Regular Session - June 11, 2001
8976
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 11, 2001
3:11 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
8977
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please 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, please.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to
acknowledge, before we proceed, the presence
of some children and staff from St. Mary's
Hospital in Bayside, Queens, in Senator
Padavan's district.
We welcome you here today and wish
you the very best, both today and in your
other endeavors.
Reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Sunday, June 10, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday, June 9,
8978
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Trunzo, on
page 42, I offer the following amendments to
Calendar 857, Senate Print 3953, and I ask
that this 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 FARLEY: Madam President,
8979
I'd like to offer amendments to the following
Third Reading Calendar bills:
Senator Meier, page 7, Calendar
134, Senate Print 1310.
Senator Skelos, page 22, Calendar
509, Senate Print 3329.
Senator Seward, on page 26,
Calendar 572, Senate Print 4372A.
On behalf of Senator Skelos, on
page 28, Calendar 615, Senate Print 3878.
Senator Velella, page 30,
Calendar 647, Senate Print 3571A.
On behalf of Senator Skelos, on
page 33, Calendar 698, Senate Print 4087A.
On behalf of Senator McGee, on
page 41, Calendar 817, Senate Print 4878.
On behalf of Senator DeFrancisco,
on page 44, Calendar 894, Senate Print 1075.
On behalf of Senator Saland, on
page 49, Calendar 964, Senate Print 3299.
And on behalf of Senator Spano, on
page 52, Calendar 1069, Senate Print 5355.
I ask that these bills will retain
their place on the Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
8980
are received, and the bills will retain their
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
I wish to call up Senator Meier's
bill, Print Number 4859, recalled from the
Assembly, which is now at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
691, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 4859, an
act to amend Chapter 436 of the Laws of 1997.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which this bill was passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, I now offer the following
amendments.
8981
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
Madam President, I wish to call up
Senator DeFrancisco's bill, Print Number 4264,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
824, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
4264, an act to amend the Public Authorities
Law.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which the bill was passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, I now offer the following
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator.
8982
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
we have substitutions at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes. Would you
make them at this time, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 52,
Senator Morahan moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Higher Education, Assembly Bill
Number 6021 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 3717, Third
Reading Calendar 1060.
And on page 52, Senator Spano moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8503A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5300A,
Third Reading Calendar 1068.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitutions
ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
8983
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
183, by Member of the Assembly Morelle,
Assembly Print Number 2692, an act to amend
the Real Property Tax Law, in relation to
authorizing.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
234, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 2617A, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
assaults.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
248, by Member of the Assembly Cahill,
Assembly Print Number 7753, an act to amend
the Judiciary Law and the Uniform Justice
Court Act, in relation to fees.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
8984
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
April.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
353, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
502, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3977, an
act to amend the -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
519, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3357A, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to authorizing.
8985
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, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if I could interrupt, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Labor Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Labor Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
528, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 6615, an act to amend
the Civil Service Law, in relation to the
period of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
8986
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
531, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 7788, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law, in
relation to including members.
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, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
585, by Member of the Assembly Cahill,
Assembly Print Number 29B, an act to amend the
8987
Agriculture and Markets Law, in relation to
authorizing requests.
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, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
601, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4339, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to increasing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
1. Senator Kuhl recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
8988
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
667, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 697A -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
710, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2340A,
an act to amend the Education Law and the
General Municipal Law, in relation to -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
766, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3656, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to firefighters.
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, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
8989
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
769, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 3786A, an
act to amend the Town Law and the Public
Officers Law, in relation to residents'
requirements.
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, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
807, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 3682A, an
act to authorize the Commissioner of the
Department of Environmental Conservation to
transfer.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
8990
837, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3520A, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
minimum sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
856, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3103B, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
certain trail designations.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
995, by Senator Connor, Senate Print 5090B, an
act to authorize the St. Ann's School.
8991
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: Madam
President, this is a bill that again tests the
issue related to property tax exemptions and
the ability of a taxing entity to provide a
partial property tax exemption.
I've continued to vote against
these bills. I'm going to vote against this
one even despite the name that's on it, who I
will praise, as I have praised other members
of this chamber, for doing the right thing for
their constituents in their communities.
Senator Connor is doing this bill for exactly
a good reason, to allow this not-for-profit
entity not to have to pay property taxes.
I would just suggest that I'm going
to continue to vote against these bills
regardless of the name attached to them,
8992
because this is not the way to deal with this
problem. I would strongly suggest that
Senator Hannon's bill, which he has carried in
the past, come to the floor, let's deal with
this issue once and for all, instead of
becoming the super-assessment review board for
New York State.
Which I think this is about the
22nd or 23rd of these bills that we have done
this year. And quite frankly, when the word
gets out that the way to get a partial
property tax exemption is to go to your local
state senator, I would suggest we're going to
be deluged with these requests.
Let's go back to being the State
Legislature and give up this new-found title.
I'll vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative on this
bill, Senator.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
8993
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1001, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1534,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal use of public records.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1042, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4760A,
an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation
to establishing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1043, by Member of the Assembly Weinstein,
8994
Assembly Print Number 7751A, an act to amend
the Family Court Act and the Domestic
Relations Law, in relation to confidentiality.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1047, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 5328, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
nanotechnology facility.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day, Senator.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1048, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 5337, an
act to amend the Local Finance Law, in
relation to temporary alternative methods.
8995
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall -
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calender Number
1049, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 5342, an
act to amend the Executive Law and the General
Municipal Law, in relation to the authority.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1050, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5370,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to requiring.
8996
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1052, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 1055,
an act to authorize the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
THE PRESIDENT: There is 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, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1053, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print
1078B, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic
Law, in relation to operation of scooters.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
8997
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1055, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 1361,
an act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
THE PRESIDENT: There is 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, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1056, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
1971, an act to amend the Public Health Law,
in relation to body piercing and tattooing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
8998
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1057, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 2851,
an act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
THE PRESIDENT: There is 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, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1058, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3183A, an
act to amend the Uniform Justice Court Act, in
relation to fees.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
8999
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1060, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Glick, Assembly Print Number
6021, an act in relation to persons who may
temporarily practice.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect August 24, 2001.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1061, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3771,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to public works contracts.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1062, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 3938, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law and
9000
the Social Services Law, in relation to the
construction and financing.
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, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1066, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4766,
concurrent resolution of the Senate and
Assembly proposing an amendment to Section 4
of Article 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1067, by Senator Gentile, Senate Print 4930,
an act to authorize the Brooklyn Cultural
Center of New York, Incorporated.
9001
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, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1068, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 8503A, an act to amend the Labor Law
and the Public Officers Law.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President,
will you lay the bill aside for the day,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator
McGee, it's laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1070, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5369,
an act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law,
in relation to coverage.
9002
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, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1071, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 5389,
an act to amend Chapter 552 of the Laws of
1995.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator McGee, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
9003
SENATOR McGEE: If we can have
the reading of the controversial calendar at
this time, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
183, by Member of the Assembly Morelle,
Assembly Print Number 2692, an act to amend
the Real Property Tax Law, in relation to
authorizing.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR McGEE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee, do
you want the bill laid aside for the day?
SENATOR McGEE: Temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
234, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 2617A, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
assaults committed in the presence of certain
children.
9004
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
this bill provides an enhancement to assault
in the second degree, a D felony, when an
offender commits an assault in the third
degree in the presence of a child under the
age of 18 when the child is the offspring or
stepchild of the victim of the offense.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, if I may ask a question of the
sponsor, Senator Rath.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
9005
Rath, I'm just trying to understand, what is
the rationale for your legislation? Why do we
need to do this overriding of the law that we
already have?
SENATOR RATH: I think, Senator
Montgomery, that there is very clear evidence.
An article in the Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology showed in a rather large
study of 198 children from ages 4 to 16 years
of age, compared to 102 children, those
children from violent families who were
residing in the shelter -- let me start this
again.
There was a total of 198 children,
102 from the violent families as compared to
96 in the nonviolent families. And the
children from the violent families scored 2½
times higher on measures of behavior and
competency problems, and male children were
affected more than female children.
And in October of 2000, the Court
of Appeals of New York State held that
physical assault witnessed by a child
qualifies as child endangerment under the
penal laws. So what we're doing is codifying
9006
that case and also increasing it to D felony.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, if I may continue.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Senator Rath.
So in other words, your legislation
would change the charge from a misdemeanor to
a D felony -
SENATOR RATH: Right.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- for the
fact that a child is in the home and
witnessing the domestic violence?
SENATOR RATH: That's right.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: That is in
addition to the charge for domestic violence
itself?
SENATOR RATH: One moment.
Senator, basically what it will do
would be to increase the degree of the offense
because of a child being present.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Madam President, I would like to
9007
ask another clarification question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield for another question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So, Senator
Rath, I'm trying to be very clear about this.
If a person commits domestic violence, we now
have on our books, whether or not the person
against whom the violence is perpetrated -
that person must be arrested and charged with
a crime. Which of course we certainly agree.
Now you're saying that with this
law, in addition to that charge, that
individual will also be charged with a Class D
felony because of the fact that there is a
child or there are children in the home at
that time.
SENATOR RATH: That's correct.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
And if I may continue, Madam
President, I would like to ask another
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
9008
will you yield for another question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Senator Rath.
And in addition to the charge -
let me just rephrase that.
Does the bill -- is there anything
in this legislation that protects a person who
is victimized by domestic violence? In other
words, if two people are having a domestic
incident and the police come, and it is
presumed that both parties are involved in the
incident, and there are children in the home,
does that mean, then, that both parties would
be eligible to be charged with a Class D
felony even though one party is perhaps more
violent than the other or one person is
defending themselves against the violence of
another person? Do both of them have equal
responsibility in this case?
SENATOR RATH: The bill provides
that the perpetrator, a clear perpetrator,
would be the one who would be charged with a
Class D felony.
9009
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Senator Rath. I was just trying to make sure
that in cases that we are very familiar
with -- Madam President, if I may, just
briefly on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed on
the bill, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. In
cases that we are familiar with, very often
there is indeed a perpetrator but there is
also an action by the person who is on the
receiving end of domestic violence in defense
of oneself.
In fact, a number of the women who
are currently serving prison sentences based
on their defense for themselves against a
domestic violence situation, nonetheless, they
are now in prison.
So I would -- it's a little bit of
a worry that we have this law, which provides
that it's very possible that both parties
could be equally charged, based on the fact
that both parties were involved, even though
one party may have been in sort of a
self-defense action.
9010
So I'm going to vote no on this
legislation. I have in the past. I certainly
agree that we must protect people in domestic
violence situations, but I don't -- I'm not
sure that this does not put the law in a
position to be harsh on the person who in fact
is just in a defensive mode rather than a
perpetrator.
I vote no, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, as I
understand this bill, this bill is designed to
or starts from the premise that a child
observing violence in the home is more likely
to engage in violence at a subsequent time.
Is that correct?
9011
SENATOR RATH: That's correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In
considering this bill, Senator, did you
consider the source of most of the violence
observed by children in the home where they
most often see violence?
