Regular Session - May 29, 2003
3268
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 29, 2003
11:07 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
3269
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: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Wednesday, May 28, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, May 27,
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.
3270
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Nozzolio, on
page number 51 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 954, Senate
Print Number 2746, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received and adopted, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Morahan, on
page number 56 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 1025, Senate
Print Number 2226A, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
3271
are received and adopted, Senator, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Maziarz, I
wish to call up Senate Print Number 2627,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
477, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 2627, an
act authorizing the Town of Newfane, Niagara
County.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: 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, 40.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, I now offer the following
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
3272
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial reading
of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
109, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1235, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
imposition of criminal penalties.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
144, by Member of the Assembly Parment,
Assembly Print Number 4095, an act to amend
3273
the Family Court Act, in relation to the
reappointment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
163, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2023, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
excluding expenditures.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
3274
303, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 7882, an act to amend
the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, in
relation to jury trials.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
378, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3090, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to persons --
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
424, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 3566, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to the notice of respondent.
3275
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
435, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 1066, an
act to amend --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
456, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3423, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal tampering in the first degree.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
3276
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
467, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 3600, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to child support violation.
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, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
514, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2130, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law, in relation to antitrust
exemptions.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
3277
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
515, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1884 --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
519, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
4429, an act to amend the Judiciary Law, in
relation to administrative judges.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
3278
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
527, by Senator --
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
605, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3127, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and
the Family Court Act, in relation to the
duration of orders of protection.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 10. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
606, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 3565, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Social Services Law, in relation to
3279
commitments.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
611, by Senator Rath --
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
I'd like to place a sponsor's star on that
bill, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is so
starred, Senator.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
652, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 4259, an
act to amend Chapter 367 of the Laws of 1999,
amending the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
3280
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
673, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 4839, an
act to amend the Cooperative Corporations Law,
in relation to the formation of cooperatives.
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, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
681, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4452, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the salary cap for a district superintendent.
3281
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, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
691, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 4123 --
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
705, by Senator Robach, Senate Print 3916, an
act to amend the Education Law and the
Retirement and Social Security Law, in
relation to the applicable interest rate.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2004.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
3282
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
721, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3829,
an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation
to personal interviews.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
734, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4387A, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
making certain technical corrections.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
3283
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
738, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2233, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
mandatory continuing education for land
surveyors.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the same date as
Section 1 of Chapter 135 of the Laws of 2002.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, why do you rise?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. I rise to request
unanimous to be recorded in the negative --
THE PRESIDENT: We have to wait
until the roll call is over, please.
The Secretary will continue to
3284
read.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you. You didn't see me standing before.
That's hard to believe, but -- thank you,
Madam President.
I would like to have -- I rise to
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 721.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded in the negative, Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
771, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 4008, an
act to amend the Private Housing Finance Law,
in relation to the powers of the New York
State Housing Finance Agency.
3285
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, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
829, by Senator Velella, Senate Print --
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
830, by Senator Velella --
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
836, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 284, an
act to amend the State Finance Law, in
relation to commodities and service contracts.
3286
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, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
846, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 1070, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
designation of August 7th as Family Day, a day
of commemoration.
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, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
860, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3329, an
3287
act to amend Chapter 9 --
SENATOR LaVALLE: Lay that aside,
for the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
863, by Senator Golden, Senate Print 3961A, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
designating Asian New Year as a day to be
commemorated.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
872, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 1368, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the penalty for operating certain
commercial motor vehicles.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
3288
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
875, by Member of the Assembly Smith, Assembly
Print Number 3309, an act to amend Chapter 122
of the Laws of 2001, amending the Vehicle and
Traffic Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
890, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4385, an
3289
act to amend the Public Authorities --
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
893, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 4740,
an act authorizing the study of current rules
and regulations relating to the operation of
drawbridges.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
894, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 432, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
making it a crime to steal or possess stolen
anhydrous ammonia.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
3290
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
896, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 514, an
act to --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
901, by Member of the Assembly Ramos, Assembly
Print Number 7048B, an act to amend the Penal
Law, in relation to possession of billies or
blackjacks.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
3291
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
905, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print --
SENATOR SKELOS: Star that bill
at the request of the sponsor.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is so
starred.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
907, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4528, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
unlawful use of a scanning device or --
SENATOR SALAND: Please star that
bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
starred.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
908, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4529, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
harassment of teachers and school personnel.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
3292
act shall take effect on the first of
September.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
910, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 4584,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
false personation.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
3293
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
913, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 4941,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to anonymous juries.
THE PRESIDENT: 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, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
928, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2581, an
act to amend the Parks, Recreation and --
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
936, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1180, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to certain lung disabilities.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
3294
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of July.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could go to the
controversial reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
378, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3090, an
act to amend Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to persons designated as peace
officers.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
3295
this is a bill that would allow peace officer
status for the security force at the Erie
County Medical Center.
