Regular Session - May 31, 2001
8392
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 31, 2001
11:08 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
8393
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Wednesday, May 30, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, May 29,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
8394
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Rath, on page 12 I offer
the following amendments to Calendar Number
234, Senate Print 2617, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR KUHL: And on behalf of
Senator Trunzo, Madam President, on page 57, I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 931, Senate Print 1564, and ask that
said bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
8395
SENATOR KUHL: And on behalf of
Senator Johnson, Madam President, on page 61,
I offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 997, Senate Print 5299, and ask that
said bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, are there any substitutions at the
desk? And if so, may we make them at this
time.
THE PRESIDENT: There are,
Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 8,
Senator Saland moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 5121
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 393, Third Reading Calendar 144.
On page 15, Senator Saland moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7923 and substitute it
8396
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3611,
Third Reading Calendar 319.
On page 17, Senator Morahan moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7407A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3720A,
Third Reading Calendar 373.
On page 20, Senator Marcellino
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 1990 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 491, Third Reading Calendar 415.
On page 23, Senator McGee moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7804 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3671,
Third Reading Calendar 474.
On page 30, Senator Bonacic moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 29B and substitute it for
the identical Senate Bill Number 3581A, Third
Reading Calendar 585.
On page 48, Senator Kuhl moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 5584A and substitute it
8397
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2956A,
Third Reading Calendar 805.
On page 61, Senator Seward moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 933B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4371A,
Third Reading Calendar 991.
And on page 61, Senator Leibell
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8342 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 4454, Third Reading Calendar 992.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitutions
ordered.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, I believe Senator Volker has a
privileged resolution at the desk. May we
read the title and move its adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Volker, Legislative Resolution Number 2186,
acknowledging the Ford Motor Company as it
celebrates its Living Legends Tour featuring
8398
the American Classic 2002 Thunderbird, at the
State Capitol in Albany, New York, on June 5,
2001.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
the resolution signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, Senator Goodman, I believe, has two
privileged resolutions at the desk. May we
read the titles each and move their adoptions
respectively.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Goodman, Legislative Resolution Number 2187,
mourning the death of Bernard Mendik,
distinguished citizen and devoted member of
the community.
And by Senator Goodman, Legislative
Resolution Number 2188, mourning the death of
8399
Victor Kiam, distinguished entrepreneur,
author, and devoted member of the community.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolutions. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolutions
are adopted.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, I believe Senator Balboni has a
privileged resolution at the desk. I ask that
the title be read and that it be acted on.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Balboni, Legislative Resolution Number 2077
commending Frank Castagna upon the occasion of
his designation for special honor at The
Museum Ball, sponsored by the Nassau County
Museum of Art on June 9, 2001.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
8400
President, just for the record, I would like
to just say a word about the job that Frank
Castagna has done for the Nassau County Fine
Arts Museum.
If anyone gets a chance to travel
to the Gold Coast of Nassau County and go
through the pristine pastures and the artwork
both outside and inside of this facility, this
early nineteenth-century facility, you will
see a gem that is nowhere else in the State of
New York.
And Frank Castagna has held this
institution together. He has gotten more
people involved on a volunteer basis than any
other chairman of the board. And he really
deserves a lot of credit for all of the work
he's done on behalf not only of the residents
of Nassau County but for all art fans
throughout the state.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
8401
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, please recognize Senator Dollinger
for his -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I hereby give written notice, as
required by Rule XI, that I will move in the
Senate to amend the Rules and add a new rule,
XV, which will set ethical standards for
members, officers, and employees of the
New York State Senate.
I would ask that that be recorded
in the Journal, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Once again, the
notice of motion has been received, and it
will be filed in the Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, may we proceed to the
noncontroversial calendar, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
8402
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
184, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1899A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law and
the Real Property Law, in relation to the time
within.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Madam
President, to explain my vote. Thank you very
much.
I just want to say that I think
this legislation is very important to the
thousands of New Yorkers who live in mobile
home parks. They are prominently two areas of
individuals, senior citizens or first-time,
young home buyers. And the STAR program,
which was enacted several years ago under the
leadership of Governor Pataki, granted them -
included them in the STAR rebate program.
8403
However, there was one loophole in
the law, if you will, Madam President, which
allows the mobile home park owner to not issue
the refunds to the individual tenants for up
to one year. This bill would require the
mobile home park owner to issue those refunds
to the individuals within a 90-day period.
It does have a majority sponsor in
the other house. I think it's a good piece of
legislation that deserves our support.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: And Senator
Maziarz is so recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
The bill is passed.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Continue with
the noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
197, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2533B, an
8404
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to real property tax exemption.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
233, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 2592, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
238, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 2829, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
8405
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
350, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 581,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
396, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4150, an
act to amend the Public Service Law.
SENATOR VELELLA: Lay that aside
for the day, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
430, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 3987A, an
act in relation to establishing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
8406
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
506, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3092,
an act to authorize the County of Warren.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
558, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 3358A, an
act to amend Chapter 719 of the Laws of 1982.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in -
8407
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
569, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1517A,
an act to amend the Insurance Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
621, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 3996, an
act to amend the Public Officers Law and the
Uniform City Court Act.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
8408
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 46. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
769, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 3786, an
act -
SENATOR VELELLA: Please lay it
aside for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
770, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3907, an
act to amend Chapter 341 of the Laws of 2000.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
8409
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
841, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 3644, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
847, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 4283, an
act -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
848, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 4299A, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
8410
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
856, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print -
SENATOR VELELLA: Lay that aside
for the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
873, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4069, an
act to amend the State Technology Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 46. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
8411
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
876, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4869, an
act to amend the Public Service Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
878, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 2878A,
an act to amend the Education Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
909, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3557A,
an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law.
8412
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
941, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5092, an
act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
951, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 4324A,
an act to amend the Arts and Cultural Affairs
Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
8413
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
952, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5015, an
act to amend the State Finance Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
961, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1963, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
968, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 5212, an
act to authorize the Office of General
8414
Services.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
977, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4216, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to
explain my vote briefly, Madam President.