SENATOR RATH: Senator Dollinger,
if you're talking about the violence on
television, no, that's not what we're talking
about.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right.
Through you, Madam President, just briefly on
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think I'm
going to vote in favor of this bill, Senator
9012
Rath. And I understand the purpose, which is
that children observing violence in the home
are more likely to engage in violence.
But quite frankly, this is a bill
that in my opinion will have minimal impact on
deterring crime. At least in my experience,
domestic violence is oftentimes borne of
passion, it's borne of outrage, irrationality,
and that's what drives domestic violence. All
of which we should work hard to restrict.
But it seems to me that the cause
of most violence in the home -- and what we
see in the home now is that our children are
watching violence in the home all the time.
All the time. You can't turn on a modern
television show without seeing violence.
There are people shooting each other, there
are people punching each other, they're
walking around kick-boxing -- Walker Texas
Ranger, that whole host of people.
And it would just seem to me,
Senator Rath, that if what we're really trying
to do is to deter violence in the home, the
thing to do is to consult with Senator
Balboni. Remember, Senator Balboni had the
9013
bill that said we should warn about violence
on our video screens, which in most cases are
sometimes seen through our television set but
most often are in our arcades.
And I would just suggest, Senator
Rath, that this bill has a beneficial purpose,
but the thing we ought to be trying to do to
attack the problem of violence in the home is
to take a good and careful look at what our
children see on television and begin to try to
deal with that problem as well.
In the long run, that type of
somehow fashioning a remedy that will dissuade
those who are in the television business from
projecting this into our homes is a better way
to curb the long-term problem of domestic
violence.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. I think it's going to
be on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Madam
9014
President, I think one of the things that has
been concerning me as I listened to the brief
debate today is that from the experience that
I have had working with children in households
where violence is a part of what goes along
with substance abuse and some of the other
kinds of issues that happen to and between
spouses and people who live together -- and my
concern becomes that while I am certainly in
favor of doing everything to decrease the
incidences of abuse in the home, I am
certainly concerned, as Senator Dollinger
pointed out very clearly, that in most cases
we are talking about an illness and we are
talking about a behavior that may not and
probably will not be deterred by an increase
in criminal penalties.
That's the major portion of my
concern, is we continue to debate and we
continue to talk about how to pile sentence on
top of sentences, how to extend criminal
behavior. My concern is that we still
continue to fail to address the need to get at
the root cause of a lot of the anger and the
anxiety that exists in many of our households.
9015
While I think that certainly we
want to do everything that we can to deter the
violence, certainly to deter the opportunities
for children to witness and be a part of, both
emotionally and physically, the violence that
occurs, nothing in the statistics and the work
that I have done over the years demonstrates
to me or to any of my work colleagues that
stiffer sentences is the answer and the way to
go.
And so while there is a very strong
part of me that says that we need to do
something very severe, this does not seem to
necessarily be the answer for me. So I don't
believe that I can vote in favor of this bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
I know it's frequent that in Albany
that the distinction between fantasy and
reality frequently gets blurred. But I'm
somewhat astonished that someone could import
a discussion about what goes on on television
into this bill. Even children understand that
9016
goes on on television is not real.
And we have very dramatic both
anecdotal and scholarly information that
indicates that children are very directly and
dramatically impacted when they see an act of
domestic violence perpetrated in their home by
two people whom those children frequently in
fact love or have come to trust or to live
with.
We know from the studies and the
data that is available that children who
become inured to seeing that kind of thing are
more likely to become abusers themselves or,
just as tragically, are more likely than other
children to go on to think in life that that
in fact is normal and acceptable behavior.
We also know that children who are
in close proximity to an abusive event are in
fact themselves in the zone of danger, and
that the abuser sometimes moves on to the
children themselves.
Part of what we do here when we
pass laws is we both in terms of the criminal
law define what is minimally acceptable
conduct for a humane and a decent society and
9017
what is conduct that is not acceptable. We do
that in terms of regulating in a minimal way
the conduct of people in a humane society, but
we also do it to express our sense as a people
as to what our values are, what we feel is
important.
And this bill I think speaks
volumes about protecting children and the
value we put on that in a very real situation.
It doesn't create a new crime, but it bespeaks
the very great difference, both qualitatively
and quantitatively, when an event of this sort
takes place with a child in the room.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Madam
President, just briefly on the bill.
The whole concept -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: -- that we
haven't found a way to stop violence in the
home as a reason for voting against the bill
that raises the penalty on those who
9018
perpetrate violence on one person in the home
escapes me. I don't understand the logic of
that.
If we can find the reason that's
causing it, all well and good. Let's do that.
Let's determine that reason, let's work to
solve this problem if we can.
In the meantime, we've got to do
something about people who are murdering,
beating up and abusing their partners in front
of their children or not in front of their
children. It has to be stopped. And if it
takes putting them away for a period of time,
so be it. Let's put them away for a period of
time until we find the reason that can resolve
it in perhaps a better way.
In the meantime, I'm for putting
them away. I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
If the members would please take
their conversation outside the chambers.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, the approach that Senator Rath has
adopted is consistent with the body of law
9019
that surrounds the corruption of a child, the
contributing to the facts and circumstances
that take a child's life and either puts it in
danger or contributes to its decline, the
child's decline.
What we don't do enough of,
notwithstanding all of our proclamations that
children are everything for us in this state,
we don't specify in our laws enough that when
it comes to adult behavior, the bar will
always be raised, no matter what the conduct
when it comes to children. That is Senator
Rath's message.
It is consistent with the parens
patriae position of government when it comes
to children. It is consistent with our
current penal scheme. And what this bill
essentially enunciates is that if you become
violent in a place where there are children,
you will now suffer a more serious consequence
as a result of those actions.
This is a good measure. It doesn't
mean that there aren't other issues that we
need to address, such as what Senator
Dollinger mentioned. But I think what we have
9020
here is a very practical realization that when
violence occurs in front of children not only
does it have a profound and lasting effect, as
Senator Meier pointed out, but there is also a
greater incidence and possibility of injury to
the child. That must be deterred.
Thank you, Madam President.
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 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Madam President. Briefly to explain my
vote.
The bill, as I understand Senator
Rath's intent, is totally appropriate and
logical and admirable, and that is to
hopefully begin to look for ways of breaking
9021
the cycle of violence as it relates to
children being subjected to it and perhaps
repeating the behavior in their adult lives.
I do, however, object to the notion
that the answer to this is an extension of a
sentence term for the person who is
perpetrating the violence, as well as what the
bill seems to be resulting in is a possibility
of a person who is not a perpetrator but who
defends himself or herself also being charged
with a Class D felony.
I hope that we can talk about ways
in which we deal with domestic violence once a
crime has been committed. No matter if there
are children or not, we should deal with this
to try and, one, protect the people in that
home, especially the children, but also the
partner, as well as develop an approach which
addresses this criminal behavior.
I don't think this is appropriate,
and that's why I am voting no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative on this bill.
Senator Hassell-Thompson was next.
9022
Then Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. To explain my vote.
I agree with all of the concerns
that have been raised by all the Senators.
For the most part, I think that Senator Meier
knows that in many of the discussions that he
and I have shared around many of these issues,
we are in agreement.
I am totally in agreement with all
of the studies that have indicated the impact
of violence in the home on children. But my
sense is that the remedy does not fit the
crime, that too often it makes us feel better
to increase the penalties so that people think
that we're doing a good job at corrective
measures on domestic violence.
But there is nothing in any of the
research that I have ever done or any of the
research that is available to me -- and if
such research is available, I am open to
reading it, discussing it, and certainly
continuing to change my thought processes.
But there is nothing that indicates that
increased penalties is an answer to corrective
9023
measures for domestic violence.
What it does or may do is to remove
persons from the household. But the kind of
sustained damage that is done and has been
done by separation within families without
counseling, without any kind of support
service for these families, is not the total
corrective measure that this bill -- and I
think that it's just the fact that it is
lacking the notion that there is more than
just the incarceration of individuals that is
going to be the remedy for domestic violence
in our households and our situations.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, how do you vote on this
bill?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I'm going to be voting yes, but I
concur with everything that was said by my
9024
colleagues here. But most particularly, I
think what you're hearing from most of us is
that punishment is not the answer. It is a
small piece, but it really doesn't get to the
fundamental issue here.
And I have spent the last couple of
days with folks involved in alternative
dispute resolution and mediation, and it seems
to me if we are going to get a handle on this,
we have to deal more with prevention and less
with punishment. Because punishment comes
after the act, when the violent act has
already been committed.
I just would urge all of us to take
a much closer look at what we can do to
prevent these circumstances. Certainly when
children see violence, they are going to think
that that is an acceptable means of behavior,
and they carry that into their adult lives.
But if -- and I know we have many
programs going in our junior and senior high
schools -- if we can intervene at an early
enough time, we can show them there are other
ways to handle anger and irritation and a
whole variety of negative feelings which can
9025
be turned into an opportunity to discuss.
So I'll be voting yes, but I think
there's a lot more work that has to be done.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative on this bill.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just briefly to explain my vote.
I join in the comments of all of my
colleagues that talked about the need for
increased prevention.
I think we should be very clear
about what we're doing here, though. We are
doing something that at least in my
understanding has no other parallel in our
penal law. We are creating a new category of
crime that is determined not by who does what
or where they do it, but by who observes it.
We're increasing the penalties purely on the
basis of who happens to observe particular
conduct.
I would suggest there's no other
corollary for that in our penal law where we
increase the penalty based on the observer
9026
that happens to be present.
I'm prepared to do that in this
instance because, as Senator Rath described,
of the unique circumstances that involve
children. However, I do believe that the
comments made by Senator Montgomery and
Senator Oppenheimer and Senator
Hassell-Thompson about this being a part of a
greater role in prevention is critically
important.
And while I agree with Senator
Meier that sometimes we blur distinctions
here, the point I was making about television
is that if what we're saying is that children
observing certain conduct causes greater
societal problems or increases propensities,
then we ought to look at that issue as well as
part of a broader plan to achieve the
prevention goal that this side has talked
about.
And the only other thing I'll add
is at least in my own personal experience
representing families, when domestic violence
occurs in the home, whether it occurs in the
presence of the children or not, the children
9027
know it's occurred. They're impacted by it,
they're influenced by it. It's not just
because they observe it; they know it's going
on in the home.
And when that happens, the kind of
damaging long-term impact on children is
present. That's why I think the broader
solution to domestic violence is let's put our
resources to work in preventing it across the
board.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative on this bill.
Does any other member wish to be
heard on this bill?
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
2. Senators Hassell-Thompson and Montgomery
recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Will you call up
9028
Calendar Number 183, please, Senator Maziarz's
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 183.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
183, by Member of the Assembly Morelle,
Assembly Print Number 2692, an act to amend
the Real Property Tax Law, in relation to
authorizing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
Yes, this bill permits school
districts at their option, Madam President, to
grant the senior citizen real property tax
exemption to low-income seniors who otherwise
qualify for such exemption but under the
current law are now excluded from receiving
that exemption if there is a child who attends
public school residing with the senior.
