And so what we've done is we've
carved out from those areas all the property
that's owned by the State of New York in these
particular areas, mostly in rural, upstate
counties.
And I would suggest that this bill
represents an interesting idea but one that
ought to have more widespread application.
After all, in the city of Rochester I can
think of two or three state office buildings,
massive structures that exist in the state of
New York for which the State of New York pays
no property taxes. They don't pay anything to
the schools, they don't pay anything to the
counties.
1005
And I would suggest that the
rationale for Senator Wright's bill -- which
I'm not going to dispute, and I appreciate
he's obviously doing his best to represent the
town of Parish. But the rationale for this
bill -- that is, that the carrying cost of
this land, it being exempt from taxation, is
somehow a penalty to the town of Parish that
we in the state of New York should rectify by
paying its taxes.
I would suggest if this is a
reforestation area, it probably doesn't use a
lot of police services, it probably doesn't
use a lot of fire services, and one thing I
would guess for absolute sure is it doesn't
send anybody to the schools, because there's
no one there who lives there who would send
their children to schools. Yet the State of
New York is going to pay a portion of the
school taxes that would be charged to those
who live in the school district that's
represented by the town of Parish.
If that theory is applicable to the
town of Parish, as we have already determined
it's applicable in ten other counties north of
1006
Poughkeepsie -- but doesn't include, for
example, the county of Monroe, where I
reside -- I would suggest that if that theory
is valid, what we should do is embark on a
program in which the State of New York would
begin to pay property taxes and school taxes
on all the properties that it owns in this
state. That rather than single out simply the
town of Parish, which has no costs associated
with the state land in it, we should look
instead to a community like Rochester, which
has the Rochester Psychiatric Center -- 1,400
employees, 500 current residents. It uses
substantial police and fire services and all
kinds of services that are provided by the
local community. In addition, it actually has
residential housing on the site, so in
addition it uses school services, all of which
are within the city of Rochester.
Senator Wright's bill sets an
interesting process in motion. That the State
of New York, if it's going to pay property
taxes on its property located in communities,
we should do it everywhere. And I would
suggest that benefiting the small towns
1007
upstate when we don't know how much of the
property taxes this site will actually
contribute, when I know for a fact that there
are at least two major buildings in the city
of Rochester that would be valued in the
millions of dollars and pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars in school and property
taxes, I would simply say what's good for the
town of Parish in Oswego County should be good
for the city of Rochester in Monroe County. I
would suggest to my colleagues from the city
of New York it would be a good idea for the
city of New York.
I noted with some interest the sale
of the World Trade Center in New York City,
two huge facilities owned by public
authorities, exempt from taxation. For years
and years and years, didn't pay any property
taxes, yet used huge resources from the City
of New York. I would just suggest that the
thing to do here is to take Senator Wright's
noble idea, which is that the sovereign should
freely pay property taxes in a community in
which its buildings are located -- I would
suggest that what's good for the town of
1008
Parish is good for the city of Rochester, it's
good for the city of New York.
We ought to start this as a trend
where the State of New York will pay property
taxes like every other property owner. And
frankly, it would be an enormous boost to
those of us who represent cities to have
public authorities in New York State and the
state itself pay property taxes. To single
out the town of Parish when we don't know how
big the property is, we don't know how much of
the assessment the value is located there, we
don't know how much this represents to the
total tax collection, I think it's premature
to do it in the town of Parish. We should do
it everywhere, Madam President.
I'm going to vote against this bill
because I think it discriminates against the
community I represent. I would like to see a
policy where we do this statewide and that we
pay property taxes through publicly owned
facilities from the State of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield,
1009
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm wondering if the Governor or
Commissioner Castro have endorsed this bill.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I haven't posed
that question to them, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
If the sponsor would continue to
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'll continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Does the sponsor see the money for
this legislation coming out of the state
1010
surplus?
SENATOR WRIGHT: No. Frankly, I
see it being paid out of the General Fund, as
current appropriations for taxable properties
in the state are paid by the State of
New York.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor is concerned that this may
increase people's state taxes.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Frankly, I am
not. I don't believe that $30,000 will have
an adverse effect on the state budget.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
1011
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there a home
rule message for this legislation?
SENATOR WRIGHT: There is not.
I'm told that a home rule message is not
required. But there is a formal request and
resolution from the town government.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will continue
to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: How much will
this legislation, if enacted, reduce the
property taxes of the residents of Parish?