This is another one of those
8415
regulations that I've never quite understood
why we ever had this restriction in the first
place, why we're now increasing it to 80 cases
versus 100 or 120.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill because I think it makes it easier to
obtain these permits and engage in this kind
of activity. But, frankly, I would put this
under Senator Rath's mandate relief bill.
This is just the kind of thing, that we have
some archaic restriction on charities' sale of
packaged alcoholic beverage goods. For the
life of me, I can't understand why there's any
limitation on it at all.
And so I think Senator Seward
opening it up to more possibilities is a good
thing. But, frankly, this is the kind of
little thing that dots our landscape of our
laws that we should just repeal completely. I
don't think that it serves any purpose
whatsoever.
So this is the kind of mandate
relief that we've talked about. But I would
hope Senator Rath, when we do the mandate
relief bill, might do this specific
8416
restriction and just abolish it completely.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be so recorded as voting
in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
986, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 2540, an
act in relation to maintaining the existence.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
987, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 2546, an
act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation
8417
Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
988, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2711, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
989, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3408, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
8418
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
991, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Luster, Assembly Print Number
933B, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure
Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
992, substituted earlier today by the Assembly
Committee on Rules -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
Excuse me, Mr. Secretary.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
President, by unanimous consent I'd like to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
977, Senate Bill 4216.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, Senator, you will be recorded as
voting in the negative on that bill.
The Secretary will continue to
read. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary.
8419
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
992, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8342, an act to amend
the Public Officers Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
995, by Senator Connor, Senate Print 5090A, an
act to authorize the St. Ann's School to file
an application.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
8420
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Velella, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, may we go to the controversial
calendar and take the bills up in order.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
197, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2533B, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the real property tax exemption.
SENATOR VELELLA: Please lay that
aside temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
350, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 581,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to authorizing.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Senator
8421
DeFrancisco, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This bill
would increase the amount that municipalities
can charge for returned checks from $15 to
$20.
In addition, it expands the reasons
why a municipality can charge the $20 charge,
to include not only insufficient funds but
also when the check is returned for
uncollected funds, account closed, payment
stopped, refer to maker, lack of signature -
in other words, other reasons that banks
return checks.
The first time that this bill -
the current law is $15, and the current law
went into effect in 1989. And probably most
importantly, the General Obligations Law
allows merchants to charge $20 but
municipalities have not been allowed to charge
that amount.
And this was brought to my
attention by a clerk of a municipal government
in our area, and it's supported by, obviously,
the New York Conference of Mayors and
8422
Municipal Officials.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation
satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
SENATOR VELELLA: Read the last
section.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the debate
is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2002.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Kuhl recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
558, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 3358A, an
act to amend Chapter 719 of the Laws of 1982.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Trunzo,
an explanation has been requested.
8423
SENATOR TRUNZO: Madam President,
this bill is to enact an amendment to Chapter
719 of the Laws of 1982 related to authorizing
the Commissioner of General Services to convey
certain lands to the town of Islip.
Now, there are 76 acres of land
that the New York Institute of Technology is
looking to free from the restrictions that
were placed upon the original sale of the
state land to Islip back in 1982.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Padavan recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
847, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 4283, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to proof.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
8424
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: This is 4283,
Madam President? 847?
THE PRESIDENT: That's correct,
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Thank you.
This bill, which passed this house
last year, is very honestly the remnants of
the Sexual Assault Reform Bill that passed
this house last year in an agreement with the
Assembly and the Governor. By "remnants" I
mean this is the part that the Assembly did
not want.
Basically, there are three
provisions in this bill. This bill modifies
the so-called Molineaux decision that says
that prior bad acts, which is arrests or
convictions on such crimes, could be entered
in as proof in a proceeding involving a sexual
assault trial. The judge, of course, would
have the right to exclude such information
based on its probative value and the
possibility of undue influence on the jury.
Secondly, there is a provision in
8425
this bill that allows the prosecutor in a case
to appeal what he considers to be a lenient
sentence. In all honesty, this provision does
not just apply to sexual assaults but applies
to any criminal charge.
So this is a provision which has
been in a couple of other bills, by the way,
of the Governor's. And we just got another
Governor's program bill which we're now
reading to see if it might be in that program
bill also.
Thirdly, it allows an appeal in any
case, if I'm not mistaken -- in any case, for
lenient bail. So that if bail is -- has been
set up in a case, the prosecutor or the
individuals can appeal a bail decision that
they consider to be overly unjust.
Basically, that's what the bill
involves.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, on the
bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
8426
I want to commend Senator Volker
for once again bringing forth this piece of
legislation, a multifaceted piece of
legislation.
Because having experienced each of
these provisions in a real-life setting in the
courtroom, I understand from a prosecutor's
point of view the seriousness with which we're
dealing with these issues, particularly the
Molineaux rule and how the Molineaux rule
ostensibly has the objective of protecting the
defendant from other actions but in effect, in
practical effect, I believe it excludes
real-life incidents that a jury may use in
determining whether the credibility of a
witness is in fact there or not.
And I believe the Molineaux rule as
now used by the courts is clearly too
restrictive from that point of view. And I
believe much credible evidence is kept out of
a criminal trial unnecessarily. And I believe
that this provision that Senator Volker puts
forth will help correct that.
Certainly the review of bail and
recognizance determinations has been something
8427
that I have been advocating for since I first
started here in the Senate, so I congratulate
him for that. And the fact that we will now
be allowing, under this bill, for appeal of a
criminal sentence based on the fact that it's
unduly lenient is something that I believe is
a fair provision for the prosecution, given
circumstances of a case.
It's hard to explain without
particulars of a particular case. But I've
seen instances where judges have clearly,
clearly imposed a sentence that is far below
the severity of the crime which was committed.
And in those instances, the prosecution and
the victims, who the prosecution has brought
the case in the name of the State of New York
and on behalf of the victims, do not have an
option to appeal those cases.
It will be so under this bill. So,
Senator Volker, again, I commend you for it,
and I only hope that this time we'll get it
past both houses.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
8428
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
sponsor yield to a couple of questions, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR VELELLA: If you'll
suffer an interruption.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: There will be
an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Dollinger, you may proceed
with a question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will my
fellow member of the Rules Committee yield for
a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, so I
8429
understand the Molineaux change that we're
making here, this bill does not require that
the prior bad acts of the defendant be either
indicted or convicted bad acts; is that
correct?