I think passage of this law would
encourage some grandparents to become more
involved with their grandchildren's education
9029
and not be financially punished because of
that involvement.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Maziarz would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you yield for a question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Certainly,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
notice in the bill that this is optional for
the town. If this is something we feel we
want to be doing, was there a reason that
you've made it only optional? Or is that
something that you would think would be in
anticipation that at some point this would
just be a standard?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Well, each
school district of course throughout the
state, Senator, is different. Each one of
their financial viabilities are different.
9030
And I thought that probably the best first
step would be to do this at their option.
And I also thought that the
acceptance of getting it through both houses
and signed by the Governor was greater if we
made it at the option of the local school
district, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Maziarz would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for another question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President. Of course.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, if we
look at the concept of the exemption under
Section 467 of the Real Property Tax Law -
and it's in subdivision 2 that it's
provided -- it specifically exempts seniors
because there's a presumption that they don't
have young children in the home.
So aren't we actually just
completely reversing the exemption that
9031
existed in the first place? Because they do
have small children in the home, presumably
who are going to school, so wouldn't they
theoretically be paying the tax?
Or is it your perception that
because the small children are in the homes of
seniors that there must have been some
unforeseen circumstance in which the senior is
taking on a burden and we don't want to
increase that burden?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, that
perception is true, Senator Paterson. We
assume that these children have parents and
that their parents are in fact paying school
property taxes at the full rate. It's just
because of some particular family situation
that the grandchild is better off living with
the grandparents.
And today, of course, we see many,
many instances where children are residing
with their grandparents for many different
reasons, as opposed to with their parents.
And I think that this would give an added
incentive, if you will, for grandparents to be
accepting of their grandchildren living with
9032
them.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Maziarz would yield for
one final question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
will you yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I think the
question I want to ask you, Senator, would
have been that what about others who are not
seniors who also have different types of
financial encumbrances? What would we be
doing about the fact that they have children
in the home and they're paying property taxes
and they have problems too, so to speak?
But I assume that the same public
policy standard that you set for why you would
want to grant the exemption for seniors is the
one that presumes that others who are not
seniors are therefore actually the parents or
of parental age and that they assume the
responsibility for the fact that they have the
9033
children there.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: That is
correct, Senator Paterson, yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield for -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Certainly,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Under the legislation, would co-op
and condo owners be eligible?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: The answer
would be yes. If they pay school property
taxes, then yes, they would be, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
will you yield?
9034
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Would it
necessarily be that the co-op and condo owner
would get the exemption? Or would there have
to be additional legislation so that the
managing agent or the owner of the property
that the co-op or condo was on didn't get the
exemption?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Senator Duane,
if they are currently eligible for an
exemption, for a senior exemption, this -
then they are currently not eligible if they
have grandchildren living with them. So then
they would be, yes, under this legislation if
they are currently eligible.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
9035
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: I seem to
remember, though, that here we had to pass
some special legislation so that the property
owner did get the exemption in a co-op or
condo, as opposed to the actual landowner or
like the managing owner.
And so I'm just wondering whether
we would have to do that in this case as well.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I believe that
we would, Senator Duane. In quickly reviewing
my notes when you started me down this road, I
looked here and you are correct, we would have
to do a separate piece of legislation for
that.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I
appreciate getting that information.
I hope that we can try to equalize
it if this bill becomes a reality so that
those older people who live in co-ops and
9036
condos who are taking care of school-age
children would be able to take advantage of
this as well.
And then the only other issue is I
just think that if we do go down this road
that we should look at other kinds of sort of
means-tested tax relief for families,
low-income families who have children in
school as well. And I'll certainly look into
that, and I'd be more than happy to look into
it with the sponsor as well.
Thank you, Madam President.
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 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR McGEE: Please call up
9037
Calendar Number 502, by Senator Saland.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 502.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
502, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3977, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Domestic Relations Law, in relation to
violations.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is a bill that is introduced
at the request of the judiciary. What the
bill does is basically deal with the issue of
how in effect to deal with violations of
orders of custody and/or visitation.
And what the bill does is it
effectively codifies in one place the remedies
that an applicant for an order seeking relief
for a violated order of either custody or
9038
visitation would be able to turn.
Effectively, at this point, the law
only provides statutorily for a contempt
proceeding. There are a host of other
practices and remedies that are fashioned by
our courts in dealing with violations of
custody and visitation. This proposes to
codify those practices.
Those practices are parallel and
certainly at the very least substantially
similar, if not parallel, to existing
provisions in Article 4 of the Family Court
Act dealing with support, and very similar in
substance to those in Article 8 of the Family
Court Act dealing with family offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, if I may just ask Senator Saland
for a clarification for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: I'm sorry, I
couldn't hear what Senator Montgomery said.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you yield
for a question, Senator?
9039
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Saland, I'm just trying to
understand. This legislation is aimed at
those parents who have custody and who fail to
live up to the arrangements, the court-ordered
visitation arrangements with the other parent.
That if the court determines -
SENATOR SALAND: Let me interrupt
right away and say that's in part correct but
also in part incorrect. It would also apply
to a noncustodial parent who wasn't abiding by
whatever obligations were imposed by the
not-noncustodial parent.
For instance, if there were
visitation available at certain hours and that
person showed up late continuously and caused
problems with visitation, that person would be
subject to the same section of the law.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
So to continue my questioning -- thanks for
that clarification, Senator Saland -- the bill
authorizes the court now to, among other kinds
9040
of sanctions -- i.e., losing some of their
rights to visitation and being on probation,
suspension, or whatever -- they can now also
serve some jail time?
SENATOR SALAND: That currently
exists in the law. If you violate an order,
if you violate a court order, you can be held
subject to civil contempt. That is a remedy
currently available and is used from time to
time in various courts.
This basically recodifies one of
the few, if only, provisions for a remedy that
currently exists by way of statute in New York
for violation of an order of either custody or
visitation.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So if I may,
Madam President, if Senator Saland would
continue.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator Montgomery, I could not hear what you
said.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: If I may, if
Senator Saland will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
will you continue to yield?
9041
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Even though
the underlying language "commit the party to
jail for a term not to exceed six months,"
that is essentially not new language; that is
already in law, but you're just incorporating
it now into your -
SENATOR SALAND: Currently you
can be subjected to a violation of court order
in any number of situations, not merely those
applicable in the Family Court Act -- to civil
contempt, you can be jailed for it. It is not
a criminal charge. There is no criminal
record associated with it. And you can be, in
this particular case, committed for up to six
months.
If you'll note, this is in the
section of the law that provides for a willful
failure. So it's not merely an accidental or
unintentional failure. After a hearing it
would have to have been shown that there was
an element of willfulness. Whatever the
9042
breach was, the party who was subjected to the
proceeding would have to have been shown to
have willfully, purposefully, intentionally
chosen not to abide by his or her obligation
as imposed by the court order.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And the
judge determines willfulness?
SENATOR SALAND: After a hearing.
After a hearing.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: After a
hearing, okay.
Thank you, Senator Saland.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
this law might make it easier for parents who
are involved in an acrimonious custody dispute
or divorce case to have even more tools at
9043
hand to make each other's lives miserable.
SENATOR SALAND: I don't believe
so, Senator Duane. I think this is primarily
a codification of remedies that are used in
one fashion or another in courts throughout
this state. I don't think this is intended to
expand upon the number of acrimonious
relationships that the court gets to see. I
think it's just intended to deal with them.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: You know, as last
time this bill came to the floor, I remain
troubled by the words "willful violation."
And I'm wondering what constitutes a willful
violation.
And if I can just continue on that,
if a spouse accuses the other spouse of
9044
willful violation, where does the burden fall?
Is the burden on proving -- the person proving
that they were not willfully violating, or
does the burden of proof fall on the person
who has to -
SENATOR SALAND: I would imagine
it would be as in any other situation in which
you are a petitioner or a complainant or an
applicant. The burden of proof is on the
moving party, the party who is seeking to show
that there is a violation.
So in this instance the person who
is saying that that person, my former spouse,
my whatever, willfully violated the order,
that person is going to have to establish on
the record by way of credible evidence that
that in fact was something that was done
intentionally, perhaps maliciously, perhaps
with absolute malice, for all we might be able
to conjure up.
"Willfully," as I'm sure you're
aware, covers a broad range of possibilities
and is often at times rather difficult to
define, but generally will be a function of
what the facts -- what facts apply.
9045
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Does "willful"
exist in other parts of the law?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm sorry, other
parts of?
SENATOR DUANE: Of New York State
law, "willful."
SENATOR SALAND: There are a
number of instances where the word is used.
As I mentioned earlier, this substantially
parallels the Article 4 support proceedings.
"Willful" is used there. There are other
contexts in which "willful" is used.
I had to check with counsel;
"willful" is also used in the criminal law,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
9046
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
will you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I believe we
talked about this when the bill came up
before. But I mean, I find it troubling that
it parallels something in the criminal side of
the law.
And I think actually I'm just going
to leave it at that, because we have debated
this bill before.
But, Madam President, on the bill,
if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
You know, this again is a tough
call for me. You know, certainly I -
disregarding, you know, in a sort of
in-your-face and outlandish manner visitation
9047
or custodial agreements is a terrible thing.
But even though this is not -- the
violations are not punishable under criminal
law, the punishments actually seem like
punishments under criminal law. And I'm not
sure that that's particularly helpful. And I
know that we're all tainted, or I'm tainted by
reading some of the Family Court cases which
make it into the newspapers that are
particularly acrimonious.
But even in those cases, I don't
think necessarily that treating them in a
manner parallel to criminal law would be
particularly helpful, and in fact may provide
a greater arsenal of weapons to use in an
acrimonious custodial case or divorce case.
So in a tough call, I'm going to
vote no on this. But I am open to looking at
other ways of solving what could be terrible
cases of custodial interference and visitation
interference.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
9048
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Call up Calendar
Number 1050, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 1050.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1050, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5370,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to requiring certain vehicles.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I don't need a full explanation.
If Senator Bonacic would just tell us, if he
will yield for a question, just give us an
idea of what things -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
9049
yield for a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: I just want to
know what his view is on the Governor's
previous veto of this legislation, and has
that been worked out.
SENATOR BONACIC: This bill
passed last year 61 to 0, and it passed the
Assembly by a unanimous vote count.
The Governor vetoed it for three
reasons. One, the bill we passed last year
was limited to a cross-view mirror, which
would be only by sight. The trucking
industry, with the modern technology, if they
wanted to have an audio or a sonar, they could
also install the latest technology device that
would save -- that would be for the same
purpose and that a driver could see, when
backing up, who is behind him.
The second concern was that the
Governor was afraid that our bill might have
infringed on the Constitution right of free
interstate commerce between the trucking
9050
industry. And it would apply to all trucks
that would come into the state of New York and
do business.
This bill only is for commercial
vehicles registered in the state of New York.