I think that one thing we -- I
listened yesterday to a debate on peace
officer status, and apparently there's a
misunderstanding that peace officer status
gives the same powers as police officers.
That's absolutely not true.
The problems, in fact, we're having
now is, and particularly in a city like
Buffalo, where the police force is being
downgraded, or rather consolidated or whatever
is being done -- in other words, there are
fewer police officers. In certain high-crime
areas, and the Erie County Medical Center is
in an area that I think some would consider a
high-crime area, you need the color of law.
And what peace officer status does,
I think -- understand, police officer status
gives a person the right to make arrests
off -- in any place within the jurisdiction,
basically, although a police officer can make
certain arrests anyplace.
A peace officer only has power in
3296
relation to where his authority is; that is,
at the facility or wherever it is that he or
she is involved with.
It gives no authority to carry
guns. Except that I can assure you that most
of the security officers at the Erie County
Medical Center already carry guns. They have
permits. And the reason is, it is a fairly
dangerous area. And this -- the peace officer
authority does not give it -- if the people
that are involved say they can't do that, they
can't do it.
And I think one thing that people
should realize, a lot of the peace officer
people now are asking us for two things.
First of all, they want the power of police
officers, because that gives them much more
authority to make arrests and things of that
nature.
The second thing, of course, they
all like is they all want to be police
officers. But we don't let people become
police officers unless they go through the
same training as all other police officers go
through.
3297
And the difficulty is that in some
cases that becomes very problematic.
Particularly in New York City, where there's a
lot of the people who are doing some very
dangerous work that want to be police officers
because of the situation they're in, but we
have balked at doing that.
The peace officer basically gives
that person some authority -- the color of
authority, is what I call it. Not a heck of a
lot more authority in many ways than an
average citizen has, because everybody to a
certain extent has the right to grab somebody
who immediately just committed a crime.
But it gives some color of
authority. And more than anything, to tell
you the truth, it allows that person to have
some coverage should there be a problem with
some action that they take, and gives them at
least some authority.
Most peace officers -- and they're
asked, by the way, that if there's something
very serious where they have time to make an
arrest, they call a local police officer.
Because the real authority is not in peace
3298
officers, it's with police officers.
And, for instance, serving
warrants. And we used to have this even way
back when I was a police officer, where we
would get calls from people at institutions or
whatever and you would go there with the
warrant and they would go with you and serve
the warrant.
It's really designed if someone
sees a crime being committed, that they have
the color of authority to go and arrest that
person and turn them over to a police officer.
Because they have really not the authority to
move ahead and really prosecute the case; that
has to be done by the local authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
do you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Well, I was so glad that you had a
3299
bill here today, Senator Volker, on peace
officers. Because, as I've brought up several
times just this week, we seem to keep passing
bills here to expand the number of people who
are peace officers and the authority they
have.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: In fact, as
you just explained, we don't let people who
want to become police officers become them
because we don't have enough money to have
enough police. And you're using the example
of a hospital in your own district.
But as you just said, they carry
guns, we're giving them the right to do
arrests, warrantless searches --
SENATOR VOLKER: No, that's
not -- by the way, that's not true.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: It's not
true.
SENATOR VOLKER: They have very
little authority to do warrantless searches,
except if there's a crime committed or
something where there is a reason connected
with the -- and I don't mean to interrupt you.
3300
But -- and, by the way, it doesn't
give them the authority to carry guns.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: No, but you
said that these people already had that.
SENATOR VOLKER: They do because
they have permits.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Right.
SENATOR VOLKER: And if the local
people decide, the people that run the
institution, that they can continue to carry
guns but under the authority of their -- they
have to do the same process as everyone else,
is what I mean. In other words, get checked
and make sure they're -- of their ability to
be able to do it.
But I would point out to you, if I
just might say, that one of the problems is
you need people who have some authority to
oversee some of these public institutions.
Many of these people, by the way,
are trained as police officers -- or trained
the same as police officers. Because what's
happening is admittedly this is one of the
ways you can then become a police officer, is
to become a peace officer at some place and
3301
then later apply, if there is an opening, to
become police officers.
But the problem is that you have to
have some sort of authority in these type of
places. There have been some very serious
incidents that have occurred in these places,
shootings and so forth. And particularly,
unfortunately, at hospitals in Western
New York, where people are brought in with
stab wounds and things of that nature, and
maybe the other people that were involved in
it come looking for them at the hospital or
whatever. So it's a pretty serious matter.
And I only point out that we pass
a -- it's true, we pass a number of peace
officer bills a year. But only a few become
law. And this one, very, very honestly,
probably will, because, I think, of the
serious nature of the situation involved. And
I only point that out to you.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if through you the sponsor would
yield to an additional question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
3302
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
I appreciate your explanation, your
clarification.