SENATOR VOLKER: That's true.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Volker will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, I continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So this will
allow any evidence of any other bad act that
involves sexual assault to be introduced at
the time of trial as a separate incident that
would be used by the prosecution to show a
tendency or propensity to engage in the
indicted offense; is that correct?
SENATOR VOLKER: It is correct.
To this point, though, that they would have to
be related to sex offenses. Because we are
8430
only -- in this bill we are only relaxing the
Molineaux rule in relation to sex offenses.
So in other words, prior bad acts
of something else would not be enterable, only
prior bad acts, as I understand it, that
related to sexual assault or sexual acts. And
they would be subject to the decision of the
judge in the case as to whether they're
relevant or not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Under this
bill there is no time restriction on when
those incidents might have occurred, is there?
SENATOR VOLKER: Not that I'm
aware of, Senator, there's no time
restrictions.
Although I suppose, depending on
8431
the time when those incidents occurred, the
judge probably would be less likely to allow
them in if they occurred a long period of time
in the past.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, again, if Senator Volker will
continue to yield on the Molineaux issue.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. Mm-hmm.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: How do we
prevent, Senator Volker, from the trial for
the indicted sexual offense becoming a trial
within a trial, as there may be several other
incidents of alleged bad acts that may be over
a relatively long period of time, none of
which have been previously indicted or
convicted? How do we confine the trial solely
to the indicted offense? How do we prevent
this from becoming a series of trials within
trials about other bad acts?
And clearly, I agree with you that
sexual assaults, unindicted or otherwise,
clearly fall into the category of bad acts.
But how do we prevent this from becoming a
series of trials within a trial?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think,
8432
Senator, that we go back to some of the
urgings of many of your colleagues here in the
Minority, in particular, that we allow more
flexibility to judges in this state. And what
this bill would do is to allow more
flexibility to a judge to allow in prior bad
acts where that judge believes that they
wouldn't be prejudicial and/or that they would
be relevant to the present case.
So what I was suggesting before,
that obviously if you had something that
happened 25 years ago, the likelihood that it
would be entered if there was no other history
of sexual bad acts, then it would seem to me
that a rational judge would probably be less
likely to allow it in as relevant in the
proceeding that was at hand.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Volker will
continue to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly I
will, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker
does yield.
You may proceed, Senator.
8433
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In line 10 of
the bill, Senator Volker, the standard that
the court would apply is that it would be
presumed -- and again, correct me if I'm wrong
here, but it would be presumed that the other
bad acts would be admissible unless the court
determines that its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of
prejudice.
My question is, Senator, how does
that fact that in essence the defense would
have to show that the probative value was
substantially outweighed by the danger of
prejudice, how does that impact on the
presumption of innocence, that in essence on
the indicted offense the defendant is presumed
to be innocent yet he's going to have to have
this burden to show that it's substantially
outweighed -- not just outweighed, but
substantially outweighed -- in order to
prevent its admission at the time of trial?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think,
Senator, that the argument is that certainly
it doesn't reverse the -- the burden of proof
of beyond a reasonable doubt is obviously
8434
still on the prosecutor.
And what I think is being said here
is that the difficulty in many of these sex
cases, where you have one-on-one individuals
and the only testimony, essentially, is the
testimony of the victim -- and this is
particularly true with child victims,
obviously, where it's extremely difficult.
And I've been on both sides of those cases,
both prosecuting and on a couple of -- one
occasion defending, and they are extremely
difficult, because you have a very difficult
witness.
And I think the attitude there is
that -- and the reason it says "substantial"
is -- I guess as an example, if you have a
conviction, then the likelihood that a judge
would throw out that as evidence as opposed
to, for instance, just an arrest, using the
word "substantial," you would be guiding the
judge to look at in a different way. And
obviously that would be presumed to be more -
have more weight than merely an arrest.
And I don't have to tell you,
Senator, that this language also will
8435
probably, if it ever becomes law -- and I
think it will eventually -- probably be the
subject of appeals. And I think that will
limit how this language is used.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: I will yield,
yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, the
other question I have with respect to
Molineaux is as I read this bill, even if the
defendant were acquitted of the other bad
act -- in other words, there's a -- let's say,
using a common example, 2½ years before the
indicted offense there's a similar offense
that occurs, they're indicted, they're tried,
they're found not guilty.
Is it -- under this bill, is it
possible that an offense for which someone had
8436
been previously indicted and found not guilty
might nonetheless be admissible at the time of
trial under the second indicted offense?
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, it is
possible.
And you and I are aware of the fact
that under the law when you are found not
guilty, you are presumed to be innocent. But
on many occasions, some of the DNA cases, for
instance, that are involved in murder cases
now, where people say, Well, that person was
totally innocent because of the DNA, the
person almost certainly committed the act, but
because the DNA evidence -- that is, the
evidence involved that linked this person -
did not specifically refer to this person and
in that case involves multiple murders in
particular -- multiple killers, I mean -- it
is very possible that the person actually
committed the act even though they've been
found innocent.
And therefore, I mean, I don't know
how many times I've talked to a prosecutor and
I say, Well, are you looking for somebody
else? And they've said, No, we're not looking
8437
for anybody else. We know the guy did it.
That's not the point. We just can't prove it.
And I think that is kind of -- and especially
in sex cases.
And I've had some experience, by
the way, way back when, in another life, with
these kinds of cases where we tried to
prosecute a serial rapist. And what a time we
had. Because the evidence is difficult and
witnesses are very, you know, off the -- so
that the fact that the fellow probably
committed a hundred rapes and that he had this
whole line of people who were waiting, none of
that could be, you know, entered into evidence
in his case.
And, frankly, by the time he was
eventually killed by the mob -- because he'd
killed a mobster's son -- we had convicted him
three times and it was overturned three times.
And I only mention that because it points up
the difficulty in sex cases.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Volker will yield
just for a couple of questions on another
portion of the bill.
8438
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, in
the section that deals with the unduly lenient
sentences, I note that there is no -- at least
the way I read it, and maybe I could be wrong.