And we have checked with the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations as well as the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program when
it comes to funding, and they have signed off
on the language to make sure it would not
jeopardize our federal funding for safety when
it comes to protecting our citizens when in
the operation of a truck.
So they're the reasons why it was
vetoed last year. That language and those
concerns have been addressed, and this is a
Governor's program bill.
And I think it's something -
there's one statistic I'd just like -- that's
worth mentioning. Between 1969 and 1999,
according to the National Center for Health
Statistics, accidents involving trucks backing
up, 6,647 crashes, which resulted in a little
less than 2500 injuries and 12 deaths in the
state of New York. One happened to be a
9051
5-year-old child in our Senate district.
So I think this is good legislation
for all of us for public safety. It's a
minimum burden on the trucking industry. And
we should pass this law as soon as we can.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in one year after the
date it shall have become a law.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
667, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 697A, an
act to amend Chapter 912 of the Laws of 1920.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR GOODMAN: May I ask who
requested it, please, Madam President.
9052
THE PRESIDENT: By all means,
Senator Goodman. Senator Paterson asked.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator
Paterson, I don't know that you've ever heard
of the expression the "tomato can." When we
think of a tomato can, we usually think of an
Andy Warhol painting. But in boxing, "tomato
can" has a special connotation.
It's a sport in which unfortunately
some men who are over the hill in terms of
their boxing careers are often mismatched
against others trying to climb the ladder of
their boxing attempts to become champions, and
in the process they're viciously
undermatched -- or, rather, overmatched
against the so-called "tomato can," who is a
boxer on the way down who is viciously beaten
and brutally handled in many ways, not only in
the ring but outside it, due to sub-par health
facilities and a variety of other very serious
problems.
The Senate Investigations Committee
on two occasions, once in 1979 and once in
1999, has had occasion to examine this whole
area very, very carefully. And the result of
9053
this investigation, which called over 130
witnesses, is that we now believe we have a
grip on the things that need to be done to
clean up the boxing business.
Number one is the problem of
concussion. When a boxer is in the ring, very
often we see him standing with his dukes up,
so to speak, in a position that appears to
permit him to defend himself. In point of
fact, it's been proven medically that he is
absolutely defenseless and virtually
unconscious on his feet.
The only people who are qualified
to spot this type of condition are
neurologists. We became especially sensitized
to it on an occasion when a man was literally
murdered in the ring by virtue of negligent
medical supervision of his bout. And as a
result of that death we went in, very
carefully examined his brain at the medical
examiner's office, found that he was suffering
from a concussion that had occurred in two
rounds before his actual final knockout.
The result was a sweeping
investigation which resulted in the suspension
9054
of boxing in the state for 60 days while we
recommended strongly that there be some new
approach taken to these problems. The
approach specifically was to bring on a
neurologist trained in examination of
concussion and related conditions at ringside,
to avoid this type of death in the ring in the
future. This we think is very significant,
and it's another thing that's encompassed in
this bill.
Let me say I've been working very
closely with Senator John McCain in
Washington, who has introduced at the federal
level something known as the "Muhammad Ali
Boxing Reform Bill." The bill before you
contains many of the cooperatively arrived-at
elements in the Muhammad Ali bill. And I
think by passing it, as we hope to do shortly,
we will set a good example from which federal
guidelines can also be inferred and adopted.
Let me be a little more specific,
if I may, as to the contents of this bill.
Specifically, some of our findings, in
addition to those I've mentioned, are that
corrupt promoters and selfishly motivated
9055
sanctioning bodies have undermined the
integrity of boxing and public confidence in
the sport.
Separate rankings of boxers by each
sanctioning body under the heavy influence of
greedy promoters have resulted in unjustified
advancement of promoter-connected boxing
mismatches, motivated by profit and
allegations that sanctioning bodies receive
payments to change rankings. Allegations of
this nature were the subject of the recent
International Boxing Federation string of
indictments brought by the U.S. Attorney in
New Jersey.
These multiple sanctioning bodies
don't exist for the betterment of boxing but
for the financial gain of individuals
associated with them.
The process of licensing judges
must be reformed. State law and State
Athletic Commission regulations requiring
State Athletic Commission licensing of all
judges brought is about by this bill. And I
could go on and on.
Let me say if you examine this bill
9056
in detail, it's a thoughtful document,
carefully arrived at, designed to clean up one
of the most tragic situations one could ever
find in the ring. When we see championship
fights, they are clothed in glamor and all
sorts of fascination for spectators. But if
you ever go into some of the local gyms where
the youngsters are trying to come up and where
the oldsters are sadly in a state of disarray,
you will find literally tragic and
disastrously bad conditions.
So it's with that background that I
urge the house to adopt this bill at the first
possible moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Goodman would yield for
a question.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
9057
think your colleagues overwhelmingly support
the bill.
There are obviously tighter
constraints and greater care taken in amateur
bouts. But I wanted to know if the
legislation or the commission would have the
expanded ability to involve themselves in
amateur boxing.
SENATOR GOODMAN: This gives the
commission a series of specific guidelines of
things that need to be done which would apply
to both amateur and professional boxing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: During this
time of the basketball finals, there's a lot
of discussion about whether or not Michael
Jordan would come back and play in the NBA.
And that is a choice that the individual can
make, because if he wants to prove his skills
or this be a personal challenge that he'd like
to stand up to, that's fine. There isn't any
real downside of it, other than publicity, one
9058
way or the other.
But what happens to many boxers, as
Senator Goodman pointed out, is because of the
mismanaged contracts, because of situations
such as -- there was one even in a heavyweight
boxing championship match once where the
promoter and the promoter's relative were
managing the two fighters. There are
conflicts of interest, safety measures not
taken, actions taken detrimental to the
fighters and to the sport itself.
And so what Senator Goodman is
doing by expanding the latitude of the Boxing
Commission is hopefully enhancing the care
that would be taken in these particular
situations where you have individuals who at
the same ages of 37, 38, 39, well after they
have passed their prime in terms of their
ability, are forced economically to go into
the ring, as two former heavyweight boxing
champions did, and wind up really with their
health severely impinged upon pretty much for
the rest of their lives, or even the
shortening of their lives.
And if that type of thing can
9059
happen to those who have been in the glamor of
the sport, on the lower frequencies in some of
the gyms where people are trying to make a
name for themselves there's no telling what
the result has actually been.
So it's a fine bill. I'm glad that
it will apply to both the amateur and
professional ranks.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni
is next.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I wanted to rise because this is an
issue that I have developed some familiarity
with over the last couple of years,
essentially through the personal involvement
of constituents of Senator Hannon and of
myself.
Mel Southard is the Commissioner of
Boxing in this state, and he was appointed by
Governor Pataki in an effort to try to bring
some consistency to the boxing promotion area
in the state of New York. And through Arthur
Mercante, who is arguably one of the world's
renowned referees -- he did both Ali-Frazier
fights and has been in several movies, and
9060
he's quite a man at 81 -- he went in and
worked with -- at Governor Pataki's
insistence, he worked with the commission, and
over several months they adopted many changes.
What this legislation does before
us today is put in law many of the
recommendations that people in and around
boxing have wanted to see in place for many,
many years. Essentially, the best part of the
bill is that it shines light on an industry
that people don't really want to know much
about. The boxing industry has been described
as something that as long as nothing goes
wrong, everyone is okay. But the instant that
there is a problem, people will focus on it.
It of course is a very delicate
balance. Many of my colleagues in this
chamber would be astounded to realize how much
money is brought to the state of New York
through tourism as a result of the boxing
events that are carried on in this state. But
however, if we were to adopt a rigorous and
onerous regulatory scheme, we would drive
fights away from New York into places like
Reno, Nevada, and Las Vegas, and down into
9061
New Jersey.
Senator Goodman, you have reached
the right balance, in my opinion, with this
legislation. You are going to disclose any
contracts. You're going to try to address the
fact that many fighters suffering the physical
pains and damage over the years are not
properly remunerated because their promoters
don't do the right or ethical thing by them.
You require that their contracts be properly
displayed so people can see them for what they
are.
You do a lot of very commonsense
things here that will make boxing want to stay
here, but make it safer. And I think that, as
I've said before, you've achieved the right
balance with this particular bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield to a
couple of questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
do you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes.
9062
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I
actually agree with Senator Balboni's
sentiments that this is actually one of the
best-thought-out pieces of legislation and it
appears to be attacking a problem that is
central to the credibility of our sponsorship
of boxing matches throughout New York State.
My question has to deal with,
Senator, the intervention of a physician in
the ring. How often, based on the work of
your committee, how often in New York State
has a physician actually entered the ring to
terminate a fight?
SENATOR GOODMAN: When you say to
terminate the fight, the first thing that a
physician does, if it appears that a fighter
has been injured, is to stop the action, to
enter the ring and examine the fighter.
You've probably noticed on a number
of occasions a physician will actually go up,
examine the fighter, speak to the fighter,
raise his eyelids to see if his pupils are
dilated and other symptoms of possible brain
injury or possible concussion itself.
9063
The frequency of that occurs, I'd
say -- but I can't even guesstimate. It may
be in a third of all contests. But it's with
sufficient frequency to cause us to feel that
the most important thing is the proper
training of the physician.
And of course the more advanced the
fighters are, the more likely it is that the
medical supervision will improve. It's the
fights that are at the lower levels where
there's inadequate supervision. In those I
daresay that there may not even be a properly
trained physician available at ringside, and
that's a serious problem.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm just not
familiar, Senator Goodman -- are physicians
summoned into the ring by the referee, or are
9064
they permitted to go in without the referee's
approval?
SENATOR GOODMAN: They have the
absolute right to intervene with or without
the referee's approval and to stop the fight
with or without the referee's approval.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Goodman will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you have
any evidence of how often that has occurred,
Senator Goodman, where the physician
intervenes in the fight without the referee's
approval?
The reason why I ask this question
is, Senator Goodman, I'm certainly familiar
with those bouts where the referee summons the
on-site physician into the ring to examine a
fighter. My only question is, how often do
they actually do that? I mean, is it actually
9065
being used as a practical matter?
Because my experience, anyway, I
guess it's -- I don't watch those smaller
fights that you talked about where actually
the risk is much greater. But when you watch
the big title fights, the referee generally
calls the fight. He -- seldom in my career
have I seen a physician be called in to
examine the professional fighter on the spot.
Usually the referee tests him, shakes his
gloves, checks his eyes and then either
declares the fight is going to go on or it's
going to be over.
The reason why I ask is I just want
to find out, have physicians actually
intervened in those fights to stop them
without the referee's approval?
SENATOR GOODMAN: The answer is
affirmative.
And let me just say, first of all,
I should have mentioned earlier that Senator
Balboni is certainly is a good witness to
these problems because he is, of all the
Senators in this chamber, the best and to my
knowledge the only established boxer who,
9066
according to Arthur Mercante, has a mean left
hook and a great right cross and therefore is
someone whose word is to be respected. And if
you don't agree with him, he'll either break
your kneecaps or your jaw. So I caution you
to be very careful.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, with
all due respect, Senator Goodman, as the
recipient of some of Senator Balboni's
linguistic pugilism, I can attest to his
skills.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Having thus
beatified Senator Balboni, we can move on to
the debate.
