Regular Session - May 22, 2001
7840
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 22, 2001
11:10 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
7841
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: 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.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: In
the absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in
a moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, May 21, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, May 20,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Without objection, the Journal stands approved
as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
7842
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following nominations:
As a judge of the Court of Claims,
Albert J. Emanuelli, of White Plains.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President. I rise to move the nomination of
Albert J. Emanuelli, of White Plains, as a
judge of the Court of Claims.
We received the nomination from the
Governor. The staff of the committee has
vetted the nominee. He appeared this morning
before the committee, was unanimously affirmed
by the committee to come to the floor at this
time.
And before turning the nominee over
to Senator Spano for purposes of a second,
just a brief mention that I have worked with
Judge Emanuelli for the years that I have been
chair of the Judiciary Committee, while he was
7843
serving as the surrogate of the County of
Westchester, and I have the highest regard and
respect for him for his judicial work over
those years, and he certainly has been an
asset to my ability to function as chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And I offer him my personal
congratulations on once again resuming the
role as a judge of this state, and
congratulate the Governor for his appointment
of Judge Emanuelli to the Court of Claims.
And without further ado, I will
yield for purposes of a second to my colleague
Senator Spano.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Thank you, Mr.
President. And thank you, Senator Lack.
It is my pleasure today to stand
and to say that it's a proud day for Al
Emanuelli, for his family, for the people of
Westchester County, and to thank the Governor
for once again appointing an outstanding
person, who served us real well as our
surrogate in Westchester County, to the Court
7844
of Claims.
He has had a great history,
starting from the private practice of law back
in 1966, has served as a Supreme Court judge
in Westchester, and has served as our
surrogate, and now will serve us with
distinction as a member of the Court of
Claims.
So, Judge, it is my pleasure to be
here today, to stand on this floor to second,
very proudly second your nomination, and to
offer to you my best wishes and my
congratulations.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
question is on the confirmation of Albert J.
Emanuelli as judge of the Court of Claims.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Albert J. Emanuelli is hereby confirmed as a
judge of the Court of Claims.
(Applause.)
7845
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Judge Emanuelli is joined by his wife, Mary
Ann.
On behalf of the members of the
Senate, I extend my courtesies and wish you
godspeed and the best of luck in your new
position.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Renee F. Minarik, of Webster.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I rise once again, again for
another excellent appointment from the
Governor, of Renee F. Minarik, of Webster, as
a judge of the Court of Claims.
The staff of the committee has
examined her credentials, they were found to
be excellent and perfectly in order. Again,
she appeared before the committee this
morning, was unanimously moved by the
committee to the floor.
And it's with great pleasure that I
7846
yield for purposes of a second to my colleague
Senator Nozzolio.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
And thank you, Senator Lack, for
your efforts on behalf of this nominee as she
was moved before your committee this morning.
Ladies and gentlemen, my
colleagues, it is an honor for me to stand
before you today to support this excellent
nomination of Governor Pataki. Renee Minarik
has had a unique combination of experiences
that has brought her to this place. That she
has served in judicial, executive,
administrative, and legislative capacities at
the local, state, and national levels.
As a confidential law clerk and as
assistant attorney general, as a regional
director from the Department of Environmental
Conservation, as an elected official from the
Monroe County legislature, and as one who
stood to run for the United States Congress,
Renee Minarik has provided leadership in her
7847
community. She has served a variety of
different endeavors in a great capacity.
Service has been her watchword.
And that she has combined that
service to her community, to her state, and to
her nation also with the development of her
family. That she is up in the gallery today
with her children, Christopher, Kathleen,
Steve, and Stephanie; with her parents, Rudy
and Dorothy; and with her husband, Steve.
And that she has -- Renee has
worked tirelessly to serve her family first
and her community, state, and nation close
thereafter.
I am very pleased with Governor
Pataki's nominations throughout the judiciary.
I should note that Renee Minarik's nomination
and confirmation today will see the first
woman from Western New York so confirmed to
the New York State Court of Claims.
I'm very pleased with Governor
Pataki for ensuring that all are represented
on the Court of Claims and that we have
different perspectives and that certainly the
nominee's perspective is one that is highly
7848
qualified and one that will be a great
addition to the court.
Mr. President, it is an honor for
me to stand and second the nomination of my
constituent. She will serve this state
extremely well. And I so move her nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank you, Senator Lack.
Senator Nozzolio has so eloquently
described the qualifications and the
attributes of Renee Minarik. And for those
who had the pleasure of meeting with her
during Judiciary, you will know that she is
eminently well qualified.
Whether it is her background in
private practice, her administrative work with
the DEC, the time that she spent in the
Attorney General's office, or serving her
constituents as a county legislator, Renee
Minarik has excelled in everything that she
has pursued.
Mr. President, there are two
reasons why Renee Minarik has excelled so
7849
well, and that is a combination of two things:
Her hard work and perseverance in everything
that she pursues, and the values that she
inherited as a member of a great family from
my little hometown, East Rochester, the
Forgensi family, a family that is held in high
regard.
And so it comes as no surprise that
with her hard work and dedication that Renee
Minarik has excelled, and I'm sure that she
will continue to excel in this new endeavor.
I congratulate the Governor for yet another
excellent choice.
And in closing, let me say that
behind the resume that lists these wonderful
qualifications, there is something that cannot
be read, but I can assure you from my heart
that they exist. Renee Minarik is a caring
wife and mother, and I'm proud to know her as
a personal friend because she is simply a
wonderful person.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
7850
I rise to join the rest of the
Rochester, Monroe County, delegation to extol
this choice for the Court of Claims.
Renee, I think this is a moment of
deliverance too. I can tell you this as your
friend, we are delivering you from Doug Gates
and Tony Adams, and you can go on to the bench
and hopefully stand on the other side of the
bench in dealing with them and give them their
just due.
These are also two friends of mine
that Renee has worked with for the last
several years. And if they were here, I hope
they would be chuckling, although perhaps not
loudly.
Mr. President, this is an excellent
choice for the Court of Claims. I concur with
Senator Nozzolio that the elevation of a woman
from Western New York to the Court of Claims
is long overdue. But I think also important
to emphasize that Renee Minarik embodies -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- a path to
the bench -
7851
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger, before you continue, I'd
appreciate the doors closed to the chambers,
and let's have some silence in here while the
Senator is on the floor.
Thank you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Just to echo the comments of my
colleague Senator Nozzolio, the path that
Renee Minarik comes to this bench is an
unusual one in the sense that she has been
able to combine the job of a mother, the job
of a wife, and the job of a lawyer in many
different capacities in her path toward this
appointment.
And I think it's important that we
recognize that the traditional elevation of
members to the Court of Claims, individuals
who may have been involved in the bench
previously, largely males who have had prior
services in the judicial system -- that is not
the only path, Mr. President, that we should
respect and reward in elevation to the bench,
that there is another path for an extremely
7852
competent woman, who is both a wife and a
mother, to come to the bench and to bring
those qualities to it as well.
And so, Renee, as I said in the
Judiciary Committee, there may be some in
Monroe County who look at this and say, well,
this has something to do with your improvement
in the political process, who you are married
to, or what you've done in the political
process. It's my view that that is not the
case and that your public service, your
running for office, both in the county
legislature and for Congress, are examples of
your commitment to public service and your
ability to stand before the voters to take the
chance that everybody in this room has taken,
to put yourself before the voters, put your
qualifications there, I think is to be
administered.
And from my point of view, as I've
said a number of times before, the people who
qualify for the bench in this state ought to
have experience in government, they ought to
have experience in their community. And part
of the way you do that is through the
7853
political process.
And I applaud the Governor's
choice. I continue to say, as I've said a
number of times, that from the second floor we
have continued to get a steady stream of
eminently qualified -- albeit Republican, but
nonetheless eminently qualified candidates to
serve on the bench.
Renee, you are the next in a long
tradition. I'm going to urge all the
Democrats to support you, and I wish you well
in your future and my best to your family as
well.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
I join with my colleagues from
Monroe County in seconding this nomination and
in congratulating Governor Pataki for what I
think is an excellent nomination to the Court
of Claims.
I first became associated with
Renee Minarik when she was the regional
director for the Department of Environmental
7854
Conservation. I knew that she had served a
term in the county legislature and also had
run for Congress. And I can think of no
better individual to address the claims that
individuals have against the State of New York
than someone who has this wide breadth of
experience in dealing with people on a daily
basis.
I know that several of my
constituents, during her tenure as the
regional director for the DEC, had
long-standing claims and issues dealing with
the Department of Environmental Conservation,
and we could always go there and find a
sympathetic voice. Renee didn't always tell
them what they wanted to hear, she always
didn't decide in their favor. But they always
felt that she was very fair.
And I can think of no better
qualification for a judge of the Court of
Claims than for that individual to be fair,
fair to the taxpayers of the State of New York
and fair for those individuals who feel that
they have some grievance against the state.
So I join Senator Nozzolio and
7855
Senator Alesi and Senator Dollinger in
congratulating Governor Pataki on another fine
judicial nomination.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
question is on the confirmation of Renee F.
Minarik as judge of the Court of Claims. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Renee F. Minarik is hereby confirmed as judge
of the Court of Claims.
And she is joined by her husband,
Steven, and her children.
Congratulations and best wishes to
you.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolution.
7856
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
on page number 63 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 903, Senate
Print 3195A, and ask that said bill retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: On behalf of
Senator Rath, on page 63 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar 902, Senate Print
Number 3128, and ask that said bill retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Kuhl, we have some substitutions at
the desk.
7857
SENATOR KUHL: Would you take up
the substitutions, please, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 6,
Senator Volker moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 808A
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 1697A, Third Reading Calendar 108.
On page 10, Senator Maziarz moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2692 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1895,
Third Reading Calendar 183.
On page 11, Senator Rath moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4693A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1811A,
Third Reading Calendar 194.
On page 20, Senator Marcellino
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 4528 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 1970, Third Reading Calendar 397.
On page 30, Senator Lack moves to
7858
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 980 and substitute it for
the identical Senate Bill Number 1324, Third
Reading Calendar 546.
On page 35, Senator Hoffmann moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4909 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2563,
Third Reading Calendar 607.
On page 50, Senator Stafford moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5983 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3091,
Third Reading Calendar 763.
On page 53, Senator Volker moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5522 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2787,
Third Reading Calendar 789.
On page 53, Senator Seward moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7494A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3688A,
Third Reading Calendar 793.
On page 54, Senator Spano moves to
7859
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5242A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2793A,
Third Reading Calendar 804.
On page 63, Senator Volker moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2367B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1984B,
Third Reading Calendar 898.
On page 64, Senator Meier moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8557 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4058,
Third Reading Calendar 912.
On page 66, Senator Seward moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7609 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3935,
Third Reading Calendar 933.
And on page 67, Senator LaValle
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8477 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 5093, Third Reading Calendar 942.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
7860
Substitutions ordered.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President, I
now move that we adopt the Resolution Calendar
that's on the members' desks, with the
exception of Resolution Number 1879.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: All
in favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution 1879, signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, now could we
have the title of Resolution Number 1879 read,
and I move for its adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Bonacic, Legislative Resolution Number 1879,
honoring Joseph B. Lynch upon the occasion of
7861
his retirement after 36 years of distinguished
government service on June 30, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
question is on the resolution. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Withdrawn.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, before we
adopt Resolution 1879, both Senator Leibell
and Senator Bonacic would like to open that up
for multisponsorship to any of the members who
are interested.
With that understanding, I move
that the resolution be adopted.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
resolution is open for cosponsorship. We will
put everybody's name on as a cosponsor. If
you do not wish to cosponsor, please notify
the desk.
The question is on the resolution.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
7862
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Transportation Committee in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Transportation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, and now can
we go to the controversial reading of the
calendar, beginning with Calendar Number 365,
by Senator Seward.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
365, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 3001, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
insurance fraud offenses.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
7863
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Mr.
President. We are on Calendar 365?
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
That's correct, Senator.
SENATOR SEWARD: This legislation
before us deals with the fact that we have
seen an increase in no-fault insurance fraud,
and it's a problem that has been growing at an
alarming rate in New York State.
And it's currently estimated that
no-fault fraud costs auto insurance consumers
in New York State approximately a billion
dollars per year. And all signs indicate that
unless some kind of action is taken, this
number will continue to increase. And that's
something obviously that we are all paying
for, all those who secure automobile insurance
in New York State.
Now, this is a complicated issue.
It has to be attacked in a variety of ways.
This particular piece of legislation before us
would attack the issue and problem in this
7864
way: It would increase the penalties for
insurance fraud by cutting in half the
requisite value of property which must be
obtained through the insurance fraud in order
to be convicted of each degree of insurance
fraud.
And it also would come down harder
on repeat insurance-fraud offenders by
creating two new degrees of aggravated
insurance fraud.
And it is hoped that by increasing
the penalties for this type of criminal
activity that we will see additional
prosecution of these cases, we will see
tougher penalties for those who are convicted.
And that sends a very strong signal to those
who would engage in this type of activity in
New York State that we are not going to
continue to tolerate this, that we're serious
about fighting fraud.
And believe me, we all will be
better off for it if we can cut down on this
problem.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson.
7865
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Seward would yield for
a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, as
well-intended as this legislation is, I can
actually see a way that it might create an
obstacle, in the sense that there would be
more people eligible to be prosecuted because
we've lowered the threshold that would meet
the test of what is actually insurance fraud
in the fourth degree, and then we've also
lowered the amounts that qualify it in degrees
succeeding from the fourth degree.
The problem is that if we don't
have the law enforcement capacity and the
additional prosecutors, I am afraid that we
would be in a sense taking away from the
resources to prosecute the huge situations
where we have insurance fraud.
So in many respects, that's one of
7866
the reasons that we have a threshold in the
first place. We'd like to prosecute somebody
who was fraudulent even if the victim lost a
hundred dollars.
So my question to Senator Seward
is, in what ways are we going to bolster the
local district attorneys' offices, the
insurance divisions of the Attorney General's
office, and the other prosecuting agencies or
those connected even with the Insurance
Department to identify and then convict these
individuals?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Mr.
President, as I had indicated in my
explanation, the fight against insurance fraud
has to be fought on many different fronts, one
of which I think Senator Paterson points out;
that is, we do need to provide additional
resources for our local prosecutors.
In fact, that is one piece of our
Senate antifraud package, is to draw
additional funds from the auto theft and fraud
fund which exists, handled through the Motor
Vehicle Department, which derives its income
from the $1 surcharge on all of the auto
7867
policies. There are additional funds existing
that could go toward supporting our local
prosecution of these cases. And in fact,
another aspect of our program is to do exactly
that. We do need to provide additional
resources toward local prosecution, and we
propose to do that.
I might point out, I don't think
the passage of this bill would necessarily
increase the number of cases where fraud is
being committed. It merely comes down harder
on those who are tried and convicted.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. I didn't mean to suggest -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: To ask if
Senator Seward will yield for another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, do you yield for another
question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
7868
SENATOR PATERSON: I don't know
if there will be an increase in cases.
Certainly there might be an increase in cases
if we're not catching the perpetrators of the
offenses that stand unsolved at this
particular time. But certainly it would make
more people eligible, as Senator Seward said
in his original explanation, for prosecution.
My question is, what are the other
methods? In other words, because this is a
huge problem right now, is really changing,
codifying new law the best way to bring down
these numbers of cases, which actually
increase premiums?
Would it actually be a more
effective use of law enforcement now -- in
other words, if we just have more people
eligible for prosecution but maybe the
resources might have been put more in
investigation, would that be something that
would either act concurrent with or is that
something that might even be preferable to
changing the law, Senator?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Mr.
President, I think I've outlined the fact that
7869
I would agree we need to put more resources
into investigation and in prosecution. And we
propose to do exactly that.
And also, I would point out that
this Legislature, when -- in the past we have
a lot of precedent for when we identify a
problem, an issue, a concern, we have
increased penalties, time and time again, as a
means of sending the signal that we're serious
about cracking down on this type of criminal
activity, as we have in others. And this
follows that same pattern.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Seward would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm persuaded
that Senator Seward is right and passing this
legislation would actually be a deterrence,
assuming that we provide the resources to
prosecute these cases.
I am interested in whether the
7870
increases in the instances of insurance fraud
have been such that the increases coming on
the lower end of the prosecution scale -- in
other words, the $500 to $1,000 fraud -- is
that part of the increase, or is it even
possible to determine what is causing the rise
in these types of instances of fraud?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Mr.
President, it's a difficult question to answer
with specifics. But we have seen this trend,
which is growing and it seems to be up and
down the scale in terms of the size.
I know on our calendar we have
Senator Skelos's so-called runner's bill,
which would make it a felony to engage in that
type of activity, the staging of accidents and
injuries and moving it through these medical
mills and that type of abuse and fraud.
That's, shall we say, on the high end, and we
have seen that row.
But we've seen it up and down the
line in terms of the size and the amounts that
are associated. So this is why, in addition
to Senator Skelos's bill, which deals with the
so-called runner issue, this particular piece
7871
of legislation relates to all of the insurance
fraud regardless of the size.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I have a final question for Senator Seward.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, do you yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: For Senator
Paterson's final question, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields for your final question,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: You know, I
was the one that brought it up, Mr. President.
I didn't have to be reminded by everybody.
But I'm just curious, if we are
going to be lowering the threshold that would
qualify, then what we're actually doing is
increasing the penalties on the other
offenses, except for insurance fraud in the
fourth degree, where we're lowering it to a
level where it's never been before.