SENATOR WRIGHT: That would be a
determination of the town board when they
adopt a budget, contingent upon their revenue
and expenses.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
1012
President. If the sponsor would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
could tell us what the genesis of this bill
was.
SENATOR WRIGHT: The genesis was
a request from the town board last year. It
was introduced here in the Senate, passed in
the Senate, in turn was reintroduced at the
request of the town board again this year
because they are adjacent to the town of
Redfield, which is a neighboring town deriving
a similar benefit under the existing statute.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, is the sponsor saying the
genesis of the bill is that a neighboring town
already profits by this kind of legislation?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I believe that's
what the Senator did say, yes.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
1013
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there an
Assembly version introduced for this bill?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, there is.
SENATOR DUANE: Could the sponsor
tell me who the Assembly sponsor is?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I believe you'll
find it on the memo. It's Assemblywoman
Sullivan.
SENATOR DUANE: And one final
question for the sponsor. Is the $30,225 a
yearly savings or payment?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, that's a
projection made by the Senate Finance
Committee and the New York State Office of
Real Property Tax Services. As required under
the Senate rules, they provide a fiscal note.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, just a clarification. So
that's per year, but in perpetuity, if this
goes through?
1014
SENATOR WRIGHT: That is my
assumption, yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Madam President,
through you, if the sponsor would yield for a
question.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Certainly, Madam
President.
SENATOR BROWN: Madam President,
I wanted to know how long this land in the
town of Parish has been state land.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
I don't have an exact date. But it's my
belief, to the best of my knowledge, that
it -- sometime on or about post-World War II,
late 1940s.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I certainly
will.
1015
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR BROWN: So then as state
land since approximately the 1940s, this
property has been tax-exempt for 60 years?
SENATOR WRIGHT: To the best of
my knowledge.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, I wonder
if the sponsor would yield for a couple of
questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, would
you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: How were these
towns selected, Senator -- Madam President?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I have no sense
of history in terms of the existing towns
reflected in the statute, other than they were
authorized by the State Legislature and signed
into law by the Governor.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, through you, how was the Town of
1016
Parish then selected? Did it conform, Madam
President, to the selection process for these
other outstanding municipalities?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I believe, as I
responded to a prior Senator's question, I
indicated it was at the request of the town.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, through you, I notice that it says
"exclusive of the improvements erected
thereon." Madam President, I'd like to know
if there any improvements in the town of
Parish on this property.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
none that I'm specifically aware of. That's
standard language utilized in the real
property statute. Nonetheless, there may be
an occasional lean-to or something that has
been constructed on this wildlife area.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, one more question. And that is,
would the town of Parish also be exempt from
any school taxes, any water taxes, sewer taxes
or whatever local taxes are imposed?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, Senator, I
can assure you that there are no sewer or
1017
water taxes being imposed in this wildlife
refuge in the town of Parish. Unlike the city
of Rochester in Monroe County, where you have
a nice large office building generating
several hundreds if not thousands of jobs,
that is clearly not the situation here in
Parish. So consequently, there is very little
that will be generated other than the taxation
that's authorized in this legislation.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: It seems to me
that all of us have state facilities in the
areas which we represent, whether it be
colleges or universities or schools or office
buildings in various institutions, armories,
mental institutions, hospitals, and so on.
And if we're going to exempt
wildlife towns, towns made up primarily of
wildlife, it seems to me that we ought to
continue and take this to its logical
conclusion, which would be to exempt -- or,
rather, to provide taxation -- much in the way
1018
that impact data is collected from military
institutions, that the state ought to start
collecting taxes from all of these tax-exempt
institutions, whether it be the World Trade
Center in Senator Duane's district, I believe,
or Queens College in my district.
Madam President, I am suggesting
that this is unfair and we should vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I don't
want to ask any questions, because I think
we're getting too tangled up in what
percentage of the revenues come from this land
and is it a sewer tax, a water tax.
I'm against the principle. I'm
against the concept. I've been the mayor of a
community that had state facilities for many
years. We were saying -- and indeed, in my
Senate district I have prisons, I have
hospitals. You name it, I've got a lot of
state stuff. And for years we were saying
that it would be appropriate that some kind of
pilot would be offered in place of the
taxation that normally would fall to these
1019
state institutions, pilots being in lieu of
taxes, payments that are made in lieu of
taxes. And I still firmly support that.
What I don't support here is
singling out one area and saying that all the
rest of us, many of whom have these
institutions, have also state land that is
wildlife, we have them in our Senate district.
And to do it for one is simply unequal,
unfair.