Let me just say that the answer is
that there is clearly insufficient medical
intervention in these fights, which is the
main reason for the bill.
What I want to see happen, if we
can bring it about, is to have alert medical
attention at ringside for virtually every
fight, where it hopefully would be possible to
get neurologists to be on deck and, where the
neurologist himself cannot be there, a
physician trained to recognize neurological
9067
damage and especially this phenomenon I
referred to earlier of concussion.
The concussion is particularly
dangerous because it can create the illusion
of alertness and ability to defend oneself
when in fact the man is literally -- or the
woman, in this case. As you know, it's now
expanded to include women. We just had an
Ali-Frazier fight in which Ali's daughter
prevailed over the weekend. It was rather an
interesting thing.
And I don't know if you've ever
seen a women's boxing match. It's far more
vicious and tougher than most of the men's
matches I've ever seen. But that's a side
issue.
Suffice it to say that we want very
much to have more medical intervention and
less injury to fighters. That's one of the
prime purposes of the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. But
this -- through you, Madam President, if
Senator Goodman will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield for another question?
9068
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, ma'am.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This bill
doesn't affect the right of the physician to
enter the ring. Even without the referee's
approval, he can do that.
SENATOR GOODMAN: He has that
power, that is correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Just on the bill briefly, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I agree with
Senator Goodman and the other sentiments that
have been expressed. I think this is actually
a bill that deals with a very specific
problem. I applaud Senator Goodman's work in
the committee to call attention to the
deficiencies in the "sweet science," one that
I know we would like to see more heavyweight
and other championship bouts here in New York
State.
But, Senator Goodman, the good
thing about this bill is if New York is going
9069
to become the capital of boxing again, as it
once was, we are setting a high standard for
who we're going to let in to take our ticket
revenue and entertain our citizens in this
state.
I think we're setting a high
standard as to the circumstances under which
what will be governed in the ring. I like the
provisions about qualifying judges, which as
you know was part of the problem we ran into
in a title fight in this state a while back.
And I think the most important
provision is for the disclosure between the
promoters and the boxers themselves, an area
where in my judgment there's been widespread
exploitation of boxers in the past. And I
think if New York raises the bar, we may find
that that exploitation not only doesn't occur
here in New York, but that the rest of the
nation and maybe the rest of the world will
follow our example.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Goodman would yield for
one more question.
9070
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Of course.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
There was something that you
mentioned earlier in your explanation. I just
wanted to know if you'd expound on that a
little bit. And you were saying that it was
actually a certain type of physician -- that
there were few who actually can recognize this
common situation where even though the fighter
is still standing and appears to be defending
himself, or now herself, that serious injury
might have occurred and, in boxing terms, the
fighter is actually out on their own feet.
Will the expanded criteria
available to the New York State Athletic
Commission command that it not just be a
medical doctor? I actually knew a plastic
surgeon who was a fight doctor. And although
there was some training, I don't know that
this individual necessarily would have
recognized the oncoming injury that might be
9071
in process.
So my question really relates to
the caliber of the physicians in attendance,
that they would be specialized enough to
actually be able to discern any type of
neurological damage at that particular time.
SENATOR GOODMAN: You're hitting
the bull's-eye of our target directly,
Senator. And I commend you on your incisive
and lucid question in this matter.
Let me say to you that the way I
became aware of all of this, as I mentioned to
you, a fighter was killed in the ring. And in
investigating this incident, which occurred in
the Felt Forum in 1979, we had fight films
which we replayed to a group of neurologists
who we invited in as witnesses at our hearing.
As this fight unfolded, this
neurologist, Dr. Benjamin Derby, an expert
from New York University Hospital, was
watching this fight. He leapt out of his
chair and he said, "Now, at this point this
man is defenseless." He could tell from the
motion of the fighter and his apparent
reaction. And he said, "Watch what happens
9072
next." And we watched it, and the man was
beaten literally to death in the next ensuing
minute and a half or two minutes in the
ring -- a completely needless death which
could have been avoided if Dr. Derby or
someone with this type of neurological
training had seen him.
Now, to a layman it's hard to
distinguish between a fatal type of situation
of that sort and something far less damaging.
But when the doctor explained the different
characteristics that related to this
particular incident, one could see the need
for expertise and an analysis medically by the
side of the ring from a physician.
The physician has to be placed in a
position where he can see unobstructed the
action of the fighters and can draw
conclusions medically as to what their
reflexive responses are to various types of
punches and maneuvers in the ring. And this
is exactly what we sought to do, or we seek to
do in the bill.
So special training is very
necessary. An average doctor is not able to
9073
do this without this type of course. We
recommend strongly that courses be held and
examinations be administered to physicians to
be quite certain that they are well-equipped
to handle this responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If Senator
Goodman would yield for a couple of questions,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, through you. Senator, I can
appreciate the strengthening of the rules
under the commission and how you're going to
help boxing through this.
Is there in this bill or do you
have any plans to do something about the
actual work done by the commission? Because
in everything I've read and a lot of the
things I've seen in recent years with the
9074
commission is a large part of many problems
that boxing in New York State faces is due to
the ineptitude of the commission and the way
they enforce their rules or the way they are
either enforced or not aware of many of the
rules -- i.e., different weight classes, what
is within the limits, et cetera -- of some of
the people on the commission that therefore
allow bouts that should never take place or
regulate bouts in a manner that they shouldn't
be regulated.
Is there anything in this bill or
do you have anything in the future, based on
the results of your hearings, as you base this
bill, that would lead us to believe there will
be a strengthening in that area?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Your point is
well-taken. And let me give you one example
of the kind of problems to which you refer.
A while ago there were two boxers
who were at weigh-in time, and one weighed in
and was within the range of the weight for
that class. Another boxer stepped up to the
scale and apparently was joking around and
managed to do something which caused his
9075
weight to be registered about 30 pounds
lighter than he actually was.
He then went into the ring and he
killed the boxer with whom he had the contest,
because he was so much larger and stronger.
And the men had no reason at all to be in the
ring together. But as it happened in this
instance, inadequate supervision at the
weigh-in scale created this terribly dangerous
situation.
There's no question that various
incidents of this sort have occurred in the
past and may occur again. It is not a matter
for legislation, but rather the quality and
caliber of those on the commission.
And I must say to you Commissioner
Southard has impressed us as being an alert
individual. I don't think he's infallible by
any means, but on the whole I think he's
trying to do the best he can with a commission
that, let's face it, is largely made up of
political appointees, some of whom are
well-qualified and others of whom manage to
suppress qualifications in some fashion that
I'd rather not go into in detail.
9076
But I think the answer is this is
very important. We've got to have good people
on the commission, because to them falls the
responsibility for overall supervision.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, if I could continue to ask the
Senator another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, through you. Senator, therefore I
happen to agree with that last part of that
statement. And one of the problems was not
only was the supervision kind of shoddy, but
when questioned about the weight differential,
some of the members on the commission had no
idea what we were talking about.
Now, when they first get appointed,
I can understand quite possibly not being
familiar with all those various things. But
if in fact you take that kind of position, I
would believe it would be incumbent upon you
9077
to learn those things if that's what you're
going to be regulating and that that's the
area you're going to serve as a regulator.
And is there going to be a time
where if in fact -- and I don't know if that
should be done through legislation or if it's
something that we should just try to emphasize
to whoever the appointing people -- besides us
confirmation people -- are, that if there's a
problem or if a situation occurs where it's
shown that the party is on the commission,
doesn't care enough to learn any of the rules
and regulations that they're regulating, and
they're still on the commission, that quite
possibly at that point they should have some
sort of vehicle or trigger to have that party
removed, just as we would remove a referee
that doesn't do a good job.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, we in
the Legislature may at times consider
ourselves both unassailable and all-powerful
and able to mandate human behavior.
Unfortunately, we don't have the power to do
that. And it's quite conceivable that at
times people who have been given jobs which
9078
involve trust unfortunately don't carry out
that trust adequately.
And I think in general the type of
thing you're referring to is not a matter of
law but a matter of the way in which
individuals function. And this is certainly
something that should be emphasized strongly
but which I don't think can be legislated.
You can't legislate attention to duty.
And we can certainly eliminate
incompetence, I agree. But in the first
place, careful screening is, I think, 9/10ths
of what we have to get in terms of selecting
proper judges for boxing.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you may
proceed on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I think that
the bill is a good step in the right direction
of strengthening the provisions to protect
boxers and the boxing industry on the whole in
the long run. Hopefully this will make it
better for legitimate boxing people.
And quite possibly, by seeing that
9079
it's a better situation in which to hold your
boxing matches, maybe New York will attract
more of the better matches into the state and
make boxing at least a presence again in
New York.
We may never get back what we had
because obviously, you know, Madison Square
Garden, for example, is not the mecca of
fights anymore, and neither is New York City.
It seems that Vegas is. I don't think we're
going to be able to compete with the situation
they have there, I think more than any reason
because of maybe some of the looseness in the
way they do things.
However, I believe that we can
attract enough good fights here to make the
boxing industry once again a contributing part
to the various face of New York both in the
economic instance and in the recreational
instance, if you find that watching boxing is
a recreational activity.
So I will support this bill. Thank
you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
9080
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
710, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2340A,
an act to amend the Education Law and the
General Municipal Law, in relation to
regulation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, Madam
President.
This legislation primarily takes
the existing Article 129A of the Education
Law, which is the regulation by colleges of
conduct on campus, and puts in Article 129A
actual sections: Section 6430, which is
general provisions; 6431, which is the
9081
advisory committee on campus security; 6432,
which is sexual assault prevention
information; 6434, investigation of violent
felony offenses; and 6435, which is the
appointment of campus security officers.
All of those sections are existing
law in the present Article 19A. We are just
putting them neatly into their own section.
What we do create, and what is very
important, is the new section, which is 6433.
And this section gives campus crime reporting
that requires colleges to inform prospective
students -- and this is very, very important,
because we want prospective students and their
families to know how they can obtain the crime
data that each campus is required to report
under Title 20 of the U.S. Code.
It also provides for the advisory
committee on campus security that is already
in the existing Article 129A. And we require
that upon request all campus crime statistics
as reported to the U.S. Department of
Education be available for students.
In addition, information in the
campus catalog, student handbook, and viewbook
9082
must include the U.S. Department of
Education's website address for reported crime
statistics by the campus and the local -- and
a local on-campus phone number for a
designated campus contact to obtain this
information.
Now, this is very important because
now, in the age of the Internet, it is
important that prospective students and their
parents -- and, for that matter, students who
are on the campus -- have the website address
so that they could at any time find out what
has been reported in terms of the campus crime
statistics.