And I would wish that Senator
Seward give us an example of what is the
7872
insurance fraud that would manifest itself in
a consumer losing $500. You know, just an
example of that.
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, it's -- I
think, Mr. President, any -- we could develop
any kind of number of examples that could
involve $500. It could be as simple as, let's
say, an unscrupulous body-shop owner working
with someone who has damage to his car and
together you're putting in a higher than
necessary estimate on the work and charging
additional claims to the insurance company
that could amount to $500, as an example.
Personally, I think it's -- if
it's -- whether it's $500 or $500,000, for
that matter, I think it's a serious crime that
should be dealt with. And this legislation
proposes to do exactly that.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Schneiderman, why do you rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield
for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, do you yield for a question?
7873
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
My question is that in this bill
there's reference several times to a term
which doesn't appear to be defined here.
It's -- the predicate for some of these
aggravated offenses is the commission of a
fraudulent insurance act. And I'm wondering
what that is and where it's defined, if
anywhere.
SENATOR SEWARD: I'm advised by
counsel it is defined in the Penal Law.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, because if we are changing
the definition -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Schneiderman, do you have another
question?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
7874
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm just
trying to get clarification of this, because
we have quite a few bills on our plate this
session that would change the structure of the
law and create substantially new offenses and
modify old offenses.
And I just want to make sure that
the definition of the predicate still works
with the revised statutes that we're proposing
this year. And I don't know what a fraudulent
insurance act is; it's not defined here. And
I just am a little concerned about it being
listed as a predicate without any modification
or instruction as to the definition.
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President, I
see the point that the Senator is making.
However, I would respond this way. We are not
changing the definition. It appears elsewhere
in the Penal Law. We are not making any
modifications that really would impact that
definition.
The only change that we are making
here is, you know, lowering the thresholds and
7875
thus increasing the penalties.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor for his answers.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Does
any other member wish to be heard?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President, I'd like to announce that there
will be an immediate meeting of the
Corporations, Authorities and Commissions
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
7876
Corporations, Authorities and Commissions
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, and could we
now take up Calendar Number 570.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
570, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 2129C, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
fair claims settlement.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Mr.
President.
As in our previous legislation,
this bill before us also deals with the
insurance fraud issue. And it does so in this
way. The bill would extend the time which
insurers have to investigate a claim from 30
to 45 days and would allow defenses to a claim
related to fraud to be raised even after this
7877
time frame if the insurer has made a report to
the Insurance Frauds Bureau regarding the
claim.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield to a
question, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What
evidence, if any -- through you, Mr.
President -- exists that the 30-day period -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger, may I ask just to interrupt
you.
I just wanted the doors shut to the
chambers. Let's have some silence in here so
we can hear your question. Thank you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Through you.
7878
Senator Seward, what evidence
exists that the time lapsing alone creates an
inability on the part of insurance carriers to
determine the validity of these claims?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Mr.
President, we have heard from a number of the
insurers. We've discussed the matter with the
Insurance Department, which of course gets in
the middle of these types of issues and
disputes. And it seems very reasonable to
increase the time frame from 30 to 45 days.
And I might point out that we have
not plucked that 45-day time frame out of the
air. In fact, under legislation that this
house passed and was enacted into law two or
three -- about three years ago, all -- the
so-called prompt-pay legislation, the medical
providers, once they submit a bill to the
payors, the insurance payors, they have 45
days in which to pay that claim under our
prompt-pay legislation.
This bill before us would mirror
that by, in these instances, in these no-fault
instances, would be to strike that same 45-day
period as we have in our prompt-pay
7879
legislation.
And the reason I think it's fair to
do this and important to do this as an
antifraud measure is that currently the claims
may be submitted up to six months after the
treatment or service was rendered. And very
often with such a long period of time before a
bill has been submitted to the insurer for
payment, that it's very difficult in a short
30-day period of time to be able to determine
whether or not there has been any fraud
committed.
So I think that additional 15 days
on a claim which may have not been submitted
for a six-month period of time I think is
reasonable. I don't think we're outside the
bounds of being reasonable with this
legislation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Seward will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward, do you yield for another
question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
7880
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Seward, I can understand the additional time
to investigate this claim if it is filed at
the end of the six-month period. But this
provision for a 45-day in essence penalty-free
payment period would apply to a claim that had
been filed immediately after treatment is
received; isn't that correct?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Mr.
President, there is no distinction between
whether a claim has been submitted the day
after treatment or six months after treatment.
But I would point out that it's the
law of the state now, you know, in the
straight health insurance coverage, that we
call a 45-day payment period prompt pay. So I
don't think 45 days is an inordinate amount of
time.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Seward will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator, do you yield for another question?
7881
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, does
this apply to all first-party benefits,
including lost wages, or just to health
benefits?
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President,
this deals with first-party benefits and
additional first-party benefits.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But through
you, Mr. President, if Senator Seward will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That would
include lost-wage payments, would it not?
Because they're part of the first-party
benefits.
It's not just -- I think as you
know, Senator Seward, it's lost wages and
payment of the medical bills.
7882
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President,
that is correct, it would be the whole range
of the first-party benefits, yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And through
you, Mr. President, if Senator Seward will
continue to yield for one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator, do you continue to yield for one
final question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: When we
enacted the no-fault law, we said that
claimants are going to give up their right to
sue in certain cases involving minor injuries,
lack of a serious physical injury -- we said
that they were going to give up their right to
sue on those small claims in exchange for
prompt payment of their meds and their lost
wages.
My question is, does expanding the
period from 30 to 45 days, does that in
essence backtrack on the deal that we struck
when we enacted the no-fault law; that is, to
7883
trade off -- remember, a claimant, a person
injured, gives up their right to sue for
anything other than a serious physical injury.
In exchange for that, they were going to get
their wages paid quickly and their health
benefits paid quickly.
Aren't we really backtracking away
from that agreement, that deal when no fault
was created?
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President, I
wouldn't describe it as backtracking or a
large change in the system. I would view this
15-day period as merely a modification, a
refinement of existing law which is being made
in response to changes that we have observed
in the whole system in process.
And that is an increase in the
amount of fraud. And this merely gives an
additional 15 days for a determination to be
made whether or not fraud has in fact been
committed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Could I be heard on the bill,
if -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
7884
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I'm going to vote against this
bill. And the reason why I do so is because
when we enacted the no-fault law in this
state, we said that people with relatively
minor claims and people with claims across the
board would get prompt payment of their lost
wages and prompt payment of any medical bills
within a 30-day period.
That was the compromise that we
struck when we told people who were injured in
accidents that they were going to give up
their right to sue for certain recoveries
unless they sustained a serious physical
injury.
And it seems to me that what we are
doing with this bill is we are giving the
insurance industry in this state 15 additional
days to potentially sit on payments without
paying interest to the claimant when the
claimant will experience another 15-day period
in which they have no income.
And I would suggest that the
question of fraud and to what extent there is
7885
fraud in the no-fault system, it seems to
me -- and I've heard estimates of that number
ranging between 2 percent to 6 percent -- it
seems to me that what we're doing is we're
swatting a fly with a baseball bat. What
we're doing is taking the compromise, which
was we said to certain people: You give up
your right to sue. In exchange for that,
we're going to make sure you get your medicals
paid quickly and your lost wages paid quickly.
We're now telling them, You're not going to be
paid as quickly as we originally promised you.
We're in essence telling the
insurance industry in this state that it's
okay to sit on these claims for an additional
15 days without paying interest and forcing
people who have lost income to wait 15 more
days in order to be paid.
I think 30 days is long enough for
the insurance industry to investigate these
claims. And if they determine that fraud has
been committed, let them stand up, file a
report with the Insurance Fraud Bureau, let
them contest the claim, and let them do it at
that point.
7886
I think by doing this we're giving
the insurance industry 15 more days to hold
wages that are due to people who may, because
of their financial circumstances, absolutely
need to be paid. We cut a deal when we passed
no-fault, Mr. President, and the deal was if
you sustain certain injuries, you're going to
get your medicals paid promptly, you're going
to get your lost wages paid promptly. It
seems to me that this bill in essence
backtracks on that deal by slowing down the
process for people who suffer injuries in
accidents.
I don't think it's warranted, Mr.
President. This is a way to simply delay
payments to deserving claimants. If there's
fraud, we ought to deal just with the fraud
component and not punish everyone. I'll be
voting in the negative, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I'll
be voting in the negative as well.
And I don't think cutting the time
frame to just a claim or to make a
7887
determination from 45 days to 30 days has
anything whatsoever to do with fraud. And the
reason I say that is the second provision in
this bill says that you can go beyond the 45
days if you are -- if the insurance company
questions the claimant on the basis of fraud.
So there is literally no reason
whatsoever to change the claim period from 45
days to 30 days other than to deny payments to
insureds for a little longer period of time.
As to the fraud provision, what
bothers me about this bill is very simply that
it assumes that the only fraud being committed
is fraud by people being insured. I've
handled so many cases in fire claims and many
different types of claims where insurance
companies allege arson, they allege
misrepresentations, they allege anything and
everything to hold up the payment of a
legitimate claim by an insured.
And I've had situations where after
the case goes to trial there is no proof
whatsoever of misrepresentation or fraud, but
what it does for insurance companies, it gives
them that club over somebody's head. You
7888
either settle, or you're going to go through a
long process and that long process is going to
bring you back nothing. In fact, it's going
to cost you legal fees.
The difference of power between
insurance companies and claimants is not even
measurable. I believe very strongly that if
you want to avoid fraud or you want to have
more time to investigate fraud, you're going
to have to serve a consequence if there is no
fraud involved. There has got to be a
consequence on the insurance carriers.
And the concept of having the
insurance company file a report with the
Insurance Frauds Bureau as to what leads them
to believe there might be fraud and what
they're investigating, to show some good faith
basis. And then if they're wrong and they're
holding up funds legitimately due to an
insured, they should pay interest on the money
that the insured is losing as a result of this
particular delay.
And there's a clause that I
prepared and provided to Senator Seward hoping
that when this bill is negotiated with the
7889
Assembly, there might be some consideration
for the insured as well as insurance
companies, and that fraud goes both ways. And
the heavy hand of an insurance company has
hurt a lot of people. And if they hurt
somebody unfairly, they should have a
consequence, not simply a free ride that this
bill gives.
As a result, for those reasons I'm
going to vote no and hope that these types of
changes that I've suggested to Senator Seward
become a part of the final bill when it's
negotiated with the other house.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield to a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl
first.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President, before I -- excuse the
interruption, gentlemen.
I'd like to announce an immediate
meeting of the Local Government Committee in
the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
7890
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Local Government
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, I'm
available for questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President.
Through you, Madam President, I'm
just curious to know from the sponsor how this
proposal works with some of the other
administrative suggestions that have been made
by the Insurance Department in the fraud area,
and particularly in the proposal to decrease
the period of time in which a victim can file
a claim from 90 days to 30 days.
That is a proposal now that has
been made, and I'm curious as to how this all
works together when you're talking about your
proposal in conjunction with the proposal to
decrease the time in which a victim can file a
claim from 90 days to 30 days.
7891
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, I believe Senator Gentile was
referring to some regulations which have been
proposed by the State Insurance Department
which would in fact make it within a 30-day
period that a claimant would inform their
insurance company that they have been involved
in an accident. That's down from 90 days.
And then it would compress the time
period for submitting medical bills under
no-fault from the current six months down to
45 days. So that's what's happening
regulatorily.
This legislation deals with the
payment of the benefits, on the other end of
the process.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Madam President, whether it's statutorily or
7892
administratively through regulations, wouldn't
you agree with me, Senator, that the practical
effect of the combination of state legislation
as well as regulation will in fact decrease
the time in which someone can file a claim
from 90 to 30 days and decrease the time in
which medical records or medical claims can be
filed, I believe you said down to 45 days, and
on the other end because of this legislation,
increases the time by which an insurance
company can deny a no-fault claim from 30 to
45 days?
In essence, Senator, what we're
seeing is a combination of regulation and
state law, should this pass and become law,
that indeed squeezes the consumer on the front
end and also squeezes the consumer on the back
end with the insurance company as a result of
this bill.
Based on that, if you look at the
overall picture, how in the world can anyone
say that this is -- this kind of legislation,
in conjunction with the administrative
regulations being proposed, would be
protective of the consumer that's legitimately
7893
hurt?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, the regulations that have been
proposed by the Insurance Department are
exactly that. And they're going through a
comment period currently. In fact, they are
not in effect.
And I would encourage Senator
Gentile to direct his comments to the
department as part of their comment period
should you have concerns there.
I don't view the compression of the
time for the filing of claims as squeezing the
consumer. I think that it should be better
described as really speeding up the process.
Because the claims would have to be in sooner,
and it would give the insurers an opportunity
to, under my bill, more ample time to
investigate fraud and then, you know, move
payment out.
And in fact, if they do go beyond,
under my legislation, the 45-day period of
payment and there's no fraud involved, they
still have to pay, which is existing law,
2 percent, which computes to -- on a monthly
7894
basis, which computes to 24 percent annual
interest rate on the claim, as well as
attorneys' fees.
So I think there certainly is no
incentive here that would encourage an insurer
to extend beyond 45 days unless there is fraud
involved.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
would continue to yield, I do have a -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward
yields. You may proceed, Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President, through you.
Senator, it -- but as Senator
DeFrancisco so aptly pointed out, there is no
good-faith requirement on the part of
insurance companies in this legislation that
would require them to have some basis for
claiming a fraud in insurance claim.
Given that fact, how is it that
these claims are not sped up but indeed slowed
down by just wanton claims of fraud by filing
7895
this report?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, I would call a 24 percent interest
rate a disincentive for, you know, extending
the time period of payment without cause. I
would call the requirement to pay attorneys'
fees a further disincentive to go beyond on
the time period without cause.
And under existing law, and as well
as under our legislation, that they do have to
make a report to the Insurance Frauds Bureau
should they wish to go beyond the prescribed
time period. So, you know, there are controls
in the system.
I would further point out this.
That the State Insurance Department, on an
every-three-year period of time basis,
conducts what they call market conduct
studies. And believe me, these are well
publicized should an insurance company be
causing, you know, claimants to wait an
inadvertent or an undue time. And all of this
is very public information and very, very bad
publicity for the insurance companies.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
7896
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: I appreciate
what you just said, and I didn't realize that.
But obviously whatever publication
these companies show -- in which they show up
has not affected the companies that Senator
DeFrancisco has dealt with. Because
obviously, based on Senator DeFrancisco's
experience, as he just indicated, there are
many, many, many, many insurance companies
that will claim arson, that will claim
misrepresentation, that will claim a host of
different reasons for holding up payment on a
claim.
Now, whatever publication you just
indicated to us obviously is in existence as
we speak, but it certainly hasn't been an
incentive enough for the companies that
Senator DeFrancisco has dealt with to change
their ways. So I'm concerned and curious as
7897
to the effectiveness of what you just told us.
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, the -- we're mixing apples and
oranges here a bit. The legislation before us
deals with no-fault auto only. And Senator
DeFrancisco was making comments on a broader
scale unrelated to this particular piece of
legislation before us.
What I described to you in terms of
the market conduct study, the 24 percent
annual interest rate, the attorneys' fees
required to be paid, those types of
disincentives for extending the time period of
payment of claims deal specifically with
no-fault auto claims. Which is the bill
before us at this time.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Senator. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
I tend to agree with my colleague
Senator Dollinger, in that when we set up our
no-fault insurance legislation, our law, we
set out certain time periods that I believe,
7898
absent the fraud, work well. This piece of
legislation that intends to deal with the
fraud I think instead really deals with
hurting the legitimate consumer who is hurt
and needs to file a claim.
Certainly I believe -- and Senator
DeFrancisco made an excellent point, the fact
that if we're going to do something like this,
there should be an explicit good-faith
requirement on the part of insurance companies
for claiming a fraud basis and filing a fraud
report.
Because otherwise, even though
Senator DeFrancisco mentioned those instances
where insurance companies have claimed
everything under the sun to deny payment to a
claimant, although he may have not mentioned
something in the auto insurance industry, I
would imagine that it's not much different in
the auto insurance industry as in the case of
arson or some other area that may not be
related to auto insurance.
So I think that while fraud is a
concern in this state, it's a concern to
consumers as well as to insurance companies.
7899
I think this bill weighs too heavily, too
heavily in favor of an insurance company and
squeezes the legitimate consumer with -- in
conjunction to the regulatory proposals that
are now before the Insurance Department to
decrease the time in which someone can file a
claim.
Given those two factors, this bill
and that regulation, I believe the passage of
both will mean very serious consequences to
legitimately injured victims in this state.
So I will be voting in the negative on this
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. I'd like to announce an immediate
meeting of the Consumer Protection Committee
in the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Consumer Protection
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Since Senator
7900
Gentile asked the questions I would have
asked, I pass.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Thank
you, Senator.
Any other member wish to be heard
on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
SENATOR PATERSON: Slow roll
call.
SENATOR ONORATO: Slow roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Are
there five Senators standing?
More than five Senators have
arisen. A slow roll call is ordered.
The Secretary will ring the bells.
The Secretary will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
7901
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was indicated as
voting in the negative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I just want
to join the comments made by my colleagues
Senator DeFrancisco and Senator Gentile.
As I said earlier, I think this is
7902
backtracking on the original compromise that
we cut for the benefit of the no-fault law,
that certain people gave up their right to sue
in exchange for prompt payment of their lost
wages and medical benefits.
I'm very reluctant to go against
that original compromise, and I don't think
that there's a foundation laid for fraud as
the basis to overturn that agreement.