And that's why I'm going to oppose
this, because I think it's really contrary to
the principles that we have believed in for a
long time. And if we are going to change our
belief, it has to be for all. It can't be
just for one.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. Through you, if the sponsor
would yield for a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, Madam
President.
1020
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
Senator, has this bill been
considered by the Finance Committee?
SENATOR WRIGHT: It's before the
house, Senator. I believe it has.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: But it did
go through Finance before? It has a fiscal
impact, and my question is did this -- has
this bill been examined by Finance and
reported out of Finance?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Frankly, I don't
know. I'm not a member of the Finance
Committee.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, I
might suggest that that may be the appropriate
course, committing the bill to Finance, as it
has a substantial fiscal impact.
Through you, Madam President. And
I appreciate the fact that the Senator is
trying to be responsive to a constituent
request. But I understand from your earlier
responses that you're not aware of any
1021
particular system of analysis or
prioritization that has resulted in this
particular list of communities being exempt
from the requirements that all the rest of the
communities in the state are subject to that
provides that state land is not subject to
taxation.
Let me -- I can rephrase that. Is
there any system that you're aware of that has
resulted in this list of communities getting
this benefit?
SENATOR WRIGHT: To my knowledge,
that list reflects lands that are either
reforestation or wildlife properties.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: But
through you, Madam President, aren't there
other communities in the state that have
reforestation, wildlife preserves?
SENATOR WRIGHT: There may well
be.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And is
there some reason why reforestation and
wildlife preserves, as opposed to all other
facilities and land owned by the state, were
singled out for this treatment?
1022
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, I frankly
believe it's the same reason that the Town of
Parish is looking for assistance. And that is
those lands are not developed, those lands do
not create jobs. Unlike all of the other
examples used this afternoon, where you're
talking about hospitals, colleges, state
office buildings, et cetera -- they produce
employment, they produce economic impact, they
produce positive benefits to the community.
Unlike a wildlife refuge, unlike reforestation
projects, which are basically fallow land left
without taxation, left without a positive
impact on a small rural community.
They would gladly trade that land
for a prison. They would gladly trade that
land for an office building, for a college,
for a hospital, for an armory, for all the
other examples, because they would like to
have the positive benefit to their community.
Unfortunately, a wildlife refuge
does not provide that to these communities, so
they're seeking what they can to support their
tax bases.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
1023
Through you, Madam President.
Then I don't understand, and I hope
maybe you can help me understand, why what
appears to be a very small subset of these
areas in the state -- because it's a very
small list of towns -- is receiving this
special privilege. Was there any system of
analysis to determine why these communities
should receive this privilege while others are
denied it?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, again,
frankly, Senator, it appears to be the will of
the State Legislature and the Governor at the
time these particular provisions were enacted.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: But you're
not aware of any particular criteria that was
used?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'm not aware of
any, no.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Are you
familiar with all of these towns, Senator?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I am not.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm sorry,
through you, Madam President. Has any
consideration ever been given to the
1024
possibility that there is a -- and I don't
mean to presume, because I don't know these
communities. But if, as I suspect, these
communities are predominantly or
overwhelmingly populated by white New Yorkers,
has there been any consideration ever given to
the fact that there are civil rights
implications in giving them exemptions while
not giving them to any of the communities
largely inhabited by people of color?
SENATOR WRIGHT: None that I'm
aware of.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: But,
Senator -- or through you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Certainly, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Title 6 of
the federal Civil Rights Act prohibits us as a
state legislature from taking any action that
has a disparate impact on protected classes of
people, which in the context of New York State
1025
has been held repeatedly to mean that we can't
pass statutes that primarily benefit white
communities and do not benefit communities
where there are a majority or a substantial
population of black and Hispanic citizens. Is
that something that has been taken into
account in any way in assessing this list?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I have no
knowledge of that, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay,
thank you. I'd like to thank the sponsor for
his responses.
On the bill. I must say I don't
understand, other than the fact that the good
sponsor is trying to be responsive to a
request of constituents in the community -- I
don't understand how we can stand here and say
this small list of areas of the state is going
to receive this special benefit.
There are a lot of areas of the
state that I'm sure are equally worthy, are
poor, are in need. There are a lot of
different kinds of facilities and parks
scattered all throughout the state. And for
us to bestow this benefit without any
1026
criteria, without any system of evaluation, I
think raises serious concerns.
I do think it should have been
committed to the Finance Committee, by our own
rules. And I do think that there is a serious
issue of possible discriminatory impact, given
the selection of rural areas that I gather are
overwhelmingly white.