And in addition, we require the
president or the chief administrative officer,
working with the advisory committee on campus
safety, to inform students and prospective
students of the reported crime statistics and
all other campus safety policies and
procedures for the school. And I think that
that is very, very important that incoming
students understand all of the policies and
procedures.
So what I think we've done with
9083
this legislation, with the new section,
Section 6433, is to make the availability of
information readily available to the students,
given today's world of the Internet and how
students and their families can go directly
and access crime information.
Today, I think as everyone here
recognizes, campuses are open towns, open
cities. They no longer are the enclosed walls
of safety that they once were many, many
generations ago, so that parents and students
should understand what is happening on a
particular campus.
We have all felt, who have worked
for the existing law and now with this law,
that through disclosure we would have better
safety on campus. And knowledge is important
on what kinds of crimes are being committed so
that students can be active in protecting
themselves and staying away from areas that
might give them some problems.
That's it, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
9084
Madam President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle
yields.
You may proceed, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does the
reporting of crime statistics include the
crime of drinking underage in this report?
SENATOR LAVALLE: In the -- the
answer is yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It does. And
that's included in the disclosure? Through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR LAVALLE: That
information is reported, what is required
under Title 20 of the U.S. Code.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
will continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
9085
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, this
is an A print of this bill. And in the prior
version there was a requirement that the
colleges provide this data in a newsletter or
be published in a campus newspaper at least
twice a year. That provision is not in the
final bill.
Could you just tell me why, Senator
LaValle, that was dropped from the final
version?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, the
feeling was that by use of the Internet and
the website address that that information was
most available to all parties. And, Senator,
that would even include the local campus paper
that could pick up that information, report on
it, report the statistics as they saw fit.
But in the electronic age, the -
having the information on the Internet,
someone could access that information at any
time of day or night.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
9086
to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Yes, I
will.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle
yields.
You may proceed, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
bill require that those statistics be updated
on a periodic basis? As you know, Senator
LaValle, the quick transmission of knowledge
through the Internet is a tremendous asset to
the student at the school to know what else
has happened.
Is there a requirement that it be
periodically updated or updated in a period of
time after the occurrence of the crime or the
institution's knowledge of the crime?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, the
answer is yes. Under federal law, it has to
be updated annually, once a year. Once each
year.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
9087
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
given the fact that students would want to
know about crimes occurring on campus with
perhaps immediate knowledge, that they would
want to know within a very short period of
time that there had been a rape on some
portion of campus, I'm sure, and as this bill
points out -- and I know I've heard you
advocate on the floor that gaining that
information can be critical to changing your
behavior based on certain circumstances.
Should we require that the
colleges, as part of the disclosure process,
update that information more frequently in
order to achieve the goal of both advising
parents and students of the presence of crime
on campus?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, you
will remember in my remarks I emphasized very
specifically that the law and the intent of
the law, both at the federal level and our
law, is designed for prospective students,
those students who are not yet on the campus
9088
but will be attending. And so the annual
update really meets that requirement for the
prospective students.
Now, does it fully meet the
requirement that we would like that students
who are on campus attending school know that
in a given period of time, in a matter of
weeks, that there have been a number of
burglaries or people have been accosted in the
parking lot at night near the library? And
the answer is probably we would like that.
But we try to weigh the burden
that -- and one's ability on a campus to get
that information quickly into the information
stream. And the institutions of higher
education, even at our prodding, Senator, are
indicating that they're doing the best they
can and that what I and you might like in more
frequent reporting is just not in the cards at
this time.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Finally,
through you, Madam President, just one final
question about a change in the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
will you yield for a question?
9089
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Yes, I
will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Under the
prior version of this bill, Senator LaValle,
there was a requirement that the colleges
provide this information to DCJS and that they
in turn furnish us with a report to the
Legislature. I assume that that's consistent
with, as we often do in this Legislature, we
want people to come back to us and tell us is
it working, is it not working, what changes
are necessary. We talked a minute ago about
the prospective versus the current student
issue.
But for some reason, that provision
didn't make it to the final version. Can you
just tell me why or what we're going to do
about that?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Dollinger, DCJS will still receive that
information under federal law, but the problem
is that that information will be, for all
practical purposes, internal. It is not,
9090
other than maybe someone filing a Freedom of
Information Act request, nothing is really
done with it in terms of a website that the
students would access. The students will be
accessing only one website, and that's the
federal website.
So for our purposes, yes, we will
be receiving that information. But I can't
tell you what would be done with that
information other than a review to see that we
need to be proactive in making some changes
here in state law. But that information is
not available in terms of the students
accessing the information.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I thank Senator LaValle for
his cogent explanation of this bill.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill. I think this is a step in the right
direction for New York. But I would just
encourage you, Senator LaValle, that the issue
of the prospective student versus the current
student, for all the reasons that you cite in
support of the prospective student, there is
an equally compelling rationale for the
9091
current student.
And that is that the college
environment, as you properly point out, is one
that is now integrated with our society. We
don't have barriers up, we don't have
ivy-covered walls that separate our colleges
from our communities.
And yet for a student who's
present, as my daughter, who's just finished
her freshman year at Boston College, I think
it would be critically important both for her
to be able to access information and, quite
frankly, for even her mother and her father to
access information about what's going on in
the course of the school year, just because
this serves the goal of providing students
with information and providing parents with
information that then they can translate and
make judgments about their students away.
So, Senator LaValle, I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill as conforming us
within the envelope of the federal law. But I
would just strongly urge that some
requirement -- and I agree that this requires
delicate balancing -- but some requirement
9092
that the colleges who are compiling this
information and make it available on their
website for prospective students should also
be required in some measure to provide
information about criminal activity on the
college campuses.
I believe that that is now done in
informal settings. I certainly think that
most colleges do a responsible job, either
through flyers or through bulletin boards or
perhaps even through their current website.
But it seems to me that we have said as a
state policy that this should be available
once a year for prospective students. It also
should be available on some periodic basis or
some requirement that there be information
posted so that the current students and their
parents have that same benefit.
So I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill, Senator LaValle, and I just look
forward to the day that I can vote on a bill
that will affect the current student body and
provide the same information to current
students and their parents as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
9093
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
807, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 3682A, an
act to authorize the Commissioner of the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
9094
837, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3520A, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
minimum sentence.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, this bill amends
the Penal Law to eliminate the sentencing
distinction between a juvenile and adults
convicted of murder in the second degree.
This is a bill that is patterned
after a heinous crime that occurred in my
district. A young lady by the name of Penny
Brown, who was a mother, a nurse, a wife, went
jogging near her home in Salamanca, New York.
She was raped and brutally murdered. The
juvenile offender who confessed to these
crimes was tried as an adult but could only be
sentenced -- could not be sentenced as an
adult under the current law.
This bill amends the Penal Law to
eliminate the distinction between juveniles
and adult sentencing in a heinous crime.
9095
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would like to ask if Senator
McGee would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator McGee, the bill has one
section -- two sections, the effective date.
But I read in the explanation and the memo in
support that it refers to sections 1 through
7. And so I was a little confused by that,
that we don't have all of the bill?
SENATOR McGEE: No, the bill is
amended, Senator. The bill was quite lengthy
to begin with. What we have done is actually
amended the bill to bring it down merely to
the sentencing where we would actually look to
distinguish between a juvenile and an adult.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I see. If
Senator McGee would continue to yield.
9096
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So I'm
trying to understand that the memo says that
the bill expands juvenile offender status for
persons 13, 14, and 15 -
SENATOR McGEE: No, ma'am.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No, this
does not do that?
SENATOR McGEE: Let me interrupt
you for just one moment.
The original bill did many of these
things that you're going to talk about right
now. The bill now has been amended to bring
it down only to deal with the Penal Law, to
eliminate the sentencing distinction between a
juvenile and an adult.
The juvenile offender that I'm
talking about at this present moment was tried
as an adult. But because the crime was
committed when he was still a juvenile, he was
9097
only sentenced -- the maximum sentence he
could receive was 9 years to life, with time
served. If the juvenile offender had been
just a couple of months older when he
committed the crime, he would have received a
sentence of 25 years to life.
So what this does is change that
distinction between a juvenile and adult when
being sentenced for a heinous crime such as
rape and murder.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So this memo
does not relate to this bill. I have the
wrong memo.
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sorry.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay, I
just -- it's very different, so -
SENATOR McGEE: Yes. Well, it is
quite a distinction, because we only merely
took the sentencing part out of the whole
entire bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I see. All
right.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
9098
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
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, 57. Nays,
2. Senators Montgomery and Duane recorded in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1001, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1534,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal use.
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, 58. Nays,
9099
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1048, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 5337, an
act to amend the Local Finance Law, in
relation to temporary alternative methods.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR McGEE: This is a chapter
amendment, I believe, Madam President. This
chapter amendment -- this amends S3188 and
A6143.
This, as you remember, the original
bill, the bill in chief authorized
municipalities to issue serial bonds for a
period not in excess of five years, for the
purpose of paying for extraordinary expenses
incurred as a result of snow and ice removal
necessitated from the major snowstorm in the
year 2000.
The bill as originally introduced
referred to fiscal years in which there was
9100
not an emergency snow problem for some
municipalities -- they vary -- towns,
counties, cities and villages. This chapter
refers to the appropriate fiscal years in
which the major snowstorms occurred for all of
the municipalities.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield.
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee
yields.
You may proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm concerned
that we would use or that a municipality would
use bonding money -- you know, capital
funds -- for what's really an expense item.
Is there precedent for doing this sort of
thing in this state?
SENATOR McGEE: I'm really not
sure, Senator, whether there's a precedent or
not.
What has happened, and I'm sure
you're fully aware of the ice storms that
we've had in the north and some of the removal
9101
problems. By virtue of those storms hitting
so hard, it cost a great deal of money to some
of those towns and counties and those cities
and villages.
In an effort so that the impact of
the cost of paying for the snow removal, the
ice removal, et cetera, et cetera, is not all
absorbed in one year, which would be a
tremendous, tremendous expense to the
taxpayers of those municipalities, this bill
allows them to extend that out to five years
so that they can pay it and not have that
terrible expense all in one year.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I know one of the
things that got New York City into so much
trouble, and it's happened in other
municipalities as well, is when they used
9102
capital funds and bonding authority to pay
expenses. And I'm just wondering if this
might be setting a bad precedent for cities
and towns.
And just as a suggestion of another
way to go about doing it, a lot of
municipalities put money aside each year for
snow removal. And some years, you know, are
milder than others, so there tends to be, you
know, a reserve for snow removal.
This bill would make it so that
municipalities wouldn't have to worry so much
about or, you know, save for, if you will,
rainy days or snowy days, which would be more
fiscally prudent than taking care of it after
the fact by bonding for expense items.
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly the
Senator makes a good point. But there are
some extraordinary costs involved in this,
Senator Duane.
As a matter of fact, the storm of
November of the year 2000 cost the City of
Buffalo alone $5.1 million. And so this
allows that city to be able to extend that
payment of that $5.1 million out over a period
9103
of five years so that it doesn't impact the
taxpayer all in one year.