So, Mr. President, I will vote in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
7903
SENATOR GENTILE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, to explain her vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
Because I perceive this bill to be
unduly harsh for legitimately injured victims
and it denies payment -- denial of payment
could result in the victim not getting needed
medical attention or even proper diagnosis of
an injury -- as the ranker on Consumer, I
would have to vote against this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson will be recorded in the
negative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
7904
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, to explain his vote.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Since under current law insurance
carriers can right now effectively extend the
amount of time by requesting within 10
business days additional verification before
the 30-day window begins, this bill is not
going to crack down on fraud. It is simply an
anticonsumer measure that is going to give
much freer rein for insurance companies to
deny claims and cause problems for the
insured.
As a result, I vote no on this
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi will be recorded in the negative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
7905
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Nay.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
7906
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez,
excused.
Senator Montgomery.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
7907
SENATOR RATH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
(No response.)
7908
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
7909
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 33. Nays,
21.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, would you
recognize Senator Volker, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker.
7910
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
to facilitate the budget process, would you
please star my bills Calendar 239, Senate
Print 2833, and Calendar 240, Senate Print
2834. Both those bills will be starred.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: A
sponsor's star will be placed on Calendar
Numbers 239 and 240.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President, would you also, while we're
adjusting the calendar, lay aside for the day
Calendar Number 715.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Calendar
715 will be laid aside for the day.
SENATOR KUHL: And would you lay
aside Calendar Number 791, by Senator Johnson,
for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: 791 will
be laid aside for the day.
SENATOR KUHL: Then would you
call up Calendar Number 515, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 515.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
7911
515, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 2221A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to accident reporting.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 515 by Senator Lachman.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
This bill requires that all auto
vehicle accidents -- autos, trucks,
motorcycles, et cetera -- in which there is
serious personal injury or death be
investigated by the police, those reports be
forwarded to the Department of Motor Vehicles,
who will tabulate those reports -- study those
results and tabulate them into some kind of a
report by December 2004 to find out the reason
for those accidents, were there any summons,
who was at fault, and so on, so we can improve
our traffic safety procedures and regulations
to save lives.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
7912
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, will the sponsor yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: My last
question I will ask first, because you used it
in summarizing your position.
Why do we have to wait three years,
until December 31st in the year 2004, before
we have an official report going to the State
Legislature from the Department of Motor
Vehicles?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, that's
the very question which occurred to me but
which I failed to ask my bill drafter.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'm sorry, can
you speak louder?
SENATOR JOHNSON: That is a
question which occurred to me but which I
failed to ask my bill drafter.
7913
They seem to have gotten a feedback
from the department that it takes several
years to get these results and tabulate them
and so on. I think it should be sooner,
Senator, I agree with you. But this is the
form in which we passed a similar bill for the
past four years.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, do I assume, then, Senator, that
you will attempt to shorten the time period
from three years to at least one year before
the Department of Motor Vehicles informs the
State Legislature in this area?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, I think
it should be shortened. I'm doubtful whether
one year, at the end of one year a report
could be in, because they wouldn't have that
much material together and tabulated and
really analyzed at that point.
But perhaps they could take a year
off. I'd certainly like to do that. If we
pass this bill -- and it now has a companion
in the Assembly. So I think we might talk
with them, and if they're agreeable, we take a
year off, I would say that would be good.
7914
SENATOR LACHMAN: A compromise,
all right.
Mr. President, through you, will
the Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Where does the
Department of Motor Vehicles currently receive
its information regarding fatalities and
injuries by bicyclists?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Where do they
get the information from, you're asking me?
Is that the question?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mm-hmm. Where
does it get its exact data, its precise data,
its information?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Where do we get
the data? Well, we get raw data on accidents
and the number of -- the type of vehicle and
so on. But we don't get what we need to do a
study because we don't get any information
7915
other than it happened and this is when it
happened and this is what was involved.
There's no required investigation
of any accident, whether it's a fatality or a
serious injury right now, except for tractor
trailer trucks, because that's required under
the federal law, which we had to comply with
in 1993. But there's not necessarily an
investigation in most of these accidents.
As you know, what precipitated this
was the carnage on the weekend, where every
weekend a motorcyclist gets killed because
someone pulled out in front of him or made a
left turn in front of him, and there's no
investigation, no -- it's just considered an
accident. That's not good enough for me.
And now what we're doing when we
rebuild the roads, at least on the South Shore
and over to the beaches, we're putting a
bicycle path alongside the roads. Now, are we
going to have the same thing there that those
people get run over and it's just an accident?
No, there has to be some inquiry into this and
something done to make sure this doesn't
continue to happen.
7916
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, will the Senator continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator, I
think it's noble of you and correct of you in
trying to draft the bill in response to that
terrible event, to prevent such events from
occurring in the future. But would you not
agree that there should be some standardized,
across-the-board method of gathering data
through the state?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, I'm
hoping this bill will bring about that
occurrence, yes.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Mr.
President, through you, will the Senator
continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you continue to yield?
7917
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: What is the
current procedure, Senator, that a police
officer is instructed to follow when there is
an accident on the road, whether it is a
motorcycle accident or a bicycle accident, an
accident involving a pedestrian? Do we have a
standard procedure on this issue?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I can tell you
that I have spoken with our police, and they
say if they feel it warrants an investigation,
they do it. Most of the times they just say
it's just an accident, period, and it's just a
statistic and that's the end of it.
And that's why we're requiring them
to investigate the facts and circumstances of
these accidents, the type of vehicles
involved, whether pedestrians were involved,
the contributing factors, weather, other
things, whether any violations of the law
occurred that precipitated this accident, and
so on.
7918
We are telling them this is the
information we want so we can find out what's
going on on the roads and correct it.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, will the Senator continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On this
question that I asked you immediately
preceding what I'm asking you now, since the
bill was drafted very quickly to respond to an
immediate problem, will you commit yourself to
improving the bill, and especially police
procedures in reporting such accidents in the
future, and have a standardized procedure
throughout the State of New York?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, I
don't want to legitimatize your observation
that this bill was drafted quickly, because
this bill in one form or another has been
7919
around for four years and passed for four
years. So it's not a precipitate act on our
part.
It does provide in the bill the
procedures that are to take place by the
police. Let me just find the section for you
which says what they are supposed to do.
This -- it will be in the Motor
Vehicle Law, and it says "Whenever a motor
vehicle accident results in serious physical
injury or death to a person and such accident
is either discovered by the police officer or
reported to a police officer, within five days
after such accident occurred, police are to
conduct an investigation of such accident.
Such investigation shall be conducted for the
purpose of making a determination of the
following: The facts and circumstances of the
accident, the number and type of vehicles
involved, including passenger motor vehicles,
commercial motor vehicles, motorcycles,
limited-use motorcycles, off-highway
motorcycles, and/or bicycles, whether
pedestrians were involved, contributing factor
or factors, whether it can be determined if a
7920
violation or violations of this chapter
occurred, and, if so, the specific provisions
of this chapter which were violated and by
whom, and the cause of such action where such
cause can be determined. The police shall
forward a copy of the investigation report to
the commission within five business days of
the completion of such report."
So it's quite specific in what they
have to do, Senator. But if you feel there
are improvements that could be made, I'd
certainly be willing to listen to those. But
I'd like to get this bill passed during this
session, and I believe the Assembly is ready
to pass their version of it.
Thank you.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Final question,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield for what's promised to
be the final question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Based upon your
7921
last response, I assume that if it has to be
improved, you will act to improve it. In
terms of the police procedure.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, I
didn't hear your question too well.
SENATOR LACHMAN: In response to
my previous question, I assume that if you
find that this is not thorough enough and
strong enough, you will move to improve the
police procedure in these instances.
SENATOR JOHNSON: I think that
this will establish the procedure where none
presently exists, other than some sort of
judgment at the scene, perhaps. And I don't
think that's sufficient enough, Senator.
There's no content of those reports,
superficial reports, upon which to basis any
observations or any improvements, potential
improvements in the law.
This would give us that background
information.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
7922
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor please yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I've supported this legislation in
the past. I think it's a good bill. But I
have one concern as to the scope of the
legislation. So let me pose the following
question. It seems to me that this very well
intended piece of legislation seeks to
determine information that may have led to
serious or fatal accidents, the purpose being
that we can garner better knowledge about what
happened in order to try and prevent the
accidents from occurring in the first place.
My question to you is, it doesn't
seem to me from the criteria that is listed in
the legislation as to what needs to be
compiled, that we are going to allow ourselves
7923
to obtain information that will determine
whether or not some safety precautions after
the accident has already taken place were
beneficial.
So for example -- and why don't I
pose this as a question -- am I correct in
assuming that nothing in this bill would
require there to be reporting about whether or
not a seat belt was used and to do some kind
of causal analysis as to whether injuries were
lessened as a result of the use of the seat
belt, or the use of a helmet by a child riding
a bicycle? And this is important because we
recently exempted some individuals, some
children, from wearing helmets under New York
State law.
So my question to you is, could we
go a little bit further in this to try and
minimize the impact of injuries, in addition
to what I believe you do here, which is trying
to prevent accidents in the first place?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator,
perhaps you didn't hear my listing of the
criteria. And one of them was whether any
specific violation of the Vehicle and Traffic
7924
Law occurred at the time of this accident. In
other words, seat belts, helmets, wherever
they're mandated are a violation of the law if
you don't comply with that. So that would
also be investigated under this present draft
of the law.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
I understand that, and you raise a
good point. My question, though, is that is
there anything that the commissioner is
currently required to do with this information
other than report the stats to the Legislature
and the Governor three years from now, as
opposed to getting the information and doing
some statistical analysis with it to make
assessments in order to minimize the
seriousness and severity of injury as a
consequence of those who may have violated the
7925
law, such as the seat belt law or the helmet
law?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I feel that
this bill requires what you just stated. It
requires study and analysis with some
recommendations. And I think we'll have that
with this law.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Maybe I'm
mistaken. I'll make this my final question.
I'm not sure where in the bill it
requires an analysis of the information with
an eye to minimizing injury impact or what
have you. I could be wrong. Could you point
that out to me?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, do you
have the bill before you?
SENATOR HEVESI: I do.
7926
SENATOR JOHNSON: If you'll look
at the last paragraph, number 2 way at the
end, page 2, line 17, if you read from there,
you will see what the requirements are upon
the department, what they should do with that
information.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Can you tell me specifically the
line you're referring to on the requirements
after the information has been provided?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, I'll read
it to you, Senator, and to the other members
of this body:
"The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
shall, on or before December 31, 2004, submit
a report to the Governor, the Temporary
President of the Senate, and the Speaker of
7927
the Assembly as to the nature and cause of
motor vehicles accidents resulting in death or
serious physical injury, based upon the
investigation reports submitted pursuant to
Section 603A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
as added by Section 1 of this act, and make
appropriate recommendations for passenger
motor vehicle, commercial motor vehicle,
motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian accident
prevention."
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. And
I thank the sponsor for bringing this
important piece of legislation. That was a
very satisfactory answer.
I just had a slight concern -
although my fears are somewhat allayed by that
last section that the sponsor just read -
because, for example, seat belts are not
required for passengers riding in the back
seat of a vehicle, and there could be an issue
as to the extent to which the use or the
7928
failure to use a seat belt for a rear
passenger, somebody who is a rear passenger,
resulted in injury.
And I know from personal
experience, because I had a friend who was in
a very serious head-on collision with a
telephone pole who was riding in the back
seat, and the use of a lap belt in the back
seat actually caused him much more serious
injury than he would have otherwise sustained
without having used it.
But I am pretty confident,
particularly because of that section in the
bill, that the commissioner will expand on his
own, for the benefits of public safety and
public policy, the scope of any investigation
and recommendations. I think this is a good
bill, and I'd like to see it passed. I don't
know why it's taking so long to have this
legislation passed.
But short of that, Mr. President, I
thank the sponsor for bringing the
legislation, and I support it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
7929
SENATOR LACHMAN: To explain my
vote, Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well,
we're not on the roll call yet, Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay, whenever
we are.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, to explain
my vote.
Based upon the answers to the
questions to Senator Hevesi and to me, I will
be voting for this, Senator Johnson, but as an
initial and good first step.
I'm delighted that you agree that
you also feel that the three-year interval for
7930
an official report to the legislators is
unacceptable and should be shortened to one
year or two years.
I am also happy to learn that you
would be available or amenable to other
compromises if it improves the bill and gets
the bill through the other half of the
New York State Legislature. I will be voting
in favor of the bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just very briefly. I'm going to
vote against this bill for two reasons -- or
actually for three reasons.
First of all, I think the
three-year period of time that Senator Lachman
pointed out is way too long. We should do it
quicker.
Two, anyone who thinks this can be
done with no local fiscal impact, which is
what the memo says, Senator Johnson, with all
due respect, is just not dealing in reality.
The reality is we're going to require the
7931
police to go out and investigate a whole
series of accidents in much greater detail
than we've ever done before. This is a huge
mandate to local governments, to go out -
every time there's a serious physical injury,
to go out and conduct the eight- or nine-point
investigation that Senator Johnson wants to
do.
I think that that's an enormous
mandate. I would suggest to Senator Rath and
others who have carried mandate-free bills,
that we ought to repeal mandates, we're now
imposing one in this bill. We're requiring
them to do something that they haven't done
before, and we're not giving them any money to
do it. I think that's unfair to our local
communities.
The last thing, Senator Johnson -
I didn't get a chance to talk to you about
this. But you ought to look at the
discoverability of these report for lawyers in
civil litigation. I think the State of
New York is going to create liability on
communities by virtue of the fact that they
have to investigate these accidents and
7932
determine what the cause is. As you know,
Senator Johnson, that's what civil litigators
like myself do all the time.
There will be a flood of discovery
requests. These documents should be
considered immune, if you believe it's
appropriate, from disclosure under the Freedom
of Information Act.
I think it's an interesting idea,
Mr. President. I think it needs a little more
thinking, though, before we put it through.
And most importantly, Senator Johnson, let's
give local police departments the $10 million
or $20 million necessary to perform these
otherwise mandated tasks.
When the bill comes back with those
changes, Mr. President, I'll vote in favor.
But until then, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
7933
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Could we now announce that there
will be an immediate Civil Service and
Pensions Committee meeting in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Civil Service and
Pensions Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, would you now
recognize Senator Larkin, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President,
I'd like to be recorded that had I been in the
chamber on Calendar Number 570, I would have
voted in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
record will so reflect, Senator.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Will you now call up Calendar
7934
Number 954, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 954.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
954, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 705, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to directing.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
SENATOR JOHNSON: As some of you
may be aware, this is Motorcycle Awareness
Month, and that's why these three bills are
coming this month.
This particular bill authorizes the
Thruway Authority to establish a separate toll
rate for motorcycles lower than the rate
charged passenger and commercial vehicles.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just one brief question of
Senator Johnson.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
7935
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Are there
currently any other state highway systems that
have toll roads that have made an exception
for motorcycles? Are there any other states
that have precedents for reduced discounts for
I think the valid reasons you mention in the
bill -- that is, that they are a much lesser
weight, generally extract a smaller -- a toll,
toll from the road. Thank you, Senator
Oppenheimer.
Are there any other states, Senator
Johnson, that have similar provisions,
discounts for motorcycles?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I haven't
researched other states.
But as you know, weight is a factor
in establishing tolls, certainly on trucks,
and even the number of axles is one of the
criteria. But they haven't established any
difference for motorcycles, which are lighter,
smaller, take up less space, less wear and
tear, and they're categorized the same as
7936
automobiles.
Now, the New York City bridges,
they have lower rates for motorcycles. And I
think there should be lower rates for
motorcycles on the Thruway as well.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No further
questions, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Calendar Number 955, by Senator Johnson,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
7937
Secretary will read Calendar 955.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
955, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1366, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to requiring.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 955 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR JOHNSON: The New York
City bridges give a discount and even -- even
the -- yes, all New York City bridges,
including the Throgs Neck and the Whitestone,
all give a discount for using E-ZPass. And
they don't give that discount to motorcycles
as they do for cars and trucks and so on.
In order to encourage use of
E-ZPass, this bill would require that they
give a discount to use E-ZPass like they do
for cars and trucks. And we're not telling
them what the discount should be, but I think
it's important to use encourage the use of
E-ZPass to speed the flow of traffic. And I
think it's equitable as well that they should
7938
get a discount similar to other vehicles.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just one
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there any
way to prevent the use of an E-ZPass for a
motorcycle if it's used on some other vehicle?
What's the chance -- again, I'm not
assuming that someone would do this, but you
could remove the E-ZPass from a motorcycle and
put it on an automobile. Is there any way
that the E-ZPass system would detect whether
it's attached to a motorcycle versus an
automobile?
I only say that, Senator Johnson,
because to be candid with you, I took an
7939
E-ZPass off one of my cars and put it on
another car because I was driving -- instead
of driving my own car, I drove one of my sons'
cars to Syracuse. So I was driving around
with an E-ZPass on a vehicle that was other
than my own.
And my question is, if you grant a
preferred rate to motorcycles, what's to
prevent someone from taking it off the
motorcycle and putting it on a car?
SENATOR JOHNSON: You know, I
think we're getting bollixed up here with what
the charges are and discounts for using
E-ZPass. There's two different things we're
talking about here.
There is a low rate for motorcycles
already. Many people have E-ZPass already for
their motorcycles. All this says is if you
give a discount to a car or a truck, you
should give a discount to a motorcycle.
Period.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right. And
through you, Mr. President, if Senator Johnson
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
7940
Johnson, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm just
trying to figure out if there's anything in
the E-ZPass that's used for a motorcycle that
prevents it from being used in a car.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, if not,
I'm going to get over the bridge a lot cheaper
in the future, because I'll just take my
motorcycle pass and put it on my car.