So I respect the fact that you have
to respond to your constituents. But in this
case I think they're asking for something that
it really should be beyond our power to give.
And so I will vote no.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, on the
bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I have it on
not perfect authority, but from an Ancient
Mariner, that when King Arthur, seated around
the Round Table, looked directly at Sir
Lancelot, he said: "How is this knight
different from all other knights?"
1027
And I would interpret that, Senator
Wright, in your bill as saying why isn't this
applicable to other areas in the State of
New York.
Now, I did vote for your bill last
year. I think it's a noble gesture. And it
could be a good bill if it were applicable to
other areas in the State of New York. But it
is not. And therefore, I will be voting
against the bill this year.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would the Senator be willing to
yield for a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
do you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'll be pleased
to take questions from Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator. I've appreciated your candor on this
issue and a great deal of honesty in answering
the questions.
This bill would not be considered a
1028
local bill under our rules, would it?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, I don't
know what definition you would apply in
describing a local bill. Obviously it's at
the request of a specific local government.
SENATOR PATERSON: In other
words, this bill wouldn't require a home rule
message, it wouldn't be regarded as a sale or
need a two-thirds vote to pass?
SENATOR WRIGHT: No. No, I've
been informed that it does not.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, even
though it does not, under our rules, just the
spirit of the whole idea of why we have
two-thirds votes on certain bills is that
there's an issue that we want to have a
greater majority than our normal preponderance
majority, because though the bill may have a
great impact on the individuals in that
particular area, we as a body want to protect
ourselves against what would be, in a sense,
serving the interests of the few as opposed to
serving the interests of the many.
And that brings me to the spirit of
the question. Earlier when you were asked, I
1029
believe by Senator Dollinger, about the local
officials who gave you the information, I
would have done the same thing that you did,
which was to respond to those interests in my
district where I was told that it had a
disproportionate impact on the fiscal
sovereignty of the town.
My question is, how would you
assess, for the purposes of a legislative
body, the Senate -- we're now voting on this,
and we are voting with the state interest, not
the local interest that we all have when we
bring our bills to the Legislature. How
should we assess this piece of legislation
with respect to how it affects our
constituents around the state?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, Senator, I
think that's like many other issues that we
take up and we all look at with a balanced
point of view and try to treat all areas of
the state uniformly but not identically.
There are numerous examples where, for
example, metropolitan areas benefit for
subsidies of mass transit and rail, which my
area does not benefit from.
1030
I think when we look at the total
context of what we do here, each and every day
we try to walk away with a sense of fairness
to all regions of the state, a balance, trying
to treat people all in the same fashion, if
not identical fashion.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
Madam President, if the Senator
would continue to yield.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then I
certainly would agree with Senator Wright that
his constituents have, by force of or by
caveat of the Legislature or law signed by the
Governor, that their taxpayer dollars provide
broad revenue bases for other sources that
don't affect that particular area. And so
that that would not be a good reason why
someone such as myself would oppose
legislation, even in spite of the fact that I
do have a state facility in my district that
1031
doesn't -- that's tax-exempt at that moment.
But to get to the core of this
question, I would wonder if it would not be a
good idea to try to approximate what the
average cost would be for certain state
facilities, particularly factoring in some of
the issues that have already been discussed
here -- the issues of game management, of game
farming, of game refuge, where there are fish
hatcheries, where there's reforestation, as it
is in the present case.
But in other words, to have some
kind of determination, either by study or by
task force, as to what that standard is in the
future so that we might have a better basis to
determine what you referred to earlier,
Senator, as what would be a balance.
What I'm saying here is that I'm
not sure exactly what the balance is, because
I don't know what the standard is. Would you
think that in the future that might be a
better way to assess it so that even in the
case of this legislation you don't have to be
questioned as scrupulously by your colleagues
when this is something that it might be very
1032
obvious to officials in your area needs to be
done?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, I
appreciate the question, Senator. I haven't
had this much attention in several months.
I've enjoyed the exchange this afternoon.
More to the point, I think it's
perhaps a standard we talked about earlier
this afternoon, that being common sense.
There is a distinction between buildings,
there is a distinction between state office
buildings, colleges, hospitals, prisons,
armories, et cetera, that create employment
and have large workforces. There is a
distinction between state parks and a wildlife
refuge or wildlife management preserve areas,
because state parks employ people.