SENATOR DUANE: Just to go back
again, Madam President, has this -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm just trying
to discover or find out whether or not this
has been done anyplace else in the state. You
know, it seems to me that if they're -- have
rural communities used this for flooding or
anything like that?
SENATOR McGEE: Counsel advises
me that this is the third or fourth amendment
to the bill, to the chapter. So it has
happened before, Senator. I can't give you
any names who they are right now.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield?
9104
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: For flooding,
though, not for snow? Or for both snow and
for flooding?
SENATOR McGEE: One moment.
It's my understanding, Senator,
that there was a storm in Long Island at one
point many years ago and they were allowed to
do this and extend the payment of the bonds
back.
It's my understanding also that
just in 1994 the same event occurred, and we
were able to do this and extend it out further
so that there wasn't that tremendous impact on
the taxpayer.
And now we are doing this with the
ice storm and acts of God, if you will.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
9105
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Which is cheaper, to take out a
note for a five-year loan or to do a bond for
five years?
SENATOR McGEE: Gosh, you know, I
really don't know, because I'm not a fiscal
manager.
But at the request of these
municipalities, this was done. So I suspect
that they have had their fiscal managers
looking at it and have selected the best way
to do it.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Has there been an
ask made to the state government to float a
loan for this expense instead of doing local
9106
bonds?
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sorry, has
there what?
SENATOR DUANE: If I may repeat,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Go
ahead.
SENATOR DUANE: Has there been an
ask to the state government to lend the money
as opposed to the local municipality floating
a bond?
SENATOR McGEE: Are you -- are
you -- I still don't understand. Are you
asking if they have requested the state to pay
for it rather than floating the bonds?
SENATOR DUANE: To borrow money
from the state.
SENATOR McGEE: To borrow money
from the state? I'm not sure -- no, to my
knowledge, not.
This is the way to do it. They are
allowed to float their bonds. Those bonds
were allowed to be floated. And as I recall,
the original bill that we were talking about,
they would have been paid back the following
9107
year.
This is asking them to extend it
out over the period of five years so, again,
the taxpayer does not have the dramatic impact
of that payment in the following year.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: I certainly do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I was under the
impression that the state had some sort of
emergency management funding sources that
local governments could use. Is that not
possible to use that in this case?
SENATOR McGEE: I'm thinking
you're talking of SEMA, to many people.
That's the State Emergency Management office.
And some places do utilize that. I suspect
there is a process to go through, Senator
Duane.
My district itself, once the
9108
Governor declares an emergency, they can go in
and do work with the local emergency
preparation people, determining whether they
are eligible for SEMA. It's not only SEMA,
but there is FEMA, which is the Federal
Emergency Management office. So I think that
there is -- Act, I'm sorry.
I suspect that they may have done
that. I don't really know. This is a request
from them asking if they can in fact float
bonds, which has been done in the past, and
extend the payment of those bonds over the
period of five years.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I note that this
legislation is at the request of the New York
State Legislative Commission on Rural
Resources, which I'm not, I'm sorry to say,
9109
that familiar with. But if the sponsor could
just give me an idea of who makes up that
commission and whether it's a permanent
commission or it's a temporary commission.
SENATOR McGEE: Actually, the
Legislative Commission on Rural Resources is a
very good commission that we have in the State
of New York. It is bipartisan or nonpartisan,
if you will. I am the chair. Assemblyman
Jake Gunther, from the Majority in the New
York State Assembly, is the cochair.
It is a commission that in fact
does work on legislation, puts forth. And
those bills are jointly sponsored by both the
Republicans and Democrats in both houses. And
it's funded by the New York State Senate.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Then I have to
9110
assume that the commission looked at what was
the most fiscally prudent way to borrow.
Although it strikes me that taking out a bond
or using, you know, state funds to borrow
from, with SEMA, might be more advantageous.
But since the Senator is the one of
the chairs of the commission, is that one of
the things that they -- that you looked at?
SENATOR McGEE: We did review
everything, sir. And I think that the SEMA -
I suspect, probably. I don't know for a
fact -- but I would assume that those
municipalities did try to or did at least
contact SEMA if they were in the middle of a
snowstorm, et cetera, et cetera, to see if
there was emergency funds available for them.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR McGEE: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Has the
Comptroller weighed in on this bill?
SENATOR McGEE: I don't know
9111
why -- no, to my knowledge, I don't have any
idea, Senator Duane. I'm not sure that he
would be required to weigh in on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for
a final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, go ahead,
I'm sorry.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm just
wondering if the commission had a hearing on
this legislative proposal.
SENATOR McGEE: No.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the same date as a
chapter of the Laws of 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
9112
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1053, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print
1078B, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic
Law, in relation to the operation of scooters.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo, an explanation has been requested
by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
The legislation would amend Section
1238 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law by
requiring scooters to be included in what
children have to wear helmets under the age of
14. Current law requires it for in-line
skates and bicycles.
In the past year or two, there has
been a surge in the purchase of self-propelled
scooters, commonly known as razors. And
during last year, between the months of May
9113
and September, there was a 700 percent
increase in injury-related accidents at
emergency rooms throughout this country.
This is a commonsense approach
towards protecting children.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
having actually ridden one of these scooters
only one time as a 49-year-old male, my
question is, if it's good for those under 14,
why not make it universally applicable to
anyone who rides a scooter?
The danger of these things,
especially going down a hill getting out of
control, you could easily be going 15 or 20
miles an hour and falling off of it would be
not only detrimental to a young child, but I
think, for someone who might have lost a
little bit of his childhood coordination along
9114
the way, it would be even more detrimental to
myself or anyone else.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, did
you ride the scooters with the old wooden
plank and the metal wheels that were common
about 30 years ago?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, they seemed to be so much
safer. These new plastic wheels get just
going so much quicker. The old metal ones had
too much friction.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: And now
they're all rubber.
But the focus is children, to teach
them hopefully good habits that they would
carry through as they get older.
But if you look at the statistics,
Senator, and I cited them, that during the
month of May and September of last year, the
incidence of accidents and visits to the
emergency room was a 700 percent increase,
primarily children under the age of 14. And
that's the target.
And since we already require
helmets with in-line states and bicycles, we
9115
want to amend it to include scooters, because
there has been a sudden scooter craze in
purchasing these.
So I would hope that as these kids
get older, like you, who I know applies many
commonsense approaches to the safety of your
own life when you come into this chamber, that
the kids would learn to wear a helmet as they
get older.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, is Senator Fuschillo suggesting
that I should be wearing a helmet in the
chamber because of the high risk to my health
that sometimes perhaps being in the chamber
might involve?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator
Marcellino may be introducing legislation next
week for that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just on the
bill briefly, Mr. President.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill. But my comment to Senator Fuschillo
would be I think this is a good, commonsense
health measure. And from my perspective, one
9116
of the interesting things about the childhood
bike and in-line-skater rules is that although
we only require helmets for children in both
of those instances, one of the things that has
made it much more fashionable for children to
wear helmets is that adults are wearing
helmets.
And so I'm not opposed to the
notion that we'd actually require adults who
are riding bicycles, participating in in-line
skates, or being involved in riding these new
high-fashion scooters, that they ought to wear
helmets as well.
And just one other thing, Mr.
President, that I would just commend as a
suggestion to the author of this. In reading
this bill, one of the things that you've done
is you've added a new section, 5B, and then in
the second portion of the subdivision 2,
you've allowed communities to create a fine if
you're not wearing your helmet.
What I would suggest, Senator
Fuschillo, is if you look at that section of
the bill, subdivision 9 refers, has several
references to the fact that local communities
9117
may still enforce their local laws. But it
doesn't include a reference to scooters. It
includes a reference to bike helmets, it
includes a reference to in-line-skate helmets,
but it doesn't include a reference to
scooters.
And I would suggest perhaps that
may affect the validity of this, in that you
make a reference to both of those laws but you
don't make a reference to the scooter law as
well. If it someday gets to negotiations with
the Assembly or it needs a C print, you might
just include that in there as a provision to
protect the viability of local laws.
But I agree this is a commonsense
provision. We ought to do it for everybody,
children and adults alike.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard?
Senator Malcolm Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes,
thank you very much, Mr. President. On the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Malcolm Smith, on the bill.
9118
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Mr.
President, members of the chamber, one of the
emotional perks that you get out of this
particular job is from time to time you are
allowed to provide a commitment to someone and
actually see that commitment followed through.
Earlier last year I had been
approached by a young man by the name of Zach
at the West Side Temple within my district,
and he approached me and basically indicated,
with a small lump on his head, that he just
thought that it would be prudent to have a
bill where helmets would be required to wear
when you rode a scooter.
I proceeded to talk to Zach and his
mother, and had Zach even up here at one
point, and indicated to him that I would do
all that I could to work with anyone that
would put together a bill that would require
helmets to be worn when such person is riding
a scooter.
And I'm just happy that Senator
Fuschillo had the foresight and the
cooperative spirit to do so. So this is a
great day for me, it's a great day for Zach in
9119
my district, as this particular bill has been
designed around his particular unfortunate
mishap.
But the bottom line is there was a
commitment given to a young man, and it's just
such a great thing to be able to show young
people that we can have a body that is
sensitive not only to the needs, but also that
we have the will and the ability to keep our
commitments to them. It makes them think that
we as individuals, as public stewards in this
particular state, we are true to our word.
So, Senator Fuschillo, my hat is
off to you. I think this is a great bill, a
commonsense bill. Notwithstanding my learned
colleague Senator Dollinger, we will keep the
bill just right where it is.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
9120
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1053 are
Senators Farley, Hoffmann, Kuhl, and Meier.
Ayes, 55. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I was hoping with unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1048.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Duane will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1048.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President, I
request consent to be recorded in the negative
on Calendar 528.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Rath will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 528.
The Secretary will read.
9121
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1058, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3183A, an
act to amend the Uniform Justice Court Act, in
relation to fees.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1058 by Senator Duane.
SENATOR McGEE: Oh, how nice.
This is another bill that came out
of the Legislative Commission on Rural
Resources. The purpose of this bill is to
exempt any town and village from statutory
fees that must be paid prior to the
commencement of an action in town or village
court.
The thrust of such amendment is to
exempt them from the court fees charged by
their own court.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation
satisfactory. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
9122
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1061, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3771,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to public works contracts.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Give us
a moment.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Would you lay
Senator Velella's bill aside temporarily,
please, and call up Senator Kuhl's bill, which
is Calendar Number 1066.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We will
9123
lay Calendar 1058 aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read Calendar
1066.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1066, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4766,
concurrent resolution of the Senate and
Assembly, proposing an amendment to Section 4
of Article 8 of the constitution.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1066 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR KUHL: This is a
constitutional resolution that would eliminate
the constitutional debt limit for small city
school districts.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, could Senator Kuhl yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
9124
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Since I'm
unfamiliar with the bill -- I'm just perusing
it now -- does this bill remove the debt limit
completely, or does it simply increase the
debt limit for the small city school
districts?