I'll stand corrected -- but there's no
standard for the judicial review.
Under the section that deals with
orders of recognizance and bail set by the
lower courts, there is a standard of review in
which we say that it shall be -- it will be
reviewed by the higher court under an abuse of
discretion standard.
I assume that the fact that you've
left it out or that it's not in the review of
unduly lenient sentences, that there would be
some other standard -
SENATOR VOLKER: Right.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- under
which the appellate court will view unduly
lenient. Is that going to be a de novo
8439
review?
SENATOR VOLKER: The present
standard, I believe, would be the same
standard as it is now. Which would be, I
believe, the standard that you just
delineated.
And when it's appealed now, the
only difference is that here you could -
under this bill, you have more authority -- I
mean, actually you could technically make an
appeal now for lenient bail.
What this really does is gives you
statutory authority to do it; that is, a
more -- I don't want to say a more organized
authority. I mean, it's possible, as you well
know, to appeal bail decisions now. Except
that it's -- first of all, the person
probably, while you're appealing the bail
decision, could well be out on the streets.
What this bill would say is that
while you're appealing the bail decisions, you
have, what is it, 72 hours -- the person has
to remain incarcerated and you have a direct
line to make an appeal.
But the standard would remain. And
8440
it seems to me the standard is already in the
law for appeal of bail in any case.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Volker will
continue to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
you will yield.
You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I
have no doubt that you're familiar with a
practice that oftentimes goes on in this state
of lawyers, friends, relatives of a convicted
person writing a letter to the trial judge
and, while perhaps not begging for leniency,
nonetheless trying to highlight to the trial
judge at the time of sentencing the
appropriateness of a determination.
I can recall a letter that actually
I wrote in a federal court case, a man who had
been convicted and pled guilty to a felony who
had a long history of charitable involvement
in the community, who was a very, very unusual
defendant. He had been found guilty of
misrepresenting certain loan documents to the
8441
federal government.
I'm not aware -- and, I mean, I
believe that that's a very common practice. I
believe that it's done all the time, at least
in my community, to try to give the court a
sense -- sometimes maybe not in a public way,
but in a way to give them a sense of who the
person is.
If that happens, Senator Volker,
and if we allow the appeal of unduly lenient
sentences, is all that material going to have
to be incorporated into the public record so
that the court above will be able to
understand what influenced the trial judge?
SENATOR VOLKER: The answer to
that is yes. And it's probably public record
now.
One of the problems is -- and I've
been in that situation also, Senator, and
found that I was in the newspaper for having
supported that person. I think it's probably,
as my counsel says, technically a public
record now.
But I would guess that it would be
part of the record, and therefore the
8442
appellate court, whoever would be looking at
it, would be looking at those letters also.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill just briefly.
I appreciate, as always, Senator
Volker's candor and insight.
I'm going to vote against this
bill. I voted in favor of the -- I think the
bigger bill last year, but I'm going to vote
against this one for two reasons.
One, I really think that the
Molineaux provision really needs more
analysis. I think that to allow evidence of
bad acts should have some very tight
restrictions on it. I think that the court
should be required to establish the similarity
in pattern or the existence of the crime or
the modus operandi of the crime.
I think we should attempt to put
some restrictions on the timing of other bad
acts, that we shouldn't allow the trial judges
to include bad acts that have occurred after a
significant period of time.
I also believe that there should be
a very strict restriction on the use of any
8443
bad act for which the defendant has been
previously indicted or charged with an offense
and then found innocent -- or found, excuse
me, found not guilty.
Because I think in these highly
publicized cases, a district attorney simply
stands before the jury and says: Oh, by the
way, this is the defendant, he's charged with
this crime, we may not have good proof about
this crime, but boy, we've got great proof
about two other bad acts, about two other
similar offenses, neither of which he stands
indicted for today but which are similar to
the crime for which he is indicted now.
I think that while I have a lot of
faith in the discretion of trial judges in
this state, I think to allow them a
broad-scope discretion without articulating,
as a public policy, restrictions on that
discretion in this case is a mistake.
I also believe -- and I understand
Senator Volker's defense of this, and I
appreciate it -- that what we've done is we've
tilted the balance in the burden of proof by
saying that in essence these crimes -- these
8444
other bad acts will all be admitted into the
trial unless the court determines that its
probative value is substantially outweighed by
the danger of undue prejudice to the
defendant.
That means the defendant has to
show that the prejudice to him will
substantially outweigh -- not just outweigh,
in the balance of fifty-fifty, but
substantially outweigh. It becomes somewhat
similar to almost that clear and convincing
evidence test, that it's not just 51 percent,
but the defendant will have to show by some
very high standard that the damage to him at
the time of trial is outweighed by the
probative value.
For that reason, I would vote
against the Molineaux change in and of itself.
But I also am concerned about the lack of an
articulated standard for discretion in the
appellate courts in dealing with the unduly
lenient test for appeals. We put tremendous
faith in our trial judges in the sentencing
phase of cases.
I point out to Senator Volker -
8445
and I have no doubt that he has at least been
approached by people, if not already done it,
where people come and say to public officials:
This is my father, this is my husband, this is
my child, they have been found guilty of an
offense, we clearly understand that they have
to pay a penalty, but would you intervene?
It's happened to me a number of
times. It's one of the most difficult things
for any public official to do. I have done
it.
And I think that to try to ask the
appellate courts to look at that unduly
lenient test, I think we may end up with a
tremendous number of new appeals by
prosecutors who believe that a sentence has
been unduly lenient. I also think that we
need to put more restrictions on how much
discretion we're giving our trial judges in
this area.
So with that in mind, Madam
President, I'm going to vote no on this bill.
I would say to Senator Volker, if this bill
passes, I think it's worthy of a good
discussion with the Assembly. I don't believe
8446
that my objections or my limitations on this
bill are anything that couldn't be hammered
out in a joint conference committee or in
further negotiations with this bill.
I appreciate, and I think we all
do, that we need to tighten up our sexual
assault laws. They are enormously difficult
cases, given often that they are one-on-one
cases where the victim is the sole witness
against the defendant.