No, you know, there are cameras at
all these toll booths. And even if you use
one that belongs to a different car, you might
get a letter, which some of my constituents
have gotten, that you don't have a card for
this car. Okay, we're not going to prosecute
you, but you're supposed to have one for each
vehicle.
And so I'm sure they would identify
a motorcycle, in contrast to a car,
immediately and know that that pass is only
for a motorcycle.
7941
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's fine,
Mr. President. I appreciate Senator Johnson's
candor in responding to the question.
I think that that may be a problem
at some point in the future. But I'm willing
to vote in favor of this bill, and we'll deal
with that issue if it crops up and turns out
to be a problem. But it's something we should
be aware of.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Would the sponsor please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield to a question from
Senator Hevesi?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I think this is a good bill.
Motorcyclists certainly should get the same
7942
type of discount. I'm just concerned with the
language of this bill.
Specifically -- well, let me do it
by example. Right now a car traveling through
one of the TBTA facilities without E-ZPass
pays $3.50. With E-ZPass, they pay $3.
That's about a 14 percent discount. From my
reading of your legislation here, it doesn't
require that there be an identical percentage
discount for motorcycles. So I guess I'm
concerned that motorcyclists still could be
cheated if the TBTA decided to get around this
or what have you, they were going to provide
less of a discount.
Is that a problem that you foresee,
Senator?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, you know,
I don't like to mandate a certain percentage,
although I think it should be equitable. And
that's the intention. Because I'd like to see
it concurred with, and I don't want to put a
percentage in, like 25 percent, and they might
say, well -- they might tell the Governor,
Don't sign this bill, because we only want to
give 20 percent or 18 percent or whatever
7943
we're giving on other vehicles.
So I think they understand it would
be a similar percentage, but I didn't mandate
any percentage, that's true.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Senator, I agree with you. I don't
think we should be requiring, for the purposes
of this bill, exactly what the percentage
should be. Rather, I'm suggesting that we
mandate in the bill that you have here that
the motorcyclist shall receive the exact same
percentage discount as the automobile driver
does, regardless of what that percentage is.
SENATOR JOHNSON: I agree with
you, Senator. I agree with you. It should be
the same.
I don't think the lack of putting
7944
the percentage in the bill would lead to an
insignificant or minuscule discount. I think
they will put the same percentage in. I
expect that they will. And I don't think it's
a shortcoming of the bill that we didn't
mention it.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thanks, Mr.
President.
A very well intended bill. I just
would make it cleaner here. We're saying if
the authority grants reduced tolls to
passenger cars using the electronic toll
collection system, reduced tolls shall also be
granted to motorcyclists using such system.
If we simply put in a comma that
says "at the exact same percentage as that
which the automobiles receive the discount,"
we'd be ensuring that the TBTA, which in the
sponsor's memo is going to lose up to a
million dollars in revenue, and they're not
going to be happy about that -- we will, by
7945
doing that, prevent them from in their
discretion deciding that they're going to give
less of a discount.
So I agree with you, you know, if I
was them, the legislative intent is fairly
clear here, that we want to provide the same
discount. I would just go the further step
and mandate it in a law. It's an extra four
or five words. But I'll still support this
bill. I would just suggest we clean it up a
little bit.
SENATOR JOHNSON: I want to
respond to that, even though it's not a
question, Senator, just by saying that the
million-dollar loss is over four years, so
it's not a significant loss to the TBTA.
But more than that, each of these
bills have been negotiated with an individual
sponsor in the other house, and they're moving
it through the system, the Ways and Means,
they're getting these on the floor. They're
going to pass them this year. So the fact
that you might feel that should be in there
may not have been the desire of the other
house to put that percentage in. And during
7946
negotiation, this is the draft which they
approved, and I appreciate passing it the way
it is.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, to explain his vote.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
very briefly, to explain my vote.
It just seems to me that Senator
Johnson is being very diligent in recognizing
the disparity between charging motorcycles and
automobiles when you consider the fact that
large trucks are charged a different toll as
well.
And while this has nothing to do
with the explanation of my vote, if we were
7947
permitted to acknowledge people in the
gallery. I would be very honored to
acknowledge the class from East Rochester that
is here, first-place winners from the "I'm a
Green Nation" contest.
However, since we're not able to do
that, I will simply say, in explaining my
vote, that I will vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi will be recorded in the affirmative.
And thank you for sharing that with
us, Senator.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, thank you,
Mr. President. Could you call up Calendar
Number 111.
And also, would you tell Senator
Alesi that Senator Bruno has indicated to
myself that he'd like to talk to him about the
rules of the chamber.
(Laughter.)
7948
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I think
you just told him, Senator, but it's noted.
The Secretary will read Calendar
111.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
111, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 1989A, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
provision.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maziarz, an explanation has been requested by
Senator -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Well, I'd be
happy to explain it, Mr. President, but -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No, I
think Senator Libous would probably do a
better job of explaining this bill.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I stayed up all
last night reading it, but I'm going to defer
to my colleague Senator Libous, because he's
much more knowledgeable about the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
right. Senator Libous, an explanation has
been requested.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you,
7949
Senator Maziarz, for yielding the floor to me
so I could explain this bill, Mr. President.
Mr. President, this legislation is
a bill that has come before this house too
many times, because in the past we have been
unable to secure an Assembly sponsor who had
conviction and belief in a problem that takes
place in our society.
I'm pleased to say, as I explain
the contents of this bill, that for the very
first time there is a new Assembly sponsor.
He has indicated that he is committed to
passing it this year and sending it to the
Governor for approval.
This bill has been referred to as
the "Keg Bill," because it deals the sale of
large quantities of alcohol. And basically it
would make it a Class E felony for individuals
who are over the age -- 21 and over and buy
large quantities for minors, and then those
minors take the alcohol off to various
parties.
And, Mr. President, one of the
problems we've had -- and I have a whole slew
of newspaper clippings before me, from the New
7950
York Times to local newspapers, in which young
people under the legal drinking age of 21 have
gone off, unfortunately drank at these
gatherings, and have lost their life.
So what this does is makes the
adult that's 21 or older responsible, it makes
them responsible for purchasing beverages and
providing them to underage individuals. And
what it does is it takes existing law and
cranks it up to a felony.
And we believe, as I believe this
chamber has in past years, because I know the
past several years it passed unanimously, that
this is something that as we approach prom
time there will be, unfortunately, many
tragedies that we will read about throughout
New York State in all of our communities where
some individual who was 21 or over purchased
alcohol and therefore those that were minors
consumed that alcohol and unfortunately, for
whatever reason, will lose their lives, either
in traffic fatalities or in other situations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
7951
sponsor yield to one question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, will you yield to a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I understand, Senator Libous,
that you've eliminated the immunity provision
from prior drafts of this bill.
SENATOR LIBOUS: That's correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But my only
question is, I'm just not clear on the
language in page 2, the paragraph -- lines 17
through 19. It says, in essence, if you hold
a license or a permit under Sections 4, 5, 6,
or 7 -- I'm not sure what those are. That's
part of my question -- but more importantly,
it says if you lawfully sell or make the
beverage available, in accordance with the
provision in such articles, you shall not be
deemed to have violated it.
Are you saying that if you comply
with 4, 5, 6, and 7, irrespective of what else
7952
you do, you don't have liability under this,
you're not deemed to have violated this
section?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes. To answer
your question, yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, just briefly on
the bill. I appreciate that.
The interesting thing, Senator
Libous, is that this bill, while you call it
the "Keg Bill," could easily be called the
"Frat Bill." One of the problems, as you
know, in the community that you represent, and
certainly in the community that I represent,
in our major college towns, we have a problem
with underage drinking, especially in the
context of the rituals of rushing for
fraternities. And under those circumstances,
some of the types of tragedies that this bill
is designed to prevent have occurred.
And it seems to me it's not
unreasonable to place restrictions and to show
our substantial disapproval of that type of
binge drinking and of that type of situation
where underage people consume excessive
7953
amounts of alcohol, exposing their personal
health and the health of others whom they may
come into contact with.
I appreciate, Senator Libous, your
willingness to remove the immunity provision.
I know that the trial lawyers have been
opposed to that. But as always, I think
that's just their opinion. But my point of
view, we should require that everyone do what
is reasonable under all the circumstances.
I've voted for this bill in the
past, I think. I'm going to vote for it now.
I really think that this is a critical problem
for people between the ages of 17 and 22. And
if we can send a clearer message to the people
who buy that alcohol that we're going to watch
them darn carefully to make sure that there
aren't those kinds of annual springtime
tragedies that occur or the falltime
tragedies, as people are rushing for
fraternities, we've done the right job. I
commend you on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
7954
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Calendar Number 171, by Senator Marcellino,
now, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 171.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
171, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 96,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to increasing.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested
of Calendar 171 by Senator Dollinger.
7955
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
This bill increases the parameters
of driving while ability-impaired to include
driving while ability is affected to any
extent by the utilization of a drug.
Currently, if someone is picked up
by an officer and they're stopped and
obviously they're driving while impaired, if
they have a drug offense, in many cases if
it's the first time they're allowed to bargain
down or plead down to a lesser charge.
Unfortunately, the section they
plead down to does not relate to drugs, it
relates to alcohol. So this creates a
fiction. They plead down to an alcohol
offense, and their record shows no arrest for
drug impairment, which in fact they were.
So we're trying to eliminate that
problem from the VTL by placing in the section
that everybody pleads down to drug abuse.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor please yield.
7956
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino, do you yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The sponsor
yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I very much appreciate what the
sponsor is trying to do with this legislation.
I just have a question on how this would play
out.
We have established in New York
State that if your blood alcohol count is 0.1
or higher, that that crosses a legal
threshold. Implicit in that is that lesser
amounts don't cause the same type of
impairment of abilities, and so we have DWAI
offenses. And if it's low enough, you are
actually permitted to have a glass of wine and
if your blood alcohol level is sufficiently
low, it's not a penalty at all. It would seem
to me exceedingly difficult to come up with
some kind of objective test when one has
consumed some kind of drug, whatever the type.
And so my question to the sponsor
here is, according to my reading, any drug
7957
usage at all, if you are able to determine
that an individual was operating a motor
vehicle, having done any type of a drug of any
amount, irrespective of the extent to which
that individual was impaired, he would be
subject to penalties under this section. Is
that a true statement?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Senator,
yeah, the brief answer is yes. And then
you've got to look at the law itself, because
"drug" is defined in the VTL in a certain way
and there are certain drugs that are listed.
I believe the number is some 239. Counsel
advises me I am correct, that there are some
239 illegal drugs listed in the VTL.
If you test positively for any one
of those, you are in violation of law
currently. So it doesn't matter how much may
be in your system, you have broken a law by
simply using any of those drugs and should be
subject to whatever penalties you would incur.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Mr. President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, I will.
7958
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Senator, I agree with you that any
level of narcotic use while coupled with
driving a motor vehicle should be punished,
and I don't have a problem with that.
I'm concerned that somebody could
make a legal challenge to this law stating
that the legislative intent -- which is to
penalize not the drug use itself, but the drug
use in concert with operating a motor
vehicle -- would be unconstitutional on the
grounds that the drug use in and of itself
didn't impair the driving abilities of the
individual, and therefore it would be
unconstitutional to provide penalties for an
offense of driving presumably while the
individual's ability was impaired.
Does counsel inform you that this
legislation would survive such a legal
challenge?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: We believe
it would, Senator, because the language does
state "to any extent."
7959
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. I'm not
sure that that would do it. But regardless,
I'm satisfied that this is a good piece of
legislation. And if it has to be challenged
through the courts, let it do so. And if we
have to remedy it, we can do that too.
Thank you.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
Excuse me, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: With unanimous
7960
consent, I'd like to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 111, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Without objection, so ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
175, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 2513, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the definition of "drug."
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, an explanation has been
requested by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill amends the Vehicle and
Traffic Law by expanding the definition of
"drug" to include inhalants and certain glues.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield to
one question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, would you yield to a question?
7961
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In the
discussion on the prior bill between Senator
Marcellino and Senator Hevesi, there was a
discussion about whether the conduct affected
the ability to operate a vehicle. Is it your
intention that the same proof would be to be
provided with respect to the use of inhalants?
I mean, I don't think Senator
Hevesi or I want to see anybody inhaling
anything while driving an automobile. But the
question is, does this require that the
inhalant in effect impair someone's ability to
operate a motor vehicle? Is that required by
your statute?
SENATOR McGEE: Well, the present
law, the current law, the Vehicle and Traffic
Law, defines a drug as those listed in the
Public Health Law section, which includes
illegal and prescription drugs but not glues
and aerosol inhalants.
I think this bill merely defines
what inhalants are. The law already states
7962
the illegal and prescription drugs. This bill
now tells you it's glues and aerosol
inhalants. Glue sniffing and aerosol
inhalants or inhalation of any toxic vapor
affects one's ability to drive safely and
should be included as grounds for
drug-impaired driving.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield just
to one other question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Are the
phrases "solvent" and "toxic vapors and
fumes," are they defined elsewhere in the
Penal Law?
SENATOR McGEE: No, they're
already defined in the Public Health Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Just
on the bill briefly, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
7963
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill. I think this is a
good move by Senator McGee. I think this is
keeping track of what's going on out there in
the sense of people using artificial
stimulants and inhalants in operating motor
vehicles, creating a danger to people on the
streets.
I would just suggest, Senator
McGee, that one of the things you may have to
do at some point is include those Public
Health Law definitions into the Penal Law,
just for translation purposes, I think, to
meet constitutional or other requirements. If
we define very specifically the exact conduct
we're prohibiting under our Penal Law, I would
feel more comfortable that we include those
definitions within the Penal Law.
I'm going to vote in favor of it.
I hope that when the bill goes to a conference
committee or is eventually reviewed by both
houses that you'll simply take those
definitions and repeat them in the Penal Law
so we eliminate any potential confusion. But
I'm going to vote in favor.
7964
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Any
other Senator -- Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: I'm
sorry, I couldn't see you over there, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, would you yield to a question
from Senator Duane?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. What
happens now if a driver is found to be driving
under the influence of one of these inhalants
or glue?
SENATOR McGEE: They cannot be
charged with driving while impaired.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm sorry, Mr.
President, I missed the answer.
SENATOR McGEE: They cannot be
charged with driving while impaired.
7965
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, would you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Does the sponsor
know of cases where people have gotten off
with no penalty and no conviction of anything
that have been found to be using inhalants or
glue?
SENATOR McGEE: I understand that
the State Police indicate that about
10 percent of the driving while impaired are
usually caused by those who are inhaling
drugs -- inhaling, sniffing.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
7966
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: And what happens
to that 10 percent of the drivers when they go
to court? Have they all -- they all got off?
SENATOR McGEE: They cannot be
charged with driving while impaired when
they're impaired by drugs. So there is not,
at the present moment -- that is, not -- the
inhalants and aerosols are not listed under
the law.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: The question I'm
trying to ask, and so I'll just ask it this
way, is that all those cases the charges were
dismissed?
SENATOR McGEE: They weren't
charged with anything.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
7967
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, will you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: What's the
genesis for the bill? Were there cases that
the sponsor was aware of where the people were
charged? I mean, it's -
SENATOR McGEE: I think I just
answered it, Senator Duane, that currently
glue sniffing and aerosol inhalation or
inhalation of any toxic vapor do in fact
impair an individual's ability to drive.
Currently, unsafe drivers who have been
sniffing glues or aerosols cannot be charged
with driving while impaired by the drugs. I
think that answers your question. They cannot
be charged with it.
SENATOR DUANE: Wow. Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
7968
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: What would happen
in a case now if someone killed someone while
driving under the influence of an inhalant?
SENATOR McGEE: I would assume -
and I'm not an attorney, but I would assume
they would be charged with a negligent act of
some type. But I would suspect that they
would not be charged of driving while impaired
by the use of drugs, inhalants.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor knows if any other states have
7969
this statute or include these specific
substances in their laws.
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sorry, I
don't have that information at hand right now.
However, if you wait just a minute.
I don't have that information at
hand right now.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, will you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering
what the industry has had to say about this,
the ones that make the products that young
people and adults inhale, whether the sponsor
has reached out to them or heard anything from
them on how to make these products less
readily available, particularly to young
people.
7970
SENATOR McGEE: I do not have a
memo in opposition or support.
However, in answer to your previous
question, the general laws of Massachusetts
use toxic materials, inhalants. Arizona, the
state of Arizona has a law on it. The state
of Georgia has a law on any glue, aerosol, or
toxic vapor to the extent that it is less safe
for a person to drive. And it is my
understanding that, again, Arizona has any
drug or vapor releasing a substance containing
a toxic substance.
So in answer to your question,
there are several states outside there that do
have this law.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Now that that
information is there, I'm just curious, does
7971
the sponsor know are there also statistics on
the number of arrests that have happened in
those states that have this?
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sorry, I
don't have those, Senator.
I would suspect -- I would be more
than happy to provide the address if you want
to get those statistics.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Did the State
Police testify at the hearing on this bill?
SENATOR McGEE: Not to my
knowledge, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: And could the
sponsor tell me when the hearing was on the
bill?
SENATOR McGEE: I don't believe
there was a hearing, Senator Duane. Certainly
7972
you would have been invited had there been
one. But maybe not, because you're not a
member of the committee anymore, so that may
not be true.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. And though -- I do know I'm sorely
missed on that committee. My absence has been
noted.