I guess the question I want to ask
you, which is both, I think, on your bill and
on the broader issue, we know our crime rate
is going down throughout the state of
New York, happily. And yet it seems, through
the action of the Legislature with these peace
officer bills, we are creating a second tier
of police where we don't have a mandated,
standard training protocol or an institutional
relationship with the prosecutors, as you
describe.
And yet in various institutions
throughout the state of New York -- hospitals,
universities, energy plants -- we are talking
about creating a secondary structure of police
for most purposes, if you're talking about the
ability to carry guns in some circumstances,
if you're talking about the ability to do
searches in some circumstances, to chase
3303
people off the premises in some circumstances.
You are an expert on the police
system and the judicial system in this state.
Don't you think we're walking down,
potentially, a dangerous road by having a
second tier, nonpolice police system?
SENATOR VOLKER: The answer is
no. And I'll tell you why. Because the
problem is we don't do this. These are not
police, they're peace officers. There's --
the authority is much, much less.
The prime reason that these people
get peace officer status has to do with their
ability to enforce certain standards of the
institutions. They're really not designed,
for instance, to enforce the Penal Law.
They're designed to allow for certain actions
that have to be taken within these
institutions where there are no police
officers present.
I think one of the things that has
to be remembered also, in this lawsuit-crazy
age that we live in, it also gives them some
authority to have certain coverage. Because
challenging all authority is so prevalent
3304
today in civil suits that you have to have
some level of authority in order to even
manage these -- the alternative, by the way,
the alternative is to hire professional
security guards, mandate very expensive
procedures with them. And in some places,
that has happened.
In this state we have not been very
successful at convincing cities, towns,
villages or anybody else to do that sort of
thing.
So when you think about it here,
what is the alternative? Is the alternative
not to do this and therefore risk even more
problems than we might create now? I don't
think so.
And as I say, most peace officers
do not carry weapons. They do not. Because
the peace officer status does not give them
authority. It is only whether the local
people want it and, secondly, the issue of
permits.
The third thing you should
understand is they can't chase anybody off
the -- they have no authority, under peace
3305
officer status, to chase anybody anywhere. If
the person leaves the building and walks away,
they have to call a police officer. I suppose
you could argue if you're chasing somebody out
the door and they fall on the sidewalk or
something.
But their only authority is in
relation to the facility that they -- where
they work. They do not have any other
authority to do any other arrests or any
enforcing of the local violations or penal
laws or anything of that nature.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: On the bill
briefly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
I appreciate Senator Volker's
explanation.
Again, I think the issue here is
bigger than his one bill. The bill that we
dealt with earlier in the week involved the
right of peace officers at nuclear power
plants to in fact leave their facilities to
follow through, so that one was different.
3306
The bill we dealt with yesterday for a
university system peace officers to have
certain police powers was slightly different
than your bill today.
Your bill today, as you said,
doesn't include the right to guns, although
they already carry guns.
My point is, and it is my concern
with the direction we are going, we are
creating a second-tier police system in this
state through these individual peace officer
pieces of legislation. Each one works under a
different set of rules, a different set of
standards, somebody else overseeing them.
There is no standardization or institutional
base of rules, regulations, training, approval
for these peace officers throughout the state.
I fear that we walk ourselves down
a road where we turn around, take a look back
a few years from now and say, how did we
create 52 different subpolice systems in the
state of New York, each of which have their
own rules, but many of which have most police
powers?
Because, I would argue, first peace
3307
officer, then you do have people coming
forward saying the right to carry guns. If
you're doing arrests, you are in a dangerous
situation, you're going to ask for the power
to carry a gun.
If you can do a search at a
university, where's the line between a
warrantless search and a search in which you
should call the police?
I think New York State is doing
ourselves and our communities an injustice by
not asking the bigger questions about why are
we going down the road of so many subpolice
systems.
Do we have adequate police
protection in our communities? If we don't,
let's address it through our police systems
rather than setting up a quasi-privatized,
piecemeal system for people who won't be
police but will have many of the authorities
and powers of individual police.
I'll vote for your bill, again with
the hesitation I've raised on all of the bills
this week. But I really think this
Legislature needs to sit down and take a look
3308
at the needs for police response throughout
our communities and what we should doing in a
broad-based structure rather than these
individual peace officer bills.
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 180th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President. May I have unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
519.
THE PRESIDENT: Without hearing
any objection, you will be so recorded as
voting in the negative, Senator Connor.
The Secretary will continue to
3309
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
435, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 1066, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the taxation of certain state
lands.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: An explanation
has been requested, Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill before us today amends the
Real Property Tax Law to add the town of
Parish in the county of Oswego to a listing of
townships in various counties across the state
and amends the Real Property Tax Law to
provide for the payment of state real property
taxes.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect --
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
3310
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. Briefly on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: This is a
bill that we addressed last year that provides
for property -- that certain state property
will be exempt from taxation -- will be
taxable, excuse me, will be taxable by
municipalities, and provides a list of certain
specific municipalities.