But I really believe that in this
instance, without broader discretion on the
Molineaux principle and some more limitations
on the discretion about review of lenient
sentences, this bill is not ready to become
law. I'll vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
8447
DeFrancisco, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I'm
going to vote no.
And the reason for that vote is
very simple. We all want to make sure that
people committing sexual assault-type crimes
are put in jail and put in jail for a long
time. On the other hand, we don't want
anybody put in jail because they did something
or are suspected of doing something in the
past for which they were not convicted.
And to allow evidence in a case
dealing with a serious offense such as a
sexual assault that can be used for any
purpose, including to show the propensity of a
defendant to commit a crime, is just basically
unfair and should not be part of our
jurisprudence.
I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative on this bill.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
8448
the negative on Calendar Number 847 are
Senators Breslin, Brown, DeFrancisco,
Dollinger, Duane, Hassell-Thompson,
Montgomery, and M. Smith. Also Senator
Marchi. Ayes, 45. Nays, 9.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, may we return to motions and
resolutions.
THE PRESIDENT: Motions and
resolutions.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, on page 29, I offer the following
amendments, on behalf of Senator Skelos, to
Calendar Number 559, Senate Print Number 3655,
and ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Thank you.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
8449
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I was wondering if I could, without
objection, be recorded as changing my vote to
no on Calendar Number 847.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded, Senator Duane, as changing your vote
to be recorded in the negative. And you were
already so recorded as voting in the negative.
SENATOR DUANE: I mean 558, Madam
President, excuse me.
Final answer.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as changing your vote to the negative
on Calendar 558.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: I'm keeping my
vote positive.
Madam President, on behalf of
Senator Larkin, on page 48, I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 807,
Senate Print 3682, and I ask that that bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
8450
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, and the bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: May we return
to the controversial calendar, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
876, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4869, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to billing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill before us this morning
amends the Public Service Law and essentially
has three components to it. The first, it
shortens the time period when a property owner
must correct a shared metering problem. And
this reduces the time period from 120 days to
8451
60 days, thereby more quickly remedying the
problem.
The second aspect is that when we
have a situation where shared metering exists,
it requires that the overcharge be reimbursed
to the shared metering customer.
And then the third provision
eliminates the billing penalties that are
derived from a shared metering situation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Wright would yield for a
question.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, this
bill frankly confuses me. When we reduce the
time by which there is a violation where the
landlord is held in noncompliance with the
regulations that are set forth by the
commission from 120 days to 60 days, I would
assume that that would act as a benefit to the
consumer or to all concerned.
Then when we look at the penalty
stage and we eliminate it generally, my
8452
question is if the 60-day period now elapses,
the landlord is now in violation, the landlord
is in violation at the 60th day, the landlord
is also in violation at the 120th day, but
what is the difference, because the landlord
is not being penalized.
So things are not always as they
seem. What we did by reducing the amount of
time that the landlord has to make this
correction has not really solved the problem
at all and is in a sense a veil, because
inevitably the landlord doesn't suffer any
kind of penalty. And it could go on ad
nauseam without any correction made to the
meter.
So I'm wondering, Senator, what is
the benefit of reducing the time if there is
no penalty or there can be an elongated period
of violation even going beyond 120 days where
there is no redress?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, Senator,
you are correct in that by tightening the time
frame from 120 to 60 days we more effectively
accomplish the correction of the problem. And
that's really the motivation, to correct the
8453
situation.
In the vast majority of these cases
that we've reviewed, we're dealing not with
large tenant-landlord relationships but
generally a prior single residence that has
been subdivided to two or three, and we have
inadvertent errors that are resulting from
common hallways, basements, things of that
nature.
They are quickly remedied, and
rather than have an onerous penalty, we have
ensured that there is a response in terms of
the bills are corrected. And that
responsibility is taken care of in this
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Wright would yield for another
question.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I would assume
8454
that a great deal of research went into what
the time frame is and that Senator Wright has
set forth a time frame that is seasonable to
the landlords addressing the situation. And
that is that somewhere between 60 and 120
days, these problems can be corrected, as
opposed to within 60 days.
So I accept that. But my
contention is that there was no reason to
change the penalty phase coming after 120
days, or even if it got extended to perhaps
180 days. There has to be some point where
there is motivation for the landlord to
correct the situation, thus that the
commission, the utility company, and even the
residents who are affected by the fact that
the meter is now being shared are not having
additional problems because we have someone
who is renting out space that is not acting in
compliance with the regulations.
And this is why I don't understand
why the third phase of the legislation is
being changed at all. And I was wondering if
the Senator could specifically address to me
why we have to eliminate the penalty.
8455
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, the intent
was to ensure that any cost that was being
incurred by the customer would be reimbursed.
And that in fact is taken care of in this
bill.
And so ultimately, if addressed,
the landlord avoids that cost, the customer is
held harmless, so you have an equity and a
fairness that is accomplished in the
legislation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
would Senator Wright yield for a question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright will yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
just not sure how of eliminating the penalty
absolves the customer of cost that was not the
customer's fault in the first place.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, because
the bill requires that the owner reimburse the
cost of the inaccurate billing. So that
provides for a reimbursement to the customer
of the cost, thereby making the customer
8456
whole.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, my
understanding is that the utility refunds the
tenant. And therefore, I don't know how the
landlord and the tenant interact on this
particular issue. Might the Senator explain
that for me?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, it
reimburses the customer. And the obligation,
once resolved by the utility and/or the Public
Service Commission, is for the landlord to
correct that situation. And certainly it's in
the interest of the landlord to correct it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I guess maybe
at some point off the floor Senator Wright can
explain this to me. But I just don't
understand how the reimbursement of the tenant
through the utility, if there's an overcharge,
is involved with the penalty that is vested to
8457
the landlord if there isn't a change in the
first place.
In other words, I don't see how the
two situations are actually analogous and how
removing the penalty is going to enhance the
position of the user. Because the user, as I
see it, is protected under regulations now.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 60 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Paterson recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
909, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3557A,
an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to consumer tastings.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
8458
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, in the wine industry -- oh, excuse
me, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: That's
quite all right.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
in the wine industry we have made it possible
for -- in the wine industry we give people who
are purchasing a product the opportunity, when
you have an agent from the producer there, we
give them an opportunity to taste the product.