But I am really shocked that you
can't charge someone that's driving under the
influence of glue or an inhalant with any -
with anything. I just -- I -- I don't believe
it. I mean, I -- I guess I shouldn't say I
don't believe it, but I don't believe it. I
can't believe that that's the case.
So I'm pretty torn about this bill.
Also because, you know, as usual, it's only
providing for penalties and no, you know,
recovery. I just think that we have to stop
only treating these driving under the
influence or driving while intoxicated bills
7973
as purely criminal justice issues and not as
health issues. Because we're not really going
to solve the problem of drunk driving or
driving under the influence or the problems of
alcoholism and drug addiction if we don't
spend as much time working on the treatment of
these diseases as much as the punishment for
them.
So just because I'm so skeptical
about the information that's been provided,
I'm going to vote no on this bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Any
other Senator wish to speak on this bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
7974
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President, could you call up Calendar Number
470, by Senator McGee, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 470.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
470, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 1167, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to providing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, an explanation has been
requested by Senator Duane of Calendar Number
470.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you,
Senator Maziarz. Good try.
The first section of this bill
would amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law by
adding that the operation of a motor vehicle
during a permanent license revocation for a
DWI, DWAI, driving under the influence of
drugs, or a chemical test refusal offense
7975
shall constitute aggravated operation of a
motor vehicle in the first degree, a Class E
felony.
Currently this violation is
aggravated operation of a motor vehicle in the
second degree, a misdemeanor. This increases
the penalty for operating the vehicle under
those circumstances.
The second section of this bill
would amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law by
adding a permanent license revocation
requirement for persons convicted of refusal
to submit to a chemical test or any DWI, DWAI,
or driving while impaired by drugs violation
and has within the past five years been twice
convicted of any DWI, DWAI, or driving while
impair by drugs or refusal to submit to a
chemical test or has within the last ten years
been three times convicted of a DWI, DWAI, or
driving while ability impaired by drugs or
refusal to submit to a chemical test.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Duane, you
have to be quicker.
7976
Senator Duane.
SENATOR McGEE: Good try.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President is
so quick today.
If the sponsor would yield, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, would you yield to a question
from Senator Duane?
SENATOR McGEE: I certainly will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I do have to acknowledge, though,
in advance that it's like a test to see how
quickly I can find my notes on these bills.
I'm like, you know, 178 to 470 -- I mean, how
many trees had to die on my desk already for
all this paper. And then I have to find my
questions.
Anyway, I appreciate your patience.
Your explanation was long enough that I was
able to find some of what I wanted to ask.
I know what the bill does in terms
of the mandatory revocation. But I'm
7977
wondering whether or not there's any
discretion on the part of the commissioner or
criteria that would include a mandate for
treatment in a situation like this.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you so much
for asking, Senator.
Currently a permanent license
revocation is only issued in cases with two
convictions of alcohol-or-drug-related crashes
involving personal injury or death. If a
person has multiple alcohol-or-drug-related
vehicle operation violations, there's no
provision for a permanent license revocation.
This bill is targeted toward the
repeat offender, to permanently remove them
from the streets. This bill would allow the
commissioner to establish rules for
conditional or restricted operation under
certain circumstances. The bill would
prohibit the commissioner from offering a
waiver or conditional operating privileges to
persons who will have had four alcohol-related
incidents in a five-year period or five
incidents within a ten-year period.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
7978
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you yield for another
question from Senator Duane?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Did I
understand this to mean that the commissioner
would be required to provide for a permanent
revocation under that circumstance?
SENATOR McGEE: The bill would
allow for the commissioner to establish rules
for conditional or restricted operation under
certain circumstances.
SENATOR DUANE: But then through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly, yes,
sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
7979
SENATOR DUANE: I misunderstood.
I thought that the sponsor said, though I
hadn't seen it, that the commissioner, after
four such incidents, would have to revoke the
license.
SENATOR McGEE: It prohibits the
commissioner from offering a waiver or
conditional operating privileges to a person
who has had four alcohol-related incidents in
a five-year period or five incidents in a
ten-year period. It does prohibit the
commissioner from doing that.
Prior to any of those offenses, the
commissioner has the -- it would allow him to
establish a conditional or restricted
operation under certain circumstances.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Have there been
cases where the commissioner has been too lax
7980
and has, you know, given back or provided a
waiver too leniently and that's what this bill
is here for?
SENATOR McGEE: I have no
documented information on that, Senator Duane.
That probably could exist. I'm not sure.
The purpose of this bill is
targeted to get the repeat offender off our
streets permanently.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Oh, sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: It occurs to
me -- and, you know, my memory is not great,
but is this similar to a bill that Senator
Fuschillo had on the floor last week? I'm
wondering what the differences are.
SENATOR McGEE: Gee, I really
don't know. I can't answer that question for
you. You might have to review your records to
7981
find out. I can't answer the question for
you.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm not disputing
that harsh penalties are needed. However, I
also think that some people are able to
achieve recovery. And while they may not be
cured of an alcohol and drug problem, they may
be able to, you know, to keep it -- what's the
word on groping for? Not under control.
Stronger that that -- in remission and not
actually be using drugs or alcohol after or
during a ten-year period.
And I'm wondering whether the
sponsor, since this would prohibit the
commissioner from giving a waiver, thinks
that -- or isn't it possible that someone
could be in recovery and have their disease in
7982
remission and not, for a lengthy, very lengthy
period of time, not use drugs and alcohol?
SENATOR McGEE: I am told that
currently the judge does have that option to
indicate that the individual needs to take
that type of counseling.
SENATOR DUANE: But through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee?
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: But even if the
judge thought that the person after treatment
could be eligible to drive again, this bill
basically ties the hands of the commissioner
so, no matter what, the person would not be
able to drive again, isn't that correct, after
four convictions?
SENATOR McGEE: As I have said
before, the bill allows the commissioner to
establish rules for conditional or restricted
operation under certain circumstances.
I would suspect, Senator Duane, if
7983
the individual continues to go out and commit
these repeat offenses, then the individual
should have his license permanently revoked.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, I'm sorry, I'm confused. Either
upon the fourth incident or fifth finding of
refusal and conviction within ten years, the
commissioner has absolutely no choice but to
permanently revoke the license; is that
correct?
SENATOR McGEE: That's exactly
what the bill says.
SENATOR DUANE: So that person,
then -- through you, Mr. President -- could
not ever get a license again?
SENATOR McGEE: That is what the
bill says. If the individual continuously
repeats these offenses, then that is what the
bill says, Senator. There is a permanent
revocation.
SENATOR DUANE: And then through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield?
7984
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Then the sponsor
does believe that someone that has had a
conviction within five years or a fifth
finding or refusal has no chance of recovery?
SENATOR McGEE: Senator, this is
my bill, the bill says -- and I believe in it,
yes.
SENATOR DUANE: All right.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Earlier the
sponsor said that a judge has the discretion
basically to do most of what this bill already
is putting into the law. Is that -- did I
understand her correctly?
7985
SENATOR McGEE: No, I don't -
I -- I'm not understanding what you're saying,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: To clarify, Mr.
President.
SENATOR McGEE: Could you clarify
it? I don't understand -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
SENATOR McGEE: I will, yes. I
don't understand what he's asking, but okay.
SENATOR DUANE: The sponsor said,
I believe, that -- and it was in the middle of
a paragraph that she was speaking -- but that
there was a section of the bill where I
believe she said that the judge already had
the power to mandate I guess it was treatment.
SENATOR McGEE: Oh, I'm sorry.
If I may, that this is the -- currently? Are
you talking about currently?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Excuse me, I'm
sorry. If I may interrupt Senator Duane.
7986
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, you are recognized.
SENATOR McGEE: I think I know
what he's talking about now. Currently a
permanent license revocation is only issued in
cases where two convictions of alcohol- and
drug-related crashes involving personal injury
or death, and that's in the Vehicle and
Traffic Law right now, if a person has
multiple alcohol- or drug-related vehicle
operation violations, there is no provision
for a permanent license revocation.
This bill is targeted to do that.
And then I say multiple, because if an
individual actually has one -- four
alcohol-related incidents in a five-year
period, or five incidents within a ten-year
period, I think that the permanent revocation
is qualified for.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
7987
SENATOR McGEE: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Even after a
license has been revoked in the State of
New York, cannot a person just go to
Massachusetts or New Jersey or Pennsylvania
and apply for a license?
SENATOR McGEE: I have no -- I
assume they can. I mean, I'm not a Senator
from Massachusetts, I'm a Senator from
New York State. I want to get the repeat
offender off the road. This is a bill that's
designed to do it. I have no idea what
happens in Massachusetts, I'm terribly sorry.
You could drop a note to the Bureau
of Motor Vehicles; they perhaps could tell
you.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Thank
you.
SENATOR McGEE: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President, on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
7988
SENATOR DUANE: I'm troubled by
this bill. I think that it's important to
leave discretion to the judges and, in this
case, the commissioner. I do hold out hope
that a person is able to go into recovery and
keep their alcoholism or drug abuse disease in
remission for lengthy periods. I believe in
recovery. I also believe in redemption.
And I also -- you know, I'm just -
and I've said this before, I just think that
we should stop already with these harsh
penalty bills without doing, on the other
hand, bills that deal with helping people to
go into recovery and staying in recovery.
I mean, all of these things,
whether, you know, it's driving while drunk or
deciding to go into recovery, are deeply, you
know, personally decided. However, I believe
that people can change and that people can get
their disease of alcoholism and drug addiction
into remission. And under those
circumstances, I think that a person can prove
that they can be a productive citizen and that
they should be entitled to get their license
back under some circumstances.
7989
So I'm going to vote in the
negative on this bill, holding out the hope
that at some point in the future, and
preferably the near future in this body, we
will also discuss various programs and
treatments which have allowed individuals to
get into and stay in recovery.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Thank
you.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I would have presented this
question to the sponsor, but it would have
been a little unfair to do that. I just want
to point out a potential inconsistency between
this bill and current law as I see it.
And I support this bill. I think
it's a good piece of legislation. Although I
do share some of the concerns of my colleague
7990
Senator Duane on a number of these issues.
But let me say the following here.
Whether or not you agree with whether we
should provide for a permanent revocation upon
a certain number of repeat offenses, whether
or not you agree with that, I think everyone
would agree that if that's the law, you have
permanent revocation, that for that penalty to
have any teeth, that that penalty of permanent
revocation, if somebody reoffends, shall
constitute a serious violation under law in
New York State.
And Senator McGee's bill, unlike
the rest of New York State law currently in
this area, does provide that if you have a
permanent revocation and you reoffend, that
that constitutes aggravated operation of a
motor vehicle, which is a felony.
The inconsistency that I want to
draw everybody's attention to here today is
that if you have not had a permanent
revocation under this section of the law and
your license has simply been suspended, you
can drive with that suspended license, I
believe it is -- and we've had this debate
7991
before -- up to 14 separate times before
you're eligible for felony-level offenses.
And that is a huge problem.
So while I commend Senator McGee
for providing teeth in this bill here today,
simply driving with an unlicensed operation
offense that is not the consequence of a
permanent revocation but a nonpermanent
revocation is still not adequately punished in
the State of New York. And that is an
inconsistency and a problem that we should
address as soon as possible.
Having said that, I'm going to
support Senator McGee's bill. Although I will
point out -- and Senator Duane pointed this
out too, and I have a problem with this.
We've dealt with a lot of different pieces of
legislation in the same subject area this
session -- we've done it last session too -
amending the same section of law and even the
exact sections of law. And I've forgotten,
frankly, what we've done in some other areas.
And I'm willing to bet that if we
went back and did an analysis of the bills
that have passed this year -- and every one in
7992
this area I've supported -- that we would see
some disjointedness in terms of the sections
that we've amended.
It's unclear to me what this does.
Are we making a progression based on the other
piece of legislation that we've passed? Are
we simply doing this piecemeal? Is it being
done because we stand a better chance of
passing some of these sections individually as
opposed to putting all of these into an
omnibus bill, which would be more easily
understandable and comprehensible, but which
might in fact jeopardize its chances of
passage in the Assembly? I'm unclear on that.
And so I'm not faulting the sponsor
or anybody else who's brought legislation of
that nature. I'm just expressing the concern
that I have because we're repeatedly
expressing something I think in different
ways, and it's not conducive to the best
public-policy-making to have a really
disjointed process.
For example, Senator Johnson today
brought a series of bills that all dealt with
the same issue, motorcycle safety and what
7993
have you. That's the way to do things. This
is difficult to ascertain the progress we're
making. And frankly, I don't know whether any
of the bills that we've passed this year have
passed already, or whether they even stand a
chance of passing. And that would be
information that's useful in trying to decide
whether or not a particular bill that comes
before us subsequent to that is a good idea.
Having all said all of that, having
said all of that, and with respect to Senator
Duane, who's repeatedly raised some important
issues, though there may be philosophical
differences on the extent to which we should
penalize individuals or take away their rights
upon a certain number of offenses, I could not
agree with Senator Duane more, and I've spoken
about this a number of times this year on the
floor, that the most important thing that we
can do, in addition, in addition to punitive
action taken against recidivists in this
particular area of the law is to provide a
mandatory treatment option, which we know is
not only the right thing to do but is
cost-effective.
7994
You know, Senator Duane is right on
the money about this. And until we start
getting serious about mandating, in almost
every instance when somebody commits some kind
of alcohol-related offense, that they have
mandatory treatment, then we're not going to
solve the problem to the extent that we can
since we simply know that so many of the
people who are reoffending are doing it -- and
by the way, this does not make any excuses for
them. And I for one -- and I diverge from
some of my colleagues here -- though I am
sympathetic to their ailment, don't believe
that that is an excuse for us to be more
lenient on them, because ultimately they're
responsible for their behavior and the
potential damages that they cause as a result
of that behavior.
But we have a responsibility as a
matter of public policy to provide those
individuals with the means to help them
themselves, which in response and in return
will help protect the lives of individuals in
society who may now be victimized because
somebody's got a drug or alcohol problem.
7995
So it's not being liberal or what
have you, it's being smart about government.
It's the right thing to do.
So I commend Senator McGee on this
legislation. I think we need to see passage
of some of the bills that we've had this year
by the Assembly to get the punitive and
deterring facet into the law.
But at the same time, if somebody
is reoffending time after time after time, the
fact that we've increased penalties may not do
the trick, and we need to go and make sure
that we've done absolutely everything we can
to get these individuals to no longer be
alcoholics, if that's possible, to no longer
be addicted to narcotics, if that's possible,
and to reinforce with them, both from the
physiological point of view, if they have an
addiction, and from a psychological or
mental-health point of view that their
behavior is jeopardizing people to the extent
that they're causing grievous harm. And maybe
if we can get through there, we can alter the
behavior.
So having said that, I support this
7996
legislation but look forward to a much more
comprehensive dialogue and potential solution
on this very important issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Any
other Senator wish to speak on this
legislation?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Marcellino, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I'm going to vote aye on this bill,
and I commend Senator McGee for bringing it
up. We've heard a lot about getting people
into treatment who are involved in a disease.
I agree, drug abuse, alcoholism, it's a
disease, it should be treated. We should get
as many people into treatment programs as is
possible. But we all know most of these
7997
treatment programs have a high failure rate,
an extremely high failure rate. And the
recidivism rate is even higher.
Darryl Strawberry, if there isn't a
better example -- mandated to a program, house
arrest, broke away, went away and went on a
drug binge again. He's now in a Phoenix
program. You know that program? No locked
doors, no locked windows, no bars. He can do
it again.
Now, I'm not suggesting we
shouldn't offer as much as possible help to
these people as we can. But when you put a
car in their hands where they can kill
somebody while they're getting their act
together, I think we've gone too far. We are
all victims of the choices we make in life.
And sometimes we make choices that are
dangerous and impair other people's ability to
their health and well-being and their pursuit
of happiness.
So when you do that, you have to
pay a price. The price in this case may be
the loss of a driver's license. And, frankly,
to get someone who is a repeat offender off
7998
the road and to protect my family and your
family, that's a small price for society to
pay.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Kuhl.
I'm sorry, Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I hope I didn't leave the wrong
impression. I don't think I did. But I don't
want anybody to think I don't believe that
people need to be given harsh penalties for
drunken driving or driving under the
influence. I absolutely think that that's the
case.
And I also think that a person who
tries to go into recovery doesn't necessarily
make it the first time. In fact, most people
don't make it the first time they try to
recover. Think of yourselves when you've
said, You know, I'm going to go on a diet for
New Year's and you fall off that diet a little
while later. It's really no different with
drugs and alcohol. People are not perfect.
7999
And sometimes it takes people many times, many
attempts to recover.
Do I think they should be driving
while they're relapsing? No, I don't think
they should be driving while they're
relapsing. And I think that they should be
held accountable for the decisions they make.
That's why we revoke licenses for periods of
time, often an extended period of time.
That's why we have judges monitoring these
cases and district attorneys monitoring these
cases.
But I think that we have to allow
some discretion about whether or not a person
has hope to ever get a license back again.
For every addict and alcoholic, I think that
everybody, people in the treatment field
across the board would say you have to
continue to provide some hope for people who
are addicted. Maybe they never get to take
advantage of that hope. But it's still
important to hold out that hope for people who
do have -- who are alcoholics or drug addicts.
And I actually that think we would
be -- I think this is food for a lengthier
8000
discussion, and I frankly think that a hearing
on New York State's drug and alcohol positions
would be very, very helpful, so that we could
sort this out and hear from the experts on
both sides. I think that you could both agree
with MADD and agree with people who are in the
addiction and alcohol treatment program.
But again, we don't hear about
that. And I think it's time that we talk
about that as well.