When you're talking about
reforestation property, when you're talking
about wildlife preserves, what you're talking
about is simply fallow land, left there. From
my own personal experience, I know that it is
a significant portion of the town of Parish,
having driven through that town, having been
involved with that county for some twenty
1033
years now.
Now, I can't give you the exact
personal of square miles or acreage,
et cetera, but it is a disproportionate impact
on a small, rural town. And I think that's a
standard we can all justify and live with, and
those are the kind of judgments we make every
day here.
And I'm confident in your ability
and the ability of your colleagues to make
that judgment this afternoon without an
extensive study.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. Thanks to Senator Wright for
his responses.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you.
SENATOR PATERSON: On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, Senator Wright took the word of
town officials who have integrity in his area
that this situation was one that created a
disproportionate impact on the citizens of
that region. And in kind, I take the word of
Senator Wright that this is important
1034
legislation which might cure what is an
imbalance of resources that are invested by
the local township in this case.
However, where I see the problem is
in the way that we assess these particular
geographic locations, and the encumbrances
that they feel, as a Legislature. I don't see
a pattern or a practice from the other 22
towns that were chosen that in my opinion
reflects balance. I think that it is more
reflective of what the ability was to pass
legislation and to get bills signed into law.
I don't think that if you look, as
Senator Schneiderman pointed out, as Senator
Dollinger pointed out, as Senator Stavisky
pointed out, at the greater regions around
this state such as areas that Senator
Oppenheimer represents, where there are state
facilities that are not returning any of the
tax dollars to the local areas that support
them, even though they would seem to qualify
under this criteria, I just don't think that
we as a Legislature are treating the entire
citizenry of the state fairly.
I think certainly we're all trying
1035
to be fair to our own constituents and should
advocate that way. And with a proper
assessment, I actually think that Senator
Wright would be sustained. I think that this
is legislation sincerely proposed and
sincerely drawn. But in the end, its effect,
if we pass it, is actually as disproportional
as the problem that it aims to cure. That
there are other facilities and regions around
the state that are put in the position where
the local dollar is having to in many ways
foster the survival of state facilities that
have gone beyond the ambit of what the state
usually does and into some of these areas of
game farming or game management or
reforestation, as Senator Wright describes.
And until we get to a point where
we really have a standard that we can all live
by, I don't know that anyone really knows what
disproportionate is until we can assess it. I
think when we look in our own districts, in
our own areas, it certainly feels like it's
disproportionate. But I guess all of us, even
as state taxpayers, think that our income
taxes are disproportionate. The only way to
1036
really measure it is through an apt comparison
with what are the responsibilities of our
neighbors.
And until that time, I think very
good legislation may to some degree be opposed
because we haven't created a standard. And I
think that continuing to pass laws such as
this are just going to open up what will be
not a test or a question of what is valid and
what is fair, but a feeling that others got
something that we deserve and now we have to
find a way to get it.
I don't think that's the way to
make laws, and I don't think that's the way to
govern, in spite of the fact that there are
regions -- and we may be looking at one of
them right now -- that deserve this protection
and deserve this reward.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
1037
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Just
briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: To explain your
vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I can
empathize very much with Senator Wright's
constituents and the communities that are
seeking relief. Lord knows we spent a lot of
time when I was the mayor, with the heads of
government in Westchester trying to figure out
how we could get more money out of the state
to repay us for some of the costs. In his
case, it's open space.
I would argue or put forth the idea
that, where municipalities are expending
considerable money on police and fire
protection and garbage collection and snow
removal and light replacement, that those
communities are really bearing the brunt of
the expense of having this state land within
their communities. And I would think that
they, even more than this wildlife preserve,
would deserve some support from the state.
And I hope in time that it would come, but I
1038
cannot see giving it to one area and not
another.
I'll vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I will also join Senator
Oppenheimer in voting no. I made my views
known earlier. I concur with Senator
Oppenheimer.
I would only add one other fact,
which is that in the city of Rochester, the
buildings that are tax-exempt that are owned
by the State of New York are used by everyone
in the surrounding community. They're used by
people in our suburbs, they're used by people
in other counties. These are mostly regional
centers. The regional state office building
downtown has the Workers' Compensation Board
that covers many counties. This Rochester
Psychiatric Center I think is a catch basin
for as many as 19 counties.
So in the particular circumstances
of the city of Rochester, the beneficiaries of
the state office building located in the city
1039
of Rochester are people from all different
communities -- from the suburbs, from counties
far away from Rochester. But the party that
has the detriment of providing services to
that building and providing the fire and all
the other services is solely the City of
Rochester, because that's where it's located.