This now goes for distilled
spirits. You have to have somebody from the
company who produces a product there, but they
have an opportunity -- or they give the
opportunity at these establishments for people
to taste the various products, thereby making
it easier for people to make decisions. And
possibly they will have an opportunity to
purchase something they wouldn't have
purchased otherwise.
We're just extending what we're
doing in the wine industry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
8459
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I am very nervous about voting
against any bill of Senator Stafford's,
because he is a champion of the little guy, he
has such a distinguished career.
However, in this particular
instance, I am moved by the Governor's veto
message of the legislation last year. I
believe that there is a distinction between
wine, in the alcohol content, and the content
involved in hard liquor.
And I think that the Governor's
concern is that this could possibly contribute
to a situation when there might be,
unfortunately, a drunk driving incident. Or
at least there should be an opportunity to
8460
examine the issue from a task force, which I
know the Governor in his veto message
suggested that there be prepared and
established.
And frankly, Senator, I'd like to
just see what that recommendation would be.
So at this time, until the time when we do the
task force, I'm going to vote in the negative
on the bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, how do you vote? I simply didn't
hear, I'm sorry.
SENATOR BALBONI: I'd like to be
recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni will be recorded in the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52. Nays,
2. Senators Balboni and Duane recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
8461
941, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5092 -
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: May we proceed
to Calendar Number 989.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 989.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
989, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3408, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
multiple convictions.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 989.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Mr.
President.
Under the present law in New York,
an individual who sells marijuana may only be
charged with a misdemeanor unless that amount
in question is in excess of 25 grams. As a
result, we have drug dealers who have been
arrested and convicted as many as 30 and 40
times for sale of smaller amounts of
8462
marijuana, 25 grams or less.
It does little to deter criminal
activity. And the police department of the
City of New York has requested this
legislation, which is also supported by the
mayor.
The legislation elevates the charge
for marijuana sales in amounts of 25 grams or
less when the individual charged has
previously been convicted of any controlled
substance or marijuana offense -- with the
exception of unlawful possession of
marijuana -- at least three times within five
years, in which case it would be elevated to
an E felony, or has been convicted five times
within five years, in which case it would be
elevated to second degree, which is a
D felony, or ten times within five years,
which would bring it up to a C felony.
We have to take a stand to say that
we are not going to allow the law to be
flaunted 30 and 40 times. One, two, three,
four, five chances is enough.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
8463
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly,
Senator Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
bill apply to the users of marijuana, to what
extent small-time users may also be small-time
sellers of marijuana?
SENATOR VELELLA: Small-time
offenders of the law will not be in any way
affected by this change. This is people who
are selling, selling -- not using, selling -
marijuana and have been convicted at least
four times within five years of selling it to
someone else.
On the fifth time, we're saying
we're going to treat you a little more
seriously. You've had four bites on the
apple. Usually it's three strikes and you're
out. We're going to give them an extra shot.
8464
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if sponsor will yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Velella, giving them four strikes -
SENATOR VELELLA: I'm sorry, let
me be correct. We're going with the baseball
rule. It's three strikes and you're out.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In giving
them the three strikes, do any of those
strikes include treatment, any of those
pitches include treatment?
SENATOR VELELLA: To the degree
and to the amount that we now have programs in
place.
And if in fact, Senator, as you
indicated, these are just minor, casual users,
I don't know what kind of program we would
have in place. But whatever programs are
there they will be able to avail themselves
8465
of.
And the court system is sensitized
to the fact that when we have repeated drug
offenders or marijuana users, the
opportunities to participate in drug and
court-related programs is always there. We
have always appropriated the monies for those
programs, and those certainly will not be hurt
by this legislation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Velella will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: How does this
bill differ from the proposals with respect to
the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws?
As you know, Senator Velella,
there's been a lot of discussion. There are
several competing versions of the Rockefeller
Drug Laws repeal that are not necessarily
before this house yet but certainly are in the
8466
hopper in legislative discussions. How does
this proposal differ from those, if at all?
SENATOR VELELLA: I don't know
all of the provisions of the various proposals
to change the Rockefeller Drug Laws. I think
we'll be seeing some legislation out here on
the floor in the very near future to deal with
that, and we'll deal with it at that time.
But this focuses on the other end
of it, the very low end of the drug problem.
The laws that we will be talking about in
reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws deal with
much more serious offenses, the felonies,
people using felony weights, people being
multiply convicted, large sales. Those types
of things will be addressed, I believe, in any
reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
No one has addressed this problem,
and I'm sure -- I don't know in your district,
but I know for those of us who are in the
City, we keep hearing from people how is it
that these people have 30, 40, 50 arrests and
we still treat them as mere violations.
Aren't we getting the message when they're
arrested that many times? For sale, not for
8467
use. Not for casual, personal use. Selling
it to another person.
So I think this deals with that
lower end that is frustrating a lot of people.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, on the bill.
I appreciate Senator Velella's
honesty and candor in assessing this problem.
I'm really torn on this bill. I
agree with Senator Velella that to allow
someone to continue to break even our most
minor laws without some sense that there are
repercussions, and repercussions in increasing
magnitudes, I think is a bad idea. We should
be sending a message that whatever our laws
are, that failure to comply with them is going
to involve some penalties.
I'm going to vote -- I guess I've
decided I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill. But I do believe that we have to
continue to focus on drug treatment, that
continuing use of marijuana is a symptom of
addiction. And that is what, in essence,
minor drug users are doing. Minor street
sellers of marijuana are oftentimes using the
8468
sale of marijuana to generate enough money to
support themselves.
That's a regrettable addiction and
a regrettable problem. But the solution lies
not with putting people in jail, it lies with
giving them drug treatment, giving them access
to drug treatment and making it affordable.
And so as we increase the scope of
penalties, Senator Velella, I would hope that
in this budget, if we ever get to it, that we
will be in a position where we will look
carefully at exactly what we're doing for
these types of relatively low-level drug
offenders who are smoking marijuana and
selling it to others, and that what we would
do is we would look to establishing actual
treatment on demand for these individuals so
that they can kick their addiction and not end
up with a more severe prison sentence as a
consequence of their addiction.