I'm going to vote no on this for
the reasons that I've indicated. Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Hevesi, to explain his vote.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
I feel obligated to make another
statement about this, since I heard Senator
Marcellino's comments. And they came in the
wake of my comments, and I don't want anybody
to have the impression that I was presenting a
8001
mutually exclusive option, that either you do
more punitive requirements if somebody has
reoffended or you do a treatment option.
That's absolutely not what I was saying.
And I agree with Senator
Marcellino. If you reoffend, you should be
hit with severe, severe penalties. But the
point -- and I don't want it to get lost
here -- is that at the exact same time, if you
don't provide a treatment option -- and you
can do it when somebody is incarcerated. In
fact, that's a really good time to do it.
We have the statistics, and I've
read them into the record before. I don't
have the numbers here today. But there is a
dramatic, dramatic difference in the
percentage of people who reoffend having gone
through an alcohol treatment program and the
people who reoffend having not gone through
it. Obviously, the people and the numbers
sustain this. I mean, it's a huge difference.
If you don't go through an alcohol treatment
program, your recidivism percentage is
dramatically, dramatically higher than those
who go through an alcohol treatment program.
8002
And by the way, those who go
through the alcohol treatment program do still
reoffend at a fairly high rate. I believe it
was somewhere in the 20 percent level. But
those who don't, it shoots up to something in
the order of 60 or 70 percent. And that is
the most fundamental and basic and strong
argument why you need the mandatory treatment
option.
But, Senator Marcellino, I, like
you, agree that if somebody reoffends, they've
got to take the consequences of their actions.
And I agree with additional penalties. But
let's do them both together. They're not
mutually exclusive. Let's do them together.
They'll have the biggest impact on stopping
people from compromising the lives of
New Yorkers on the roads.
I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
8003
bill is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President,
would you recognize Senator Montgomery.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Mr. President. I would like to have the
record show that had I been in the chamber, I
would have voted no on Calendar 570.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
record will so reflect.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you
recognize Senator DeFrancisco.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I request
unanimous consent to vote in the negative on
Calendar 171, Senate Print 96.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Now would you call
up Calendar Number 738 by Senator DeFrancisco,
8004
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
738, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 431,
an act to amend the Navigation Law, in
relation to the operation of a vessel.
SENATOR BROWN: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
Oh, I'm sorry, someone called for
an explanation? Oh, Senator Brown.
Senator DeFrancisco, an explanation
has been requested by Senator Brown.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes,
presently the law is, as far as sentencing in
various offenses that boaters are charged with
and convicted of, it's basically a three-month
suspension.
What happens is since boating is
seasonal, at least in Central New York it's
seasonal -- we don't do too much boating in
the winter -- if you get a ticket in August
and you're convicted, it's adjourned, you're
convicted maybe in September, October, you're
8005
not doing too much boating then, you get a
three-month suspension over the winter months,
it's not really a punishment at all. Because
you're not being deprived of using your boat.
So this gives flexibility. Rather
than saying the suspension would be three
months, it says at least three months but not
less than twelve months for being convicted of
various offenses, so that a judge can fashion
the sentence so that it's truly a penalty and
it can be fashioned so that it could be a
penalty during the summer months and you're
actually being deprived of a benefit, the use
of your boat, when you're convicted of
something during your boating season.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The explanation was satisfactory,
but I still do have one question if the
sponsor would yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
SENATOR BROWN: Currently, are
there any penalties for boating while -
8006
pardon me. When boating while intoxicated,
are there any mandated treatment options that
are offered in any of the legislation that we
have?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well,
presently, operating under the influence of
alcohol, your privileges can be suspended for
six months, your registration may be suspended
for six months, and there's a fine and also
you must take a driver boating safety course.
I know some jurisdictions also, as
a requirement for a reduction in a charge,
oftentimes require treatment or proof that you
don't have a problem with alcohol. That's
something that the DA normally requires.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
8007
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
would you now call up Calendar Number 472, by
Senator Nozzolio.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
472, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 2668,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to the application.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Nozzolio, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson, I believe, or Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Senator
8008
Dollinger, my colleagues, the purpose of this
measure is to mandate that all drivers
involved in serious or fatal accidents submit
to blood alcohol tests when there's a
reasonable cause to believe that an alcohol
offense has been committed.
Currently, police officers have the
discretion to -- and district attorneys as
well -- to authorize and to seek court orders
to compel submission to chemical tests in
fatal or serious accidents where there's
reasonable cause.
We believe that we should take away
that discretion and give them the mandate that
this test be so required.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I just have
one question for Senator Nozzolio.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Nozzolio, will you yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
8009
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, as
serious as the subject is, since the view of
the police is discretionary as it stands right
now, suspicion of and in itself is a
discretionary reaction. So I'm just a little
curious as to why we have to codify a
presumption that already exists in the law as
it stands.
And I just wanted you to answer for
me why I should see it your way and not as
just described.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
Madam President. I'd be glad to try to
address Senator Paterson's question.
The issue is certainly one where
there is serious accident or injury, we have
an interest in promoting the public safety by
obtaining blood-alcohol-related evidence. We
believe that this is a public need that
clearly overrides the driver's privilege of
refusing the test.
The circumstance will be where a
death or serious accident took place. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
has recommended mandatory BACA testing for all
8010
drivers involved in serious or fatal
accidents.
And beyond the statistics and
beyond the arguments for public safety, I
stood in front of a mother who lost her son,
and that mother was full of tears, as one
would expect. Her son was killed, she
believes, by a drunk driver. However, the
appropriate alcohol testing was never
accomplished.
What we're saying is that this
requirement will place our accident victims at
least -- in a situation where the police
officer cannot reasonably make a request,
there certainly would be an exemption if that
was the case. But when there's reasonable
cause, we believe that that public interest
would be served by requiring the collection of
evidence, evidence that can only be obtained
by appropriate testing measures, and that
those appropriate testing measures are timely.
So that's why we believe that
requirement be established.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
8011
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: To speak on the
bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On the
bill. Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
It's not going to surprise anyone,
I don't think, but I just -- I don't favor
these types of bills which force the police to
do blood tests. I think that, you know,
they're essentially saying that we don't think
the police do their jobs.
And I'm trying to put myself in the
place of a police officer, and I think I would
be disturbed by this, because it implies that
police officers don't do their jobs and that
they wouldn't be asking for blood tests, when
the fact is I think they do.
And rather than have it be a matter
of legislation -- or I don't even think this
bill is going to pass both houses. But it
should be training for police officers. And
if they're not being trained appropriately,
then we should fix that.
You know, I'd be interested to hear
8012
what the police officers and the DAs and the
state troopers have to say about this bill.
So before we pass any more of these
bills which in some way question police
officers' ability or desire or that they
actually are doing their jobs, I think we
should hear from them and see whether or not
they think that this kind of law is necessary
to tell them to do their jobs. Because I
think they'll say, We're already doing our
jobs.
So I'm going to vote against this
bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 472 are
8013
Senators Connor, Duane, and Paterson. Also
Senator Montgomery. Ayes, 56. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. I would note that we have been
jumping around, and very soon we'll be
starting in regular order on the calendar.
And there are a number of members who have
bills on this calendar who are not in the
chamber.
So we are asking them to come to
the chamber to be able to present and debate
their bills.
And with that, would you call up
Calendar Number 575, by a member who is in the
chamber, Senator Bonacic.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
SENATOR BROWN: Explanation.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
575, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5116, an
act to amend the Public Housing Law, in
relation to the sale.
8014
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Brown and Senator Duane. Thank you.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is legislation to amend the
Public Housing Law with relation to the sale
or lease of a housing project. It would allow
the Commissioner of the Division of Housing
and Community Renewal to approve the sale or
lease of a municipal housing authority to a
private entity if a feasible plan is submitted
which provides for the rehabilitation of the
project, does not permanently displace the
current tenants that are there, and provides a
priority in tenant selection to persons
currently residing in public housing.
Presently the State of New York
allocates about $110 million to $120 million
on capital improvements for housing. The
truth of the matter is we could spend a
hundred times that amount, and we don't have
sufficient available resources to upgrade
capital improvements for the housing units in
8015
the State of New York.
So what we want to do is to allow
the commissioner to enter into public/private
partnerships where they can do business with a
private entity, they come in with new money,
and they upgrade the facilities. They have to
sign an agreement that they don't disrupt
those tenants that are in there.
And most of the units are for
people that are 50 percent of the median
income of that community, people that are
poor, struggling to find affordable housing.
And the state continues to pay the
general obligations bonds, which is our
obligation anyway. And that's what we're
doing now to try to upgrade our housing units
in the State of New York.
It's worked very well, by the way,
where we have private developers come in. The
problem is we can't find enough private
developers to come in that have the capital,
pay off the bonds, and then spend the money to
upgrade.
So we say okay, we have the
obligation anyway to pay the bonds, you come
8016
in and upgrade and raise the dignity of
housing for those tenants that live there.
That's the purpose of the
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic, will you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I think the sponsor mentioned it,
but could he just describe again how
"low-income" is currently defined in the
state?
SENATOR BONACIC: Senator, how -
SENATOR DUANE: How "low-income"
is defined.
SENATOR BONACIC: I'm sorry, I
still didn't -
SENATOR DUANE: "Low-income."
8017
SENATOR BONACIC: How
"low-income" is -
SENATOR DUANE: Defined.
SENATOR BONACIC: Defined, okay.
It's not -- there is no set
definition for what "low-income" is. We have
different housing programs in the State of
New York. Some we try to gear for 40 percent
of the people of the median income of that
particular -- like, say, New York City. Some,
it's 60 percent. But they're all people that
are below the median income of a family of
four, or one, depending on specific housing
projects. Okay?
I know it's -- the answer is not
black and white because the formulas change
depending on the housing projects.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Through you, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
8018
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: I understand that
what happens is that as long as a developer
can show that the financing, that the federal
financing is going to be able to -- in
addition to what the private developer's
putting in, as long as they're able to show
that housing will be decent and affordable, et
cetera, that this could go forward.
What I'm concerned about is at the
time that federal funding might run out, what
guarantees that the housing would remain
affordable?
SENATOR BONACIC: Well, you're
asking a public policy question.
I believe that the trends are to
the contrary. I know that in the State of
New York, we in our budget resolution in our
Senate, we put in $10 million more than what
the Governor did for affordable housing. The
Assembly is asking for $50 million more.
Mayor Giuliani always has committed
$300 million for affordable housing on city
projects. This year he's proposing
8019
$600 million.
I think we are beginning to realize
that affordable housing is not only the decent
and right thing to do, but it creates jobs,
it's a tool for economic vitality. And so I
don't see that trend ever happening where
government would turn its back at the federal
level of not increasing or maintaining those
federal tax credits and federal dollars for
housing.
What we've done, so you know, the
HUD program has been transferred to the State
of New York, with $60 million that Andrew
Cuomo used to control. Now it's being run
through Governor Pataki and the
administration.
So we're closer to the problems of
the people of the State of New York, and it's
working well. We are creating thousands and
thousands of new, affordable housing units
each year in the State of New York. We're
going in the right direction.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
SENATOR BONACIC: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
8020
briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I've been
enlightened by what Senator Bonacic has said.
However, the experience that I'm
having in my district is that buildings which
have been funded through Section 8 programs
and which are sponsored by private
developers -- and maybe this is running
against what's happening elsewhere, but some
of them are opting to buy their buildings and
make them go market rate.
And so without a further analysis
of what the impact would be both in New York
City and statewide -- and I'm not in any way
discounting what Senator Bonacic says, it's
just that my experience has been a little bit
different. And I feel that I need to err on
the side of caution here and vote no because
of the experience I'm seeing in and around my
district.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
8021
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call
up -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed, I'm sorry.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Calendar Number 577, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
577, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5123, an
act to amend Chapter 514 of the Laws of 1983.
SENATOR BONACIC: Last section.
8022
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Calendar Number 883, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
883, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 4917A,
an act in relation to authorizing and
directing.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Read the last
section.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Local
fiscal impact note at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
8023
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Calendar Number 771, by Senator Marcellino,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
771, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 3911,
an act to authorize the Mesorah Foundation of
Long Island, Incorporated.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested
by Senator Smith.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
Perhaps I should have changed my name to
Bonacic.
(Laughter.)
8024
SENATOR MARCELLINO: The Mesorah
Foundation purchased some parcels of property
in 1999. The foundation is a tax-exempt
group. They were informed by the assessor of
the Town of Huntington that they were owed a
rebate in taxes that they had already paid to
the original owner at the time of closing.
So they're just simply here and
this legislation would entitle them to seek
that money that they are owed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
The explanation is satisfactory,
Senator Marcellino. I just wanted to -- I'll
continue to vote against these bills. Senator
Marcellino and my colleagues from Nassau
County are probably sick of hearing my
continual repetition of the need for a
countywide bill in Nassau County and, frankly,
a statewide bill.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Senator, if
I might interrupt, this is not Nassau County.
This is a Suffolk County situation. And in
8025
Suffolk County, they do not have a countywide
assessment system, they use a townwide system.
Town by town, each has their own individual
assessor. And this isn't seeking to
relieve -- they paid this bill. They're
getting money back that's owed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Wouldn't you
know, on the luck of the draw I raise the
issue with the Senator who represents both
Suffolk and Nassau County.
Madam President, I'm still going to
vote against this bill. I appreciate the -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- advocacy
of Senator Marcellino. But I still think that
granting a partial property tax exemption
ought to be something available to assessors
statewide.
There are many ways we can deal
with this. I know Senator Hannon carries a
8026
bill that will solve the problem. That's the
bill that we ought to do. I'm going to
continue to push for that bill.
I appreciate all my colleagues from
Nassau and Suffolk who seem to have a
profusion of these problems. But from my
point of view, the way to solve this is with a
statewide bill. Let the individual assessor
deal with it. Keep it out of the State
Legislature.
It's wonderful that my colleagues
bring these bills forward and get chapters for
them. But the best way to do is to pass a
chapter that leaves to the assessors the
reconciliation of these issues.
With that, Madam President, I'll
vote in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
8027
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Senator Balboni's bill, Calendar Number 568,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
568, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 857, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
eliminating.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BALBONI: You're kidding.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: No, I'm
serious.
SENATOR BROWN: At least you have
counsel here.
8028
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I have
Senate counsel next to me. He's going to help
me debate this bill.
I have tried to find an exciting
way to describe the provisions of this bill,
and I have failed miserably. This bill is
arguably one of the most boring bills that
we've done today. That says a lot.
This would update viatical
settlement document requirements in the
Insurance Law. It would take away a $50 fee
for sitting for an insurance examination,
because it's done by a vendor, and then it
would clarify that you need to do continuing
education in order to be relicensed. And,
lastly, it would establish the requirements
for an affidavit and a fee for replacement of
documents lost.
That is what the bill does. It has
passed this house three times with no "no"
votes.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Balboni.
Any Senator wishing to speak on the
8029
bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. Would you call up Senator
Fuschillo's bill, Calendar Number 510.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
510, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 3901,
an act authorizing the assessor of the County
of Nassau.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
8030
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you very much.
Senator Fuschillo, an explanation
has been requested.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This legislation would authorize
the assessor of the County of Nassau to accept
an application from exempting a piece of real
property located in Merrick, Yeshiva Torah
Mitzion, for their purchase. They bought the
property after the filing date. The fiscal
impact to the municipality would be
approximately $1,000.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Fuschillo.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, I
8031
assume that this is another Nassau County bill
that doesn't invoke the Suffolk County issue
that Senator Marcellino talked about.
But I don't dispute their
entitlement to a tax exemption. I'd just
point out one of the interesting things about
these bills, and they all say it, is that the
assessor, upon approval by the Nassau County
legislature, may accept the permit and grant
the permit.
The county legislature is already
involved. They are already in a position of
governing the assessor. It's so easy and so
convenient for them to just grant the ability
unilaterally, without our intervention. And
it seems to me that that's consistent with the
concept of home rule. They're doing it
anyway. They get our authority, and then they
have to pass a resolution that approves it
again.
So we approve the bill to give them
the authority to give the assessor the
authority. There's an extra step in that
process, Madam President, that just isn't
needed. And in the spirit of streamlining the
8032
concept of government and achieving true home
rule in Nassau and in Suffolk, I go back to
it -- bring the Hannon bill forward. I'll
vote in favor of that. I'll vote in favor of
that as often as I can, Madam President.
Until we get that, I'm going to
vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Senator Trunzo's bill, Calendar Number 826,
8033
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
826, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4667, an
act to amend Chapter 672 of the Laws of 1993.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I can't remember whether it was
Senator Marcellino or Senator Farley that we
did the bill to extend Dormitory Authority
bonding authority for one of the libraries I
believe in their district, and we had a
discussion about why shouldn't every library
8034
in their state get the benefit of Dormitory
bonding.
And, Senator Trunzo, I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill because I think
that's something we should not only do for the
Patchogue-Medford Library but, frankly, we
ought to do it for every library. We ought to
give the libraries the benefit of Dormitory
financing.
I mean, we've started to do it on
an individual basis through individual bills.
But could there be any better investment of
low-cost state financing through the Dormitory
Authority than to build and improve libraries?
Senator Trunzo, I think it's the
right idea for your community, I think it's
the right idea for Senator Farley's community,
it's the right idea for Senator Paterson's
community. Let's pass a statewide bill that
allows the Dormitory Authority to bond these
expenses for libraries.