And it seems to me it's not
unreasonable to ask people that live in other
counties who get the benefit of having a
building in the city of Rochester owned by the
State of New York, it's not unfair to say:
Wait a second, you should pay. We should
collectively -- those who live in the suburbs
should pay part of the taxes that would be
payable to the City of Rochester to support
schools, fire and police services.
This is all about the fairness of
our taxation system. And it seems to me that
Senator Wright, in his advocacy for the town
of Parish, I understand the justification.
But any analysis of this problem, you'd have
to conclude that those of us who have major
state office buildings in our communities have
a much better case than Senator Wright's
1040
constituents for fair and honest treatment in
paying real property taxation. The fairness
that compels Senator Wright to do this I think
is even more powerful when you look at the
cities and the communities that have major
state office buildings.
I again go back to it. This is
good for the town of Parish; it should be good
for everyone. I'll vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative.
Will the Senators voting in the
negative please raise your hand.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 81 are
Senators Brown, Connor, Dollinger, Duane,
Gentile, Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi, Lachman,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Sampson, Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith,
Stachowski, and Senator Stavisky.
Ayes, 42. Nays, 18.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
1041
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
83, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1311, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to authorizing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
100, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 438,
an act -
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco, an explanation has been requested
by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This bill,
which passed 57 to nothing last year, and
similar votes in the prior two years, simply
allows for fiduciary commissions to be based
1042
on real estate that passes directly to a
beneficiary, which is not permitted presently.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator DeFrancisco would yield
for a question.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, it
never occurred to me what we're actually
correcting. In other words, when this type of
situation happens now, you're saying that the
commission can't pass directly to the
beneficiary?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, what
I'm saying -- no, no, no. If someone passes
away and specifically bequests or devises real
estate to an individual, that real estate -
or does it by operation of law, but primarily
devises directly to an individual, then that
is not considered as part of the property of
the estate for the fiduciary to receive a
commission for their work on.
And as a result, we're one of the
1043
minority of states that do not allow
commissions because there still is work by the
executor or the trustee in maintaining the
land, making sure its taxes are paid, until
there's finally a transfer.
So what this basically does is
bring us in line with many other -- most other
states, except for about four, that allow
executors who have the obligation to handle
the property, even if it directly goes by will
to a beneficiary, to obtain a commission for
the services of handling the land.
SENATOR PATERSON: And, Senator,
if you would yield for another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Now, normally
what basis is it upon which the commission is
determined?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The value
of the property that is part of the decedent's
estate.
1044
SENATOR PATERSON: Then if I have
this right, now, then that amount, that value
would be taken off the total value and would
not be part of the commission?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That is
correct. The commission would not -
presently is not on that type of real estate
that is devised specifically to a beneficiary.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right.
Because the way the property was bequeathed,
it really did not really need for any action
to be taken, so there really shouldn't be a
commission.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's the
thinking of the way that the law presently is,
that it's merely a matter of signing the deed
over to the beneficiary and that's the end of
it.
However, that isn't really the
case. In fact, when you understand that some
estates, probate proceedings are contested and
that the property has to be maintained by the
executor during that period of time. And
basically most other states recognize that
fact; no matter how it transfers to the
1045
beneficiary, it's something that -- some work
that has to be done by the fiduciary for a
commission.
And the State Bar Association has a
memo in support of this.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, can I call for a quorum of the
house, pursuant to Rule IX.2(f), please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call a quorum.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I believe that Senator Dollinger,
under Section IX.2(f), has called a quorum.
And in that section it says that the presiding
officer will forthwith direct the Secretary to
call the roll. So I don't see any reason why
he's not calling one right now.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, can we instruct that the Secretary
ring the bells and bring the members into the
house.
SENATOR PATERSON: A brilliant
1046
idea.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will ring the bells and bring the members into
the house.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
being present.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
1047
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann,
excused.
1048
Senator Johnson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Here.
1049
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
presence.
(Laughter.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
(No response.)
1050
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Present and
accounted.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
1051
SENATOR SPANO: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
(No response.)
1052
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Present.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Here.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Here.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos, a
quorum is present.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could continue with the
controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
1053
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, we have some
housekeeping.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
thank you, Madam President. I would like to
move that the following bills be discharged
from their respective committees -- shall I
start again?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President.
Madam President, I move that the
following bill be discharged from its
respective committee and be recommitted with
1054
instructions to strike the enacting clause.
And that bill number is 2747.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Tuesday, February 27th, at 11:00 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
February 27, 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)