With some reluctance, Mr.
President, I'm going to vote in favor. But I
hope when we get to the budget we'll look at
the drug treatment issue in more detail.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
8469
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, just a question for -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield for a question?
The sponsor yields.
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
Senator Velella, I'm just wondering, how does
the 25 grams compare with the amount required
for conviction under the Rockefeller Drug Laws
for the drugs?
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, that's
the standard that we're using now to give
people misdemeanors -- yeah, misdemeanor
offenses.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Right.
SENATOR VELELLA: So it would
still be the same. What's going to happen is
the Rockefeller Drug Laws I believe will deal
with much more substantial, over 25 grams. If
it's over 25, then we're talking about serious
weights.
The problem is, as related in the
New York Times and in the Daily News, what
8470
drug dealers are doing, particularly in
Washington Square Park, they are arriving on
the scene with less than 25 grams of
marijuana, they make their sale, run back to
their stash, take another load, and keep
running back and forth. So if they're ever
caught, they always have that misdemeanor
weight.
We're saying if you're caught and
you have that misdemeanor weight the first
time, okay. The second time, okay. The third
time. But the fourth time, you're not just
casually using it, you didn't just casually
happen to give some marijuana to somebody and
they gave you money back. After four times,
you're selling the stuff.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, if I could continue my question for
Senator Velella.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Velella, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Senator
Libous.
8471
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Velella will continue to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So under
current law, Senator Velella, is this correct,
that if you are caught with four ounces of
marijuana it is a Class D felony? Is that
correct?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, my
math and my conversion from the metric system
to our system is not that good. But if you
tell me that that is a felony weight, I would
believe you and say yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. And
under your bill, then, what -- is there any
change in that? Does your bill now classify
that as a C felony for four ounces? Is that
what you're -
SENATOR VELELLA: No. The only
thing that we deal with are those misdemeanor
weights under 25 grams. And we allow it to
exist as it is for the first three times.
Just after the fourth time, we now elevate it
to a felony. Because we don't think you're
casually using, we think you're selling.
And that's within a five-year
8472
period.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. So -
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Montgomery, are you asking another question?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I want
to continue, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Velella, will you continue to yield to another
question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Mr.
President, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Montgomery, he will yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Right.
So, Senator Velella, in other
words, if you are carrying 25 grams or less,
if you are arrested and charged with a
misdemeanor for -- how many times, three
times?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, let me
correct you. Our bill does not deal with the
issue of possession. If you have 25 grams on
your person, this bill doesn't deal with you.
It's only when you get convicted of
selling it to someone else, selling 25 grams
8473
or less, that we now say after the fourth
sale -- not possession, sale -- that we would
now raise it to a felony.
So the person who happens to get
caught five times, six times, seven times with
25 grams or less in their pocket for their own
personal use is not going to be affected by
this bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Montgomery.
Do any other Senators wish to speak
on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: The
8474
bill is passed.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
may we return to the controversial calendar in
the regular order now.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Regular
order on the controversial calendar.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
941, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5092, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
establishing.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
LaValle, Senator Duane asked for an
explanation, sir.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This legislation would amend
Section 8207 of the Education Law to add a
sixth subdivision, which is an exemption for
students in meeting their master's
requirement. And as part of the master's
requirement, they must do a practicum. It
8475
would allow that they be engaged in the
clinical practice under the supervision of a
licensed audiologist or a licensed
speech-language pathologist as part of that
practicum.
And, Senator, as you know, there
are other exemptions, for postgraduate
students and so forth, as part of Section
8207. So we're just adding a sixth section.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Yes,
Senator Duane, the sponsor will yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Do the speech
pathologists, the licensed speech pathologists
have a position on this bill, do you know?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, to the
best of my knowledge -- I don't have the file
here. But as I recall, when the bill was
reported from committee, I don't believe there
were any memos in opposition on this.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
8476
Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for
just one final question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
LaValle will continue to yield, sir.
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
could just describe why this hasn't been done
before, if there was something holding it up
or it was just a quirk in the law, in the
administrative law.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, as you
know, many times things happen as part of the
customary practices in our society that are
done where it's not spelled out in law. One
day, and I don't know how or who said, You
know, students who are doing their practicum
are engaged in the clinical practice, and the
law actually doesn't provide for it.
So what we are doing is now
spelling this out very, very clearly, that as
long as they're under the supervision of the
audiologist or the speech-language
pathologist, that they can do their practicum
and what they're doing, being engaged in the
practice, will not be in violation of the law.
8477
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
for purpose of clarification, there is a
memorandum of support from the New York State
Speech-Language Hearing Association.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Thank
you, Senator.
Are there any other Senators who
wish to speak on the bill?
If not, please read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
961, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1963, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
8478
Law, in relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, would you
please lay that bill aside for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: We'll
lay that bill aside for the day at the request
of Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
988, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2711, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
making citizenship document fraud.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Padavan, an explanation, sir.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a bill we have dealt with
on prior occasions. Basically, what we're
trying to do is provide a deterrent to the
manufacture, sale and use of illegal documents
by illegal aliens, obviously for purposes that
are illegal, anything from voting to entry
8479
into a social services system.
And what we're trying to do here is
to go to the heart of the problem by targeting
those who sell and manufacture these documents
as well as those who use them.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Mr. President, will Senator Padavan answer a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Padavan, will you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS:
Senator, he will yield.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator
Padavan, neither you nor I, as yet, are
members of the U.S. Senate. We are members of
the New York State Senate. And as you and I
know, under the Constitution the federal
government has domain over immigration and
naturalization.
There are federal laws already on
the statutes to seek proof of citizenship or
authority to work in the United States. It is
8480
already a federal crime to possess or
manufacture false citizenship or resident
alien documentation.
Now, I am not against the substance
of the bill. As you know, I questioned you
last year and the year before, but voted for
it. But my question this year is the same as
the question last year: If this is under the
domain of the federal government, why is the
State of New York getting involved when there
have been tough federal laws in this area for
several years?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, Senator,
let me give you an analogy. Last year we
passed one of the toughest weapons control
laws in any state in the nation. One of the
parts of that bill -- that I sponsored, you
may recall -- dealt with assault weapons.