SENATOR KUHL: It doesn't
increase any debt limit. A school district by
vote would have to do that, Senator.
What there is currently is there is
a constitutional debt limit on small city
school districts which is 5 percent. That's
not true with other school districts
throughout the state. All the non-small-city
school districts have a debt limit of
10 percent, except for the Big Five city
school districts. And in that particular
organization of five school districts, the
City of New York's debt limit is 10 percent;
the other four school districts are set at 9.
There obviously is a disparity
here. There is a mechanism where you can
supersede the 5 percent debt limit, but it
9125
takes an unusual kind of voting procedure to
do that. This was established way back, I
believe, in 1951.
But you may remember we gave small
city school districts the right to vote in
1985, and we removed another provision that
dealt with their budgets, but this provision
was not put up for a vote at that time.
There's an inconsistency here, and
what this resolution is meant to do is just to
create a consistent theme, that being that all
school districts can indebt those districts up
to 10 percent.
Now, this would eliminate the
constitutional debt limit, so that there would
be no debt limit in the constitution.
However, there is currently a provision in the
Local Finance Law that limits debt at small
city school districts to 10 percent. So there
is an inconsistency in the law also as it
applies to small city school districts. This
is meant to eliminate that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation
satisfactory, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
9126
other Senator wish to be heard on the
resolution?
Debate is closed.
The Secretary will call the roll on
the resolution.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
SENATOR McGEE: Would you kindly
call Calendar Number 1061, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1061.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1061, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3771,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to public works contracts.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1061 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, thank
you.
This bill is one that's rather
complicated. And just rather than give a
9127
simple explanation, I thought that maybe the
best way to explain it would be to just give
an overview of what caused this problem that
this bill tries to address.
Right now, bidding on public works
that are bid by municipalities often contain
two types of work to be done, the actual
public interest work -- the fixing of the
road, the repairs that are needed, the street
work -- and work that is called interference
work.
That is work that once the street
is open will require lines like utility lines,
gas lines, telephone lines, cable TV lines,
that will be in the way of the actual public
interest work. That in order to get that
public interest work done, you have to change
those utility lines or deal with them, and
there's work involved in repairing those lines
or moving those lines so that you can get the
principal job done.
And as a result of these two types
of work, there has been a conflict that has
arisen as a result of a Supreme Court case.
And let me just explain the way it was. In
9128
the old days, people bid on first the public
part of the work and then the interference
work. That did not work well. Coordinating
the contracts, problems arose. One contractor
claimed the other was delaying him. All types
of problems came in.
So they decided to go to a joint
bidding procedure. And that joint bidding
contract was awarded to the lowest aggregate
bidder. So that you put in a bid on both the
public work and on the interference work.
Now, in order that the municipality
would not be prejudiced in the event that the
public works portion of the bid was not the
lowest bidder but the aggregate bidder
happened to be a person who had a higher
interference work bid -- a higher public works
part than the interference work, the utility
companies would indemnify the municipality.
So if there was a lower bid on the
public works part but the successful aggregate
low bidder was the one who got the job and the
public part was higher, the utility subsidized
them to the lowest bid. Okay?
All of that was going on when,
9129
okay, the process of joint bidding was held
unauthorized and unlawful by the Court of
Appeals in the Diamond Asphalt decision.
Since that time, City of New York has employed
an interim measure which is known as Section
U, which sets up an arbitration procedure for
private utilities and contractors. So at
least in the City of New York they have a
Regulation U, which has caused some problem in
the negotiating of these contracts.
Now, with that as a background, let
me tell you what my bill does. In order to
help clarify a very difficult problem, we've
set up a procedure whereby a bid is given and
within five days of the award of a public
works contract, the political subdivision
making the award must tell a utility if
interference work is required, if there are
lines underground, gas lines, whatever it may
be.
If they are underground, the
municipality that is giving out this public
works contract must notify the utility within
five days.
The successful contractor bidding
9130
on it upon award shall start and complete
negotiations with the affected utility for the
performance of interference work. And within
60 days of the award, the utility company
shall inform the local political division and
the contracted party that either (a) the
utility is going to perform the work
themselves, which is their option; or (b) the
utility elects for the contracted party to
perform the work pursuant to an agreement.
Or, if no agreement is reached
between the utility and the contracted party,
and the utility fails to notify the political
subdivision within that 60 days that the
utility has chosen to perform the work itself,
the contracted party will perform the work on
a time-and-material basis with an allowance of
10 percent for overhead and 10 percent for
profit. The utility must then pay the
contracted party within 45 days of invoice.
There is an opt-out clause in this
legislation for any governing body of a
political subdivision or district located in a
city with a population of less than 1 million.
That simply is this bill.
9131
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR VELELLA: And I'm sure
you have a much more complicated question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, no.
Actually, Mr. President, I want to
commend Senator Velella. I listened very
carefully. I think that's exactly what the
current practice is, and I think that's
exactly what this bill does.
I voted against this bill last
year; I'm going to vote against it again. I
still believe that our private utilities, who
are struggling to get through deregulation, we
should not go back and in essence sweep them
back into a regulatory environment when
they're doing the kind of interference work
that Senator Velella talks about.
There is a way to do this, there is
a way that it's been done in the past. And I
think the way to maximize the return to the
utilities is quite simply let them go out and
bid, get the bid for the work that is the
least expensive.
While there has been certainly
9132
confusion in New York City with respect to
Regulation U and the cooperation and
assistance of the utility in New York City in
achieving these mutually beneficial goals, at
least in my neck of the woods, Senator
Velella, up in Rochester, I think that this
provision will be in essence a form of tying
together of agreements that will allow time
and materials to go and provide an incentive
to the contractor to reduce their cost to the
utility. If they don't pay it through their
taxes, they're going to pay it through their
utilities.
In this era of deregulation when
we're trying to free up our utilities, we
ought to let them be completely free and
contract on their own. Under those
circumstances, Mr. President, I'm going to
vote no again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator 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 on the first day of
9133
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1061 are
Senators Alesi, Breslin, Brown, Dollinger,
Duane, Gentile, Hassell-Thompson, Kruger,
Lachman, Markowitz, Montgomery, Nozzolio,
Onorato, Oppenheimer, Sampson, Schneiderman,
A. Smith, M. Smith, Stachowski, Stavisky, and
Wright. Ayes, 38. Nays, 21.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator McGee, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, is
there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, we
do have some housekeeping.
Should we take care of that now?
SENATOR McGEE: Just one moment.
I do need to notify the members
that there will be a Rules Committee meeting
in about five minutes, and that the report
9134
will be accepted for tomorrow.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There
will be a meeting of the Rules Committee in
five minutes in the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR McGEE: Housekeeping,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Amendments are offered to the
following Third Reading Calendar bills:
Sponsored by Senator Larkin, page
number 17, Calendar Number 402, Senate Print
Number 2656.
Senator Morahan, page number 20,
Calendar Number 451, Senate Print Number
4023A.
Senator LaValle, page number 34,
Calendar Number 708, Senate Print Number 1210.
Senator Larkin, page number 47,
Calendar Number 934, Senate Print Number
4000A.
Senator Libous, page number 48,
Calendar Number 940, Senate Print Number 4987.
9135
I now move that these bills retain
their place on the order of third reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bills will retain their place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I would request that you please
remove the sponsor's star from Calendar
Number 223.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: At the
sponsor's request, the sponsor's star will be
removed from Calendar Number 223.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, on behalf of Senator Rath, I wish
to call up her bill, Print Number 1454,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
85, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1454, an act
9136
to amend the General Municipal Law.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which the bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, I offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Balboni, I
wish to call up his bill, Print Number 850,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
497, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 850, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
9137
Domestic Relations Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which the bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, I now offer the following
amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
are there any substitutions at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there are.
While we're finishing the
housekeeping, could I have some order in the
house so the stenographer can hear, please.
9138
The Secretary will read the
substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 8,
Senator Morahan moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 618A
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 197A, Third Reading Calendar 149.
On page 23, Senator Rath moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7710 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3984,
Third Reading Calendar 530.
On page 26, Senator Seward moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8566 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4140,
Third Reading Calendar 571.
On page 31, Senator Wright moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8973 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4109A,
Third Reading Calendar 675.
On page 32, Senator Leibell moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8347 and substitute it
9139
for the identical Senate Bill 4181, Third
Reading Calendar 682.
On page 46, Senator Goodman moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6673B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3956B,
Third Reading Calendar 920.
And on page 49, Senator Marcellino
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8974A and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 5269A, Third Reading Calendar 969.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitutions ordered.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
the Senate will -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
may I recognize Senator Hevesi first.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I rise to request unanimous consent
9140
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
1061, Senate Print 3771.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Hevesi will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1061.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, I
ask that the Senate stand at ease pending the
return of the Rules Committee report.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease pending the return
of the Rules Committee report.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 5:50 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 6:00 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: May we return to
reports of standing committees.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Return
to reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
9141
following bills:
Senate Print 367A, by Senator
Maltese, an act authorizing the City of
New York.
877A, by Senator Alesi, an act
authorizing the Town of Perinton.
1760A, by Senator Morahan, an act
to amend the Village Law.
2000, by Senator Stachowski, an act
to amend the Penal Law.
2219A, by Senator Breslin, an act
to authorize the Town of Colonie.
2387B, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law.
2499A, by Senator Leibell, an act
to amend the Real Property Tax Law.
2574, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Penal Law.
2655A, by Senator Larkin, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law and the Town
Law.
3325B, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law.
3542, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend the Real Property Law.
9142
3797, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
3877, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Local Finance Law.
4061A, by Senator Padavan, an act
to amend the Highway Law.
4282, by Senator Volker, an act in
relation to authorizing.
4527, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Public Housing Law.
4599, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
4670, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Highway Law.
4721A, by Senator Velella, an act
to amend the Real Property Law.
4943, by Senator Leibell, an act to
authorize the Town of Putnam Valley.
5260, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend Chapter 672 of the Laws of 1993.
5332, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the General Business Law.
5343, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Education Law.
5364, by Senator McGee, an act to
9143
amend the Highway Law.
5398, by Senator DeFrancisco, an
act to amend the Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Law.
5401, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
authorize the Suffolk County Sports Hall of
Fame, Incorporated.
5422, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Town Law and the Public Officers
Law.
5424, by Senator Lack, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
5425, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law and the Penal
Law.
5426, by Senator Volker, an act to
enact the Criminal Procedure Law Reform Act of
2001.
5429, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to authorize the State of New York.
5430, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Education Law.
5432, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Civil Rights Law.
5442, by Senator M. Smith, an act
9144
authorizing the City of New York.
5448, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law.
5449, by Senator Meier, an act to
adjust certain state aid payments.
5457, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Executive Law.
And 5476, by Senator Fuschillo, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and
the Penal Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report of the Rules Committee is accepted.
9145
SENATOR McGEE: Is there any
further housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No
further housekeeping at the desk.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Tuesday, June 12th, at
11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, June 12th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 6:04 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)