I'm reminded of the great library
at Alexandria which was lost through a fire
back before the time of Christ. It's amazing
how much we lose if we don't use our
8035
libraries. We ought to have bonding for them
to make them accessible to everyone.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President, now would you call up Calendar
Number 818, by Senator Morahan, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
818, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 361, an
act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law, in relation to corporations.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: An
explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson, Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President. This bill would amend the
Not-for-Profit Corporation Law in relation to
corporations for the Prevention of Cruelty to
8036
Animals. And it would authorize the Warwick
Valley Humane Society to act as a second
Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals in Orange County.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: A brief
question, Madam President, if Senator Morahan
would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Morahan, will you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, ma'am.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Morahan, they already have such a society in
Orange County. Why do they need two?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Orange County
is a unique county in that it is burgeoning in
population, which is bringing more and more
pets into the area, small domestic animals,
and yet we only have one ASPCA. And on the
other hand, it's a geographically large county
which now requires people to travel at great
lengths to get to the Humane Society.
8037
This would strategically locate
another one within the county, on the other
side of the county, that would be a little bit
more convenient.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the bill?
Home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. Would you now call up Senator
Skelos's bill, Calendar Number 362, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
8038
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
362, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 123, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
This bill seeks to target a growing
crime whereby individuals stage motor vehicle
accidents so they can file no-fault lawsuits
for alleged injuries and bill for repeated
services provided at some medical mills. This
bill would make it a crime to act as a runner
or to solicit or employ a runner to procure
clients. It would make it a Class E felony.
It's very similar to legislation
that was enacted in New Jersey, which has been
proven to be successful in punishing these
fraudulent acts. In meeting with various
district attorneys, in particular in the
New York City area, they have indicated that
this legislation is necessary to prosecute
8039
these individuals and hopefully bring down the
no-fault rates in counties such as Queens and
Brooklyn.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak -
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Skelos would
yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, will you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Do you have an
idea, Senator, as to the value of the fraud,
how much we're losing, or even what the
prediction would be in terms of what the rate
adjustment would be if this bill passes?
SENATOR SKELOS: All I know is
that meeting with people in industry, meeting
with people in the -- for example, the
district attorney's office in Brooklyn, they
feel that this would have a substantial impact
8040
in bringing down no-fault rates, in particular
in the city.
And I want to point out that these
types of scams are now coming out to Long
Island, working their way up the Thruway to
our cities in upstate New York -- Albany,
Buffalo, Rochester.
So the bottom line is we're looking
to stabilize no-fault rates, and I think this
is part of the package that could help
accomplish this. And if I'm correct, it
passed the Senate unanimously hast year.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: One question,
if the Senator would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: One more
question, Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: It's a little
unrelated, but are you addressing the issue of
the doctors? Because that's part of it. You
8041
know, the issue of the doctors colluding, you
know, with the attorneys and these runners to
create these claims.
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, they're
part of a scheme to create this type of crime
and to create an accident and then steer the
individuals -- or many times the individuals
are part of the scheme -- to either the lawyer
or the medical mill, which then starts
outrageous billing practices and costs
no-fault an awful lot.
Again, this is not aimed at
99.9 percent of the legitimate doctors or
medical professionals. It's aimed at that
small percentage which are definitely
impacting on no-fault rates.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
8042
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Farley, to explain his vote.
SENATOR FARLEY: Just to explain
my vote for a second.
I just want to say this is a
terrific bill. If there's a crisis facing
New York State, it is the no-fault insurance
rates, particularly for young people in the
metropolitan areas. It is outrageous. And
these runners, quote, are the ones that are
stealing from the insurance consumers.
It's something that needs to be
addressed. It is just not a problem for
New York State, it's around the nation. And
it's a terrible, terrible problem. This is a
great piece of legislation that really should
be signed into law, because it's causing a
tremendous problem, particularly for
youngsters that are trying to buy car
insurance.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Farley, in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
8043
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
could you call up Senator Stafford's bill,
Calendar Number 295, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
295, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 1053,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
8044
Calendar Number 353, by Senator Stafford,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
353, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 2368,
an act to amend Chapter 138 of the Laws of
1984.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home rule message at the desk. Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Now would you call
up Calendar Number 306, by Senator LaValle.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
8045
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
306, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2352, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the unlawful sale of dissertations.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, I just want to comment very briefly
on this bill. I have no questions for -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, I'm sorry.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Oh, may I have
an explanation from Senator LaValle. I'm
sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson had asked for an explanation. I'm
sincerely sorry.
Senator Paterson has asked for an
explanation, Senator LaValle.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl.
8046
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, may I just
interrupt before we start this.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Certainly.
SENATOR KUHL: This is just to
inform the members, because I note that there
are a number of members who have committee
meetings and other committee meetings with
people outside the chamber that we're now back
on regular order. And after Senator LaValle's
bill, we'll be taking up a bill by Senator
Stafford and then, continuing along, Senator
Volker, Senator Leibell, Senator Saland,
Senator Lack, and Senator Seward.
So if those members could arrange
to be in the chamber for an organized debate,
we will be proceeding in that order.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you yield for an explanation,
please?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
8047
SENATOR LAVALLE: Under the
current law, it is illegal to sell written
material that is intended or could be used as
a dissertation or other school, college
assignment. What we are doing here is to make
a change to ensure that the electronic media,
the Internet, is also covered by this law.
And it's a law that I know Senator
Stavisky -- it's important to her. But I'm
not going to steal her thunder, I will allow
her to explain why she wants to speak on this
bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator LaValle.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield to a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you yield for some questions?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Madam President, how has enforcement been on
8048
the legislation as it exists now been?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I'm
sorry, I couldn't -
SENATOR BRESLIN: We have a piece
of legislation, but we have a statute -
SENATOR LAVALLE: We have a
statute now.
SENATOR BRESLIN: -- and the
Internet will be added on to it. How has
enforcement been under the existing
legislation?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I can't tell
you, Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Can you tell
us, just reading the bill, how you would prove
the intent of someone? Again through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: How would
someone prove intent to violate the statute?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Well, Senator,
8049
I think it becomes very clear that -
particularly on the Internet, we know -- and
the reason why this bill is before us, is that
we have people openly selling services,
selling dissertations and other material that
would be used as a term paper or other
material.
So we want to make sure that -- and
I believe the marketplace for written
material, and the advertisements in that form,
have been, as far as I know, in check. Now we
want to make sure that we are following the
21st century by ensuring that electronic
advertising and use and transferring of this
material will also be illegal.
SENATOR BRESLIN: One final
question, Madam President, through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you yield for one final
question?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: How will it be
enforced on the Internet? How will New York
8050
State, with this statute, enforce it on the
Internet?
Will there be particular devices
set up beyond the passage of the statute to
ferret out violators of the statute who
attempt to sell materials, educational
materials and papers on the Internet? Will
there be anything specific done?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Would there be
anything specifically done?
SENATOR BRESLIN: Right, other
than -- would there be anything specific done?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Well, you know,
Senator, both with written form, the same
things, whether it's enforcement through the
Attorney General, that we're ensuring that -
or where it's brought to the attention of a
local district attorney, that they now have
the ability to move forward.
And I believe once this becomes
law, I believe people will be or should be
skittish about flying in the face of the
statute that we put into place.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Very good.
Thank you, Senator.
8051
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, Madam
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Approximately
twenty years ago, if you took a look at any of
the college newspapers or the bulletin boards
on college campuses, there was a proliferation
of ads for term papers. And as a result of
people not only submitting work done by
someone else for their course credits, they
were also used, unfortunately, for masters'
and even Ph.D. dissertations. It was an
outrageous situation.
And a corollary of that problem was
the proliferation of the so-called mail order
diploma mills. Unfortunately, they still
exist. But we have, for the most part,
eliminated these ads from the college
newspapers.
In 1981, my husband was the
chairman of the Education Committee in the
8052
Assembly and wrote the original language, and
he wrote it himself. And he was not an
attorney, but he wrote it himself -- and I
know, because I was there -- he wrote the
current statute.
And I commend Senator LaValle for
bringing it into the 21st century to include
those papers that could or would be served
over the Internet.
I think, in response to Senator
Breslin's question, the enforcement is in a
sense in the statute itself, because you no
longer see college newspapers filled with ads
for someone to write a term paper or to write
a thesis or to write a dissertation.
And in fact, twenty years ago to
dramatize the need for this type of
legislation and to show the idiocy of the
situation, he enrolled a resident of
Schenectady County, if I'm not mistaken, for a
Ph.D. in one of the mail-order factories. The
problem was that this was a four-legged
creature. But we did enroll a dog, and the
dog was about to be matriculated for a Ph.D.
This is outrageous. And
8053
unfortunately, it continues in the form of the
Internet. And I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, I would
like to echo many of the comments of Senator
Stavisky -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lachman, on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- on the bill,
and I want to commend Senator LaValle for this
legislation.
Unfortunately, as my colleagues
have mentioned, this is still a major problem,
with or without the Internet, as I learned
from my wife who is still a full-time academic
and who pays my salary as long as the state
does not.
It is a very serious problem, an
ongoing problem, and anything we can do that
can alleviate it should be done. And this is
one area in which it can be alleviated. And I
want to commend Senator LaValle for this
legislation, and I strongly urge the entire
8054
chamber to support it.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. Would you call up Calendar Number
911, by Senator LaValle, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
911, by Member of the Assembly Englebright,
Assembly Print Number 7435A, an act to amend
the Tax Law, in relation to clarifying.
SENATOR BROWN: Explanation.
8055
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
In 1987, the State Legislature
adopted legislation which permitted the County
of Suffolk to establish a Drinking Water
Protection Program that included the
acquisition of watershed lands, to be financed
by a an additional quarter-percent sales tax.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: May we
have some quiet in the chamber, please.
SENATOR LAVALLE: The County of
Suffolk adopted the program, and it was
approved by a countywide referendum, with
84 percent of the vote in the affirmative.
There have been certain questions
on the protection of open space and farmland
protection and incurring additional
indebtedness. We have worked with the County
of Suffolk and with bond counsel to bring
before this body the proposed legislation and
language for your approval so that we can
continue to protect valuable lands that are
being threatened by development.
8056
I think many of the members know
that we have a memorandum in support of this
by the League of Conservation Voters.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
sponsor would yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Every time
the local SCDWPP has -- every time the law has
been changed, it's done by referendum. Was
there a referendum this time?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, yes,
there was, this last November.
And the reason this legislation is
before us is because there was great confusion
in the County of Suffolk in what the people
believed was an affirmative vote to continue
this, later finding out, when it got before
the county legislature, that their counsel had
a different reading. This was after the fact,
8057
after the vote.
So in other words, even before -
and I know you are incredulous over this -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: It's
amazing.
SENATOR LAVALLE: -- that the
county legislature had to take an affirmative
action to get it on the ballot. And everyone
was of the belief of what they -- how they
were casting their votes, including this
Senator, only to find out that we had all
voted the wrong way, according to local
counsel.
So much debate has gone on both at
the county legislative level and with the
county executive, who said that Suffolk County
has been a leader in this state and we believe
in the nation in protecting our open space
lands. And we just cannot have a program that
would take a step back, a step that would have
pay-as-you-go. We could not continue to
protect the lands that we need to protect,
given the development threat at this juncture.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
8058
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I have
another question, but I do want to applaud
what Suffolk has been doing, because they are
under enormous pressure of development.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, do you wish the Senator to
continue to yield?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Here's my
next question. Yes, if the Senator would
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you. The Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This is a
question less environmentally oriented. But
is providing Suffolk County the authority to
charge more in sales tax, in order for them to
possibly reduce property taxes, is this a
matter of state concern? And is that
understood by the residents, that this may be
a way of reducing the property tax burden by
the sales tax?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, a
8059
number of years ago, on this floor, myself and
Senator Lack debated the quarter-percent sales
tax for the Drinking Water Protection Program.
We had indicated on this floor before this
body that there was a provision in that law
that allowed for some monies to be used for
real property tax reduction. In other words,
to go into the general fund, not to be used
for the specific purpose of land protection,
drinking water protection.
Our county executive, who is
currently the county executive for the last
eight years -- ten years, excuse me -- last
ten years, has never used that particular
trigger. And he has moved forward very
aggressively to protect as much as land as we
possibly could. There was some confusion as
to whether we could use quarter-percent sales
tax money for bringing water protection,
whether we could broaden that to use it for
open space and farmland protection.
And that's where we got caught up
on this debate of no, you can't use bonded
indebtedness to purchase these lands, but you
have to put money into a fund and pay as you
8060
go.
And the reason we are here before
this body is to say that is madness, we cannot
do that, because the -- it would be -- the
clock would run out and there would be
development.
Now, Senator, what you should know
is before, just to show you -- and I think
every member in this room that has a county
legislature knows the ebb and flow that takes
place within county legislatures. After
putting people through a vote and then saying
no, the way the ballot was worded and so
forth -- which was their words -- was
incorrect, they now, by a vote of 16 to 2 -
we have 18 members on our county
legislature -- said they wanted Senator
LaValle and Assemblyman Englebright to come
before our respective houses to ensure,
notwithstanding any charter provisions or any
other provisions, that we need to move forward
and be able to, in the same manner as we use
the quarter-percent drinking water protection
program, to protect other sensitive lands.
And it has of course, without any
8061
mistake, the imprimatur of our County
Executive Gaffney, so we literally have both
the executive and the vast majority of county
legislators in full support of this measure.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, do you continue to -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yeah, I
think I have one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, Senator Oppenheimer has one more
question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Does this
bill expressly provide for property and sewer
tax protections in it?
SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: It doesn't?
SENATOR LAVALLE: It does not.
Does not.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: All right,
let me -- thank you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
8062
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Just a few
words on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Obviously
there was a certain amount of confusion in
Suffolk, and I think this bill will straighten
it out. I think it's something that we should
emulate in more than just Suffolk County.
But Suffolk County in particular
has sort of peculiar, specific needs.
Certainly your single aquifer for water is a
specific need. The kind of development you
are experiencing, or potential development, is
highly specific there, though it is also in
other suburban counties. And we have to do
what we can to protect the open space that
remains. And this is one venue, one avenue.
And it's a fine bill, and I hope it
will correct the confusion that existed in
Suffolk County.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
8063
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
to a question or two.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, thank you,
Madam President, through you.
Senator, I'm just a little confused
now because it was my impression that this
bill did provide, with any surplus funds left
over from the collection of the
quarter-percent sales tax, for the provision,
which you indicate has not been used ever
before, for property tax reduction. Am I on
score with that?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I had
answered that question. Senator Oppenheimer
asked me that question. And I said in the
original law there were provisions in there to
do that. County Executive Gaffney has not
used those -- used that, but has used it for
the sole purpose of protecting the aquifer or
the drinking water.
8064
SENATOR GENTILE: Correct. If
the Senator would continue to yield, Madam
President.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: But then what I
also hear you saying is that this legislation
doesn't change the original construction of
the law -
SENATOR LAVALLE: No, it doesn't.
SENATOR GENTILE: -- that allows
the property tax reduction.
SENATOR LAVALLE: No. In my
answer to Senator Oppenheimer, I was clear
about that.
If you look at the section that
we're adding here, subdivision (d) of Section
1210 of the Tax Law is amended. And we're
adding all of that language to ensure -- and
that was done, Senator, once again, with bond
counsel and counsel from the County of
Suffolk, to construct those words.
You will note also on this bill
it's an A version. So that we literally
8065
ensured that all of the parties were satisfied
and bond counsel was satisfied that we would
not need an additional referendum, which there
was some concern, and so that is the language
that we have -
And, Senator, you know, as an
attorney, to get an opinion from bond counsel
many times is like pulling teeth. We have
that from bond counsel, giving their stamp of
approval on the very language that they helped
construct.
But just to go back again, is that
the existing law that created this in 1987
that has the one provision that you're
interested in that Senator Oppenheimer asked
about, we are not changing that,
unfortunately.
And I must tell you, Senator, that
when that came before us, Senator Lack and I
debated that, and I voted in the negative on
that bill because of that provision. I went
before the county legislature, my own county
legislature, and explained my vote and my
concerns. Because 84 percent of the people
that voted for the Drinking Water Protection
8066
Program voted for it with the understanding
that every dollar was going to be used to
protect our aquifer, to protect our drinking
water.
We have not changed that. But our
county executive, on his watch, has kept faith
with the people.
SENATOR GENTILE: That certainly
sounds like a good policy from your current
county executive.
If the Senator would continue to
yield, I do have another question, though.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Madam President. I would assume, then,
Senator, though, what we are saying, though,
as a matter of public policy -- and that's
what we're talking about, not so much the
current county executive -- but as a matter of
public policy, it is in the current
8067
legislation -- and I understand it's not in
the amendment, but it's in the current
legislation where such action can take place,
where surpluses from the sales tax are used to
reduce property taxes.
Am I correct in the fact that
that -- and I think you and I agree with this
if that's what you've argued about in the
past.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, as you
well know, when we come before this body
legislation is targeted very specifically to
do a particular job. When the county
legislature voted 16 to 2, the only mission
that they asked this body and the Assembly to
undertake was not to revisit the 1984 statute,
'87 statute, but to just unravel this
confusion that attorneys had and bond counsel
may have had on how we could move forward.
That is the only task that was given to us,
and that is the only thing that we are fixing.
We are not into the broader debate
on fixing prior law, because people in the
county of Suffolk have differing opinions. I
had a very specific opinion. I spoke on this
8068
floor, I voted on this floor in a particular
way. But that is not our -- that is not what
we are being asked to do today.
And the amendment that is before us
does something entirely different, Senator,
than the questions that you have asked and
certainly the concerns that Senator
Oppenheimer raised before you. Good concerns,
concerns that this Senator has also, and the
concerns that the majority of Suffolk
residents would concur in. That is not our
mission. That is not what is before us today,
Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator
LaValle, I want to thank you for your answers.