We paralleled the federal law. We
made it New York State law. And why? So that
our prosecutors could deal with that issue
without having to refer the matter to a
federal law enforcement agent or prosecutor to
facilitate it.
Now, in this case -- and that's
8481
just one analogy. I could give you many
others -- civil, criminal forfeiture, which is
a federal law and it's a state law, one we
adopted in 1984 for the very same reasons, so
that we could do those things to protect our
institutions, our issues in this state.
Now, I'm sure you have read, as we
all have from time to time, of arrests in the
Motor Vehicle Bureau where people were selling
driver's licenses, registration cards for
vehicles. Why were they doing that, to help
people drive? No, because they are often a
means of identification when one seeks to
vote, one seeks social services, whatever
else.
Now, when those situations are
identified and we arrest those people, do we
want to now have to call upon the federal
offices, both prosecutors, federal agents,
FBI, to deal with that problem which affects
us very directly, or do we want to be able to
deal with it ourselves?
I think both, obviously, is the way
to go. And that's what this bill will
provide.
8482
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Lachman, why do you rise?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Will the
Senator yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Padavan, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Yes, he
will.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Under your law,
Senator Padavan, can a person be prosecuted
within our state legal system under -- with
the state courts, or will that person have to
be prosecuted in the federal courts of the
United States?
SENATOR PADAVAN: To be
prosecuted in our courts, there are D and E
felonies provided for in this proposal, and
they could be sought in terms of convictions
in our state courts.
That's the thrust of the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
8483
Lachman will speak on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I will
reluctantly vote for this bill this year, as I
have last year. But I have one problem that
keeps coming to the surface, and I know that
this is not the intent of the distinguished
Senator from Queens.
And that is, passage of this bill
or legislation when such legislation already
exists on the federal level, would this not
cause both legal and illegal immigrants who
have not done anything illegal additional fear
in their status in the United States? That is
my concern. But I know that you would not in
any way bait this particular group.
I think the substance of the state
legislation, very similar to the federal
legislation, is good. Therefore, I can't vote
against it. But I have this fear that if we
continue to do this year after year after
year, there are people in our society who will
be afraid to speak out and afraid to act as
American citizens who are legal citizens in
this nation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Any
8484
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
number of.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
991, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Luster, Assembly Print Number
933B, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure
Law, in relation to designating as peace
officers.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Seward, Senator Paterson has requested
an explanation of Senate Calendar Number 991.
8485
SENATOR SEWARD: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill would designate Ithaca
College security officers as peace officers
only if they have been designated as special
deputy sheriffs by the sheriff of Tompkins
County, to provide that layer of oversight
over their activities.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Any
other Senator wish to speak on this bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
197, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2533B, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the real property tax exemption.
8486
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Libous, an explanation of Calendar
Number 197 has been requested by Senator
Duane.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr.
President.
What we have here is a piece of
legislation that will aid our men and women
who serve in volunteer fire and emergency
squads. The County of Broome, through its
wisdom and its legislature, has sent us a home
rule message that has asked us to provide
legislation to give a 10 percent real property
tax exemption to those men and women who
volunteer their time and serve as volunteer
firefighters and emergency ambulance
personnel.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
8487
Senator Libous, would you yield for a question
from Senator Duane?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
I'd be happy to yield to Senator Duane.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Can the sponsor
tell me how many other counties have this type
of real estate property exemption in place?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
don't really know, to be very candid with
Senator Duane.
But I do know that this is a local
home rule message that came up through our
county and that it was designed specifically,
because of its nature, to address Broome
County only.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Libous, do you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'd be happy to
continue to yield.
8488
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: In Broome County,
are there any other people who are being -
with the exception of senior citizens and
veterans, any other employees who are being
exempted from property tax?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Oh, I'm sure
there are, Mr. President. I don't have a list
in front of me, but I'm sure that there may be
some special exemptions that either the county
legislature or other bodies may have passed.
But at this point in time, this
particular bill deals only with those who are
volunteer emergency and firefighters.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Any
other member wish to speak on this bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
8489
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Balboni, motions and
resolutions.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Mr.
President. On page 21, I offer the following
amendment to Calendar 427, Senate Print 3645,
and ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
amendment is received, and the bill will
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
may we please return to reports of standing
committees. I believe there is a report of
the Rules Committee at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
8490
Senate Print 1450, by Senator Rath,
an act to amend the Penal Law.
1534, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Penal Law.
2164, by Senator Lack, an act to
amend the Correction Law.
2740, by Senator Santiago, an act
to amend the Penal Law.
2950, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the County Law.
3309, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Education Law.
3478, by Senator Hassell-Thompson,
an act in relation to permitting.
3899, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
4278, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
4280, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
4490, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend Chapter 293 of the Laws of 1999.
4895, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend Chapter 566 of the Laws of 1967.
And Senate Print 5326, by Senator
8491
Rath, an act to amend the General Municipal
Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Balboni, do you move to accept the
report of the Rules Committee?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I move to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All in
favor of accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
report is accepted.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
is there any other housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: No.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
for the information of the members of the
8492
house, we are currently awaiting the arrival
of a message of necessity on Calendar Number
559. It is a one-week extender of the ticket
scalping law.
The action on that bill, should the
message of necessity arrive today, and we
anticipate it will, will conclude the business
of the house for the afternoon.
You may conduct yourselves
accordingly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Thank
you, Senator Balboni.
The Senate will stand at ease
pending the arrival of the message of
necessity on Calendar Number 559.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 12:40 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 1:00 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order. I ask the members
to take their places.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
8493
President. Will you please call up Calendar
559.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
559, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3655A, an
act to amend Chapter 704 of the Laws of 1991.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
which is at the desk on Calendar Number 559.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
The Secretary will read the last
8494
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
return to motions and resolutions.
The chair recognizes Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President, I
wish to call up my bill, Print Number 2567,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
8495
803, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
2567, an act in relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which the
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President, I
now offer the following amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendments are received and adopted.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President, there being no further business, I
move we adjourn until Monday, June 4th, at
3:00 p.m., intervening days being legislative
days.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
8496
objection, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday, June 4th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days to be legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)