And if I can speak on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: Again, Senator
LaValle, I thank you for your forthrightness
in answering those questions. And I suppose,
then, as you know, I've been a staunch
opponent of any increase in the sales tax,
wherever and for whatever reason. While this
may be a good intention, for land acquisition,
8069
the fact remains that in the original
legislation there is a provision that allows
any surplus collected from the sales tax to be
used to reduce property taxes.
From a public policy point of view,
I believe that's an outrageous use of
legislation, the use of collection of taxes
from the sales tax to go potentially to be
used to reduce property taxes. And I think,
Senator, from your discussion that we've just
had here, that you agree with me on that, and
you in fact had the opportunity when the
legislation was first passed to vote in the
negative because of a provision like that.
I didn't have that opportunity when
this first was passed back in, I believe, as
you said, in the 1980s. I have an opportunity
now to vote on a provision that is an
amendment to this piece of legislation. In
good conscience, I can't vote for it because I
just disagree with the premise of the entire
legislation, despite the fact of its good
intention. So, Madam President, I will be
voting in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
8070
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: I'd like to ask
Senator Gentile a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Gentile, will you yield?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: He
yields.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, were
you a member of this body in the year 2000?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, I was.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, there
was an extension of the quarter-percent Sales
Tax Law before this body in the year 2000, in
which we extended it to the year 2013. I
don't know how you voted on that, Senator.
But I would just indicate that that issue has
already passed us, passed this body, in which
we took a vote on this floor to extend the
quarter-percent drinking water program, asked
this body for permission. Both houses
concurred, I believe unanimously, but I don't
have the vote. Senator, you would know how
you voted. And it is extended to the year
2013.
8071
So again, I'd just ask you to -
this is a different vote. This is a vote in
which you are giving to the people of the
County of Suffolk an opportunity to unravel a
legal debate on whether they can continue to
incur bonded indebtedness for land
transactions that are open space or farmland.
We are not asking you, Senator, to
vote on a sales tax issue here, but we're
merely asking you to help us unravel a legal
dispute. And I hope when you cast your vote
you will cast it in that context.
SENATOR GENTILE: Well, Senator,
I don't know myself how I voted on the bill in
2000. But seeing the fact that I have
consistently voted against sales tax increases
across the board, my guess -- and it's only a
guess -- is that I voted in the negative on
that bill also in the year 2000.
And if that's not the case, then it
only goes to underscore the fact that a debate
of this type that we've been having this year,
as opposed to having in the year 2000, has
served to air some of these issues that may
have not been aired in the year 2000. So
8072
that's all I can say about that.
But I understand your situation and
the amendment that we have before us. I'm
uncomfortable with the fact of the legislation
that is not being changed but is still a law
today.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
1. Senator Gentile recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. Would you call up Calendar Number
400, by Senator Stafford, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
8073
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
400, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 847, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Senator
Paterson -- Madam President, thank you.
Senator Paterson, when I said
yesterday thank you for not asking any
questions, I didn't mean that I wanted you to.
I didn't want anyone to get confused.
This is a bill whereby the
off-track betting corporations get a tax
exemption. It's a situation where, for
instance, an off-track betting corporation can
have a relatively large piece of property and,
for instance, they might lease it out to a
restaurant. Well, the restaurant really isn't
doing the work of an OTB, it's really out
there in the economy working like all of us.
But on the other hand, we certainly question
whether if the property isn't being used for
8074
an OTB purpose, well, we figure that probably
there -- not probably, we figure there should
not be an exemption.
So this is what this bill does.
And we think that it's what really is
equitable, to have this bill passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Stafford would yield for
another question I know he'll like, because it
will help to improve the chances of passing
this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford, will you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
I don't understand is that since OTB funds the
county in the first place -- in other words,
that's where the money goes -- if we're going
to subject that land to a tax or that area of
the facility to a tax, then the money is going
8075
to go to the local governments, to the
schools. And in a sense, we're just shifting
the money. So I don't understand why we would
do that.
In other words, if it was money
that somebody else was keeping, and then we
taxed it to get the money back for the state,
that would be one thing. But here we're just
basically shifting the line in which the
revenues flow, away from the counties to the
villages and the towns and the school
districts.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I guess
yesterday I questioned one of Senator
Paterson's questions. On this question, I
compliment you for a very sensible, a very
clear and a concise question.
We certainly would answer by saying
really what we do here in this Legislature
really is shift money. We decide where the
monies will go. And it gets right back to the
8076
heart of the matter that I mentioned earlier,
that in effect we just are not allowing an
exemption where there is not an OTB function
going on.
And indirectly, the portion of
those taxes when it is in the economy as it
should be, being taxed as it should be, the
portion which should go to the county will go
to the county, the portions that would go
ordinarily to other entities will go to other
entities. We just don't want to have
exemptions where we don't have a nontaxable
function.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Stafford.
Senator Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford, will you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
8077
Stafford, how will the assessment of what the
portion of the property is worth be evaluated?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, that's a
very good question.
SENATOR ONORATO: You know, what
will be the basis? The square footage, the
retail sales, the value of the lease? In
other words, basically splitting it up to a
nontaxable portion and a taxable portion of
the property.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, also a good question that I think
we can answer clearly, concisely, directly,
and fully.
We do that every day. We have what
we call assessors and we have what we call the
Real Property Bureau. Very often we're not
especially pleased with some of the results -
I know I'm not, especially when is it
January 1 when taxes come out and then
September when taxes come out. But we have
functionaries, we have entities that can do
this and do it well.
For instance, we have one OTB
entity that we know of where it has been
8078
determined that 25 percent of the property is
being used for an OTB function, 3/4 of it is
being used for a very good business. I think
that would mean three-quarters, that would be
75 percent. So you'd take 75 percent,
multiply it by what the assessment is, and I
think you can come out with a pretty clear,
concise, full, and understandable figure.
SENATOR ONORATO: That sounded
like a bookmaker's answer. I accept it.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Volker, why do you rise?
8079
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you continue
in regular order now and call up Senator
Volker's bill, Calendar 648, for us, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
648, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3678, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
unlawful wearing of body vests.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
I apologize for rising prematurely, but I
anticipated the request.
This is a fairly simple bill. Some
years ago, I think before I was here as
chairman of Codes, in 1984 -- I just realized
I was here, but I wasn't chairman of Codes -
a bill was passed which said that if a person
was wearing a body vest and commits any
violent offense while possessing a firearm,
then that person in effect would be guilty of
a felony. And it would be an enhanced felony.
8080
There's been court cases, and there
was a case, People versus Carvey, that
discussed that statute, and I think rightfully
so decided that a firearm does not include a
rifle or a shotgun because a firearm, under
today's definitions, is a handgun.
And therefore, what we are doing
today is adding "rifle or shotgun" to the term
"firearm." We're not changing any of the
penalties or anything like that.
So if a person is wearing a vest
with no legal purpose -- and obviously a
police officer or something like that would
not be in this case -- and commits a violent
crime with a handgun, rifle or shotgun, then
that person would be subject to an enhanced
felony.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President. Just on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: I want to
congratulate Senator Volker on the bill here.
8081
Certainly as a prosecutor I've come up against
that problem of rifles and shotguns not being
contained under the Penal Law definition of a
firearm. And certainly if someone is using
either a rifle or a shotgun and has a
bulletproof vest, a body vest on, that should
constitute a higher felony, as you suggest
with this legislation.
However, I believe that we need to
go further with body vests and protect those
police officers that wear those body vests on
an everyday basis. And I think Senator Volker
and I have talked about this before, that we
could do it from the perspective of the
assailant who has the body vest but we also
should do something for the police officers
who protect us who wear body vests.
And indeed, what I have spoken to
Senator Volker about and proposed is that we
pass legislation that would require body vests
for police officers that have attachments to
them that will go around the neck and will go
around the side of the torso, so that those
wearing those attachments will be protected in
those areas where they are not today.
8082
Indeed, in New York City three
years ago, Police Officer Anthony Mosomillo
was executing a search warrant, and he had a
body vest on. He walked into a building, and
he was shot, with his body vest on, he was
shot in the neck and shot in the side of the
torso. He died wearing that body vest, and he
died because that body vest did not have those
attachments that would have protected him
around the neck and around the side of the
torso.
When I attended Officer Mosomillo's
wake, I spoke to Officer Mosomillo's father,
who indicated to me that there are such
attachments for body vests for police
officers. And he said to me, right in front
of the open coffin, as I stood next to his son
in that casket, and he said: "Senator, we
must be sure that no other police officer is
subjected to this kind of attack where, with a
body vest, they are still hit in locations on
their torso or in their neck where they're not
protected."
We have the technology to protect
police officers with body vest attachments.
8083
We need to do it.
So while Senator Volker's
legislation is a good piece of legislation
that will increase penalties for those who
commit crime and wear body vests, we at the
same time must take a step in this state to
protect our police officers who wear body
vests by including the attachments on the side
of the torso and around the neck so those
officers will be protected in dangerous
situations.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
let me just say that Senator Gentile and I
have discussed this issue, and we have been
doing quite a bit of research on body vests.
And although part of the problem is
that we don't mandate what kind of body vests,
we're trying to convince local governments to
utilize the most up-to-date vests. There's a
federal program that provides additional money
for body vests. And actually, we provide
money now for all initial body vests -- that
8084
is, for new police officers.
As you have pointed out, the real
need is for replacement vests. And we're
working on a program as part of this budget,
which we hope will be done before too long,
which can deal with that issue, because I
think it really -- I think you're absolutely
right, it's a very important issue. There has
been your legislation, Senator Marchi's, I've
had legislation myself. And I would hope that
we would all be able to come up with a way to
do this, because it is a very, very serious
issue.
I too know of law enforcement
officers who have been hit around the fringes
of a body vest. And it's something I think
that you're absolutely right, we should deal
with. And so we'll try to do that.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
8085
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, would you
call up Calendar Number 816, by Senator
Leibell, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
816, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 4556, an
act to amend the Military Law, in relation to
payment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Leibell, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill would amend Section 210
of the Military Law to permit members of the
National Guard under state activation to be
8086
paid by electronic fund transfer. In doing
so, this bill would conform payment procedures
for state activation with those currently
followed for federal activation.
During a federal activation of the
Guard, military pay is deposited directly into
the bank account of the Guardsman. During
state activation, however, checks are
currently sent to the unit's armory, where
neither the Guardsman nor his family can
obtain the funds until the member returns from
duty.
As a result, should a Guardsman be
away for an extended period of time, as was
the case during the ice storm of 1998, the
family of the Guardsman could go a substantial
period of time -- weeks, even -- without
incoming funds.
This bill would correct this
inequity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
8087
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President, could we call up now Calendar
Number 833, by Senator Saland.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
833, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2782, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
including.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Saland, there's been an explanation requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, under the existing
law there are special provisions with regard
8088
to the sale of controlled substances on school
grounds. And the definition of school
grounds, under what's being proposed under
this bill, would be expanded to include a
school bus, as is defined in the Vehicle and
Traffic Law under Section 142.
This is merely an effort to expand
the protections afforded by the School Zone
Safety Program, to provide the deterrent
effect associated with stepped-up penalties
and discourage the trafficking in drugs on
school buses.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
8089
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
would you call up Calendar Number 884, by
Senator Lack.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
884, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 4982, an
act to amend Chapter 69 of the Laws of 1992.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR LACK: Madam President,
this bill extends from June 30, 2001, to 2003
provisions relating to child safety zones.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
If the Senator would yield for a few
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack, will you yield for some questions?
SENATOR LACK: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
8090
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Now, I
notice we extended this bill, Senator Lack, in
'99 for two years. It had been in place for
seven years before that, and then we did a
two-year extender. Why are we not making this
bill permanent? Is there a reason?
SENATOR LACK: Yes. The New York
State Department of Education, Madam
President, hasn't issued the report that is
required in the 1999 extension.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President, if the Senator will
yield again.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LACK: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yeah, State
Ed is doing a report. Do you have any idea
when that report is supposed to come out?
SENATOR LACK: No, I do not,
Madam President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: That's
8091
unfortunate.
If the Senator will yield again.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LACK: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Now, in
this bill will transportation costs be
classified as ordinary contingent expense for
state aid?
SENATOR LACK: There is nothing
that changes whatsoever in this bill, Madam
President, except for 2001 to 2003. So just
what the law is now will be the law to
June 30, 2003. Period.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Thank you, Senator.
On the bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This has
been something that's been utilized and fairly
important in certain areas of my -- in certain
various spots, kind of, really small spots
8092
within certain school districts of mine. They
are areas where it would be hard for the child
to walk to school from these particular spots.
And this is something that's very
important because even though they're very
close to school, the area they have to walk
through is rather dangerous. And I think it's
important that we maintain this for the
children and that we get the aid which
comes -- the transportation aid which comes to
the school in spite of the fact that the
children are being transported less than the
prescribed distance from the school.
So I'll be voting in favor of it.
And it's really a very good bill that I hope
will be made permanent at some time in the
future.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
8093
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Calendar Number 933, by Senator Seward.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
933, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Luster, Assembly Print Number
7609, an act to amend the Education Law, in
relation to exemptions.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Seward, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Madam
President.
Currently in the Education Law
there are 11 exemptions from licensing
requirements for veterinary medicine. This
legislation before us today amends three of
those exemptions to address some of the
8094
changing trends that we've seen within the
field of veterinary medicine.
For example, the two-year
limitation for interns and residents is
eliminated due to the growing time commitments
of the programs. And also the term "professor
of veterinary medicine" is changed to "faculty
member" to reflect the recent trends that
cause the use of other titles other than
straight professors in veterinary school.
And the unlicensed faculty members
are authorized to supervise students and
residents, as a growing number have not been
issued licenses due to their exempt status.
This bill has been suggested and
recommended by our only veterinary school in
New York State, and that is the New York State
College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell, and
also by the New York State Veterinary Society
as well as the New York State Veterinary
Board.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky, why do you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the sponsor
would yield to a couple of questions.
8095
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Seward, will you yield to some questions?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I will try to
make them very brief.
Senator, on line 4 of your bill -
Madam President, through you -- it talks about
"an intern or resident." Can you tell me if
those terms are interchangeable?
And, secondly, how long is the
intern or residency program?
SENATOR SEWARD: Madam President,
I must confess I do not have that information
before me.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Okay.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Let me ask
another question, if the Senator will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Madam
8096
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Section 6, I
guess, or subdivision 6 of the bill, lines 11
through 16, talk about the practice of
veterinary medicine in other states. Are
there other states -- are the other states'
standards similar to or are they substantially
different? In other words, is there
uniformity in the practice of veterinary
medicine between New York State and, let's
say, Vermont or Pennsylvania or Massachusetts
or New Jersey?
SENATOR SEWARD: Madam President,
the answer to that question is yes, the
standards appear to be quite similar in other
states.
In fact, if you look at other
sections of Section 6705 of the Education Law,
which deal with some of the other exemptions,
in fact some of the other exemptions indicate
that as long as a person has a license in
another state to practice veterinary medicine,
that they can do that in New York on sort of
8097
an incidental basis while being here.
And so I would have to conclude
that the standards are quite similar.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Through you,
Madam President, if the Senator will yield
for -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: How many
people do you anticipate being affected by in
legislation?
SENATOR SEWARD: I can't give you
an exact number, Madam President. But I would
estimate that it would be a mere handful of
people. It's not a large number.
But it would be a situation that
would help the College of Veterinary Medicine
at Cornell operate in a more effective manner
because of the changes that we've seen and the
better utilization of personnel at the
college.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I thank the
8098
Senator for answering my questions.
I voted for -- Madam President, on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I voted for
this bill in committee, Madam President, and
I'm delighted to vote for it on the floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to one
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Seward, will you yield for one question from
Senator Onorato?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Seward,
I'm just perplexed a little bit. Section 6705
provides that any intern or resident who
practices veterinary medicine for two years or
less in any college in the state offering a
8099
program in veterinary medicine will be exempt
from licensing.
Does that mean if somebody went to
one of these schools for five months or six
months that he could go out and practice as a
veterinarian without a license?
SENATOR SEWARD: No, certainly
not. In fact, the -- what we are doing -- the
effect of what we are doing here would allow
an individual to practice veterinary medicine
as an intern or resident for a longer period
than two years -- we're not shortening the
time, we're lengthening it -- because of the
fact that these programs are growing in terms
of the time commitment. Actually, we need
more time rather than less time.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
8100
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President, would you call up Calendar Number
956, by Senator Libous, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
956, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 4106, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
requiring.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Libous, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President.
This legislation should have
actually been before us when we had Disability
8101
Awareness Day in the chamber. And,
unfortunately, because of some technicalities,
it did not make the floor.
But basically this bill is pretty
much up front. It makes it an unlawful
discriminatory practice in the Human Rights
Law to make a patient with disabilities be
subject to observation by unnecessary medical
personnel during a medical examination without
prior informed oral consent.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Is there any
8102
housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
no housekeeping at the desk.
SENATOR KUHL: There being no
further business to come before the house
today, we move that we adjourn until tomorrow,
Wednesday, May 23rd, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, May 23rd, 11:00 a.m.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
for the benefit of the members who are
present, I think Senator Paterson has an
announcement.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: I'm
sorry. The chair recognizes Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, there will be an immediate
conference of the Minority in the Minority
Conference Room, Room 314, immediately
following the session.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Minority
8103
in the Minority Conference Room, immediately,
right now.
Thank you, Senator Paterson.
(Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)