A lot of us voted against this last
year because of the sense of injustice of
identifying some areas of the state,
localities -- and every local government in
this state, including the government of the
great city of New York, is hurting right now.
We have lots of state property in all these
municipalities. It hurts every municipality
that we can't tax state property.
Senator Breslin's district, I
think, is the leader in the state of having
state property that's not subject to taxation.
We have a fiscal crisis in many
parts of the state. I'm sympathetic to the
3311
fact that the municipalities listed in this
bill would like to get the revenue from state
property. But so would all of the rest of us.
So would all the rest of us.
And there's no reason why state
property in the Bronx shouldn't be helping us
balance our budget, why state property in
Brooklyn, state property in Albany or in
Buffalo shouldn't be helping us balance our
budget.
So I voted no on this last year --
as did many, many of my colleagues -- because
this bill represents a fundamental injustice.
If we're going to try to help some
municipalities by providing that they can get
tax revenues from state land, let's do it
fairly. Let's do it for everybody or let's do
it for nobody.
This is a serious, serious problem
in the City of New York. We have huge,
valuable state properties that are not subject
to taxation. The state does not, in my view,
do enough for the major cities of this state
as it is, for New York, for Yonkers, for
Buffalo, Rochester, and this bill would
3312
exacerbate the problem.
So I'm voting no, as I did last
year, along with 18 of my colleagues,
including, I think, virtually everyone from
the City of New York on my side of the aisle.
So if we're going to provide
additional aid to municipalities, let's do it
fairly. Let's not increase the discrimination
against New York City and other big cities by
the government of the State of New York.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, for the same reason yesterday that
I voted against special tax breaks for certain
airports -- and as the representative of
LaGuardia Airport, I think we are just as in
need of assistance -- I will vote no again
this year.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Just to both be a representative of New York
City and highlight for this house that I
recognize the issues for the rest of the
3313
state.
In fact, there was a task force
chaired by Senator Bonacic and Senator Little
around issues around real estate tax
inequities in the State of New York in land.
And in fact, some of the issues highlighted
there, that in much of upstate New York large
parts of counties and districts are in fact
parkland or state-owned land that also cannot
collect tax revenue. And it does great harm
not only to the cities, as Senator
Schneiderman said, but also to upstate
districts.
If we're going to deal with this
issue, we have to deal with it from a
statewide perspective. And this is not the
way to do it. So I vote no and urge people
from areas with large parks and open lands and
from urban areas to vote no.
Thank you.
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
3314
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 435 are
Senators Andrews, Brown, Diaz, Dilan, L.
Krueger, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Parker,
Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman, M. Smith,
Stachowski, and Stavisky. Also Senator A.
Smith. Ayes, 42. Nays, 15.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
515, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1884, an
act to amend the Judiciary Law and the
Education Law, in relation to creating.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. 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.
3315
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
890, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4385, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to authorizing regional
transportation authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5 --
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger,
excuse me.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: I'd just
like to speak on the bill briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
I just wanted to highlight to this
house that this is a bill that gives
off-budget authorities even more power to make
financial decisions for themselves absent the
role of the Legislature.
And while it seems a relatively
innocuous bill, the ability of upstate
authorities to have the same authority of the
MTA, to have lines of credits at banks,
allowing them to avoid taking out additional
3316
bonds, and they argue that it's
cost-effective -- and it may be -- it raises
for me yet again the red flag that all of us
should be aware of, that we have large numbers
of off-budget authorities in this state that
have the ability to raise their own revenues,
increase their fees and tax the public without
the Legislature being a participant -- and
unfortunately, as we have seen with the MTA
frequently, lately, the ability to perhaps
misrepresent the numbers in the books that
they provide to the public when the public
asks for information.
And so I worry that this gives the
regional transportation authorities an
additional power that the MTA already has had
to raise its own money, perhaps under the veil
of no one in the public eye knowing what's
going on.
So I've reviewed this with Senator
Farley, and I do think I can support this
because it does allow regional authorities
simply to borrow some additional money at
lower cost.
I wanted to highlight for this
3317
house yet again how important it is for the
Legislature to take back authority to review
off-budget authorities, to not allow MTA or
other off-budget authorities to continue to
have 100 percent control over their own
decision-making, their own finances, their own
ability to raise taxes on the people of
New York State.
And I thought I would take this
opportunity to urge us yet again to move
forward on reform bills for public
authorities, including the MTA and other
regional authorities such as those covered by
this bill.
So I will vote yes for this bill,
but I wanted to take the opportunity to raise
yet again an issue we should deal with before
we go home this year.
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 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
3318
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
896, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 514, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to prohibiting civil actions.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
SENATOR BALBONI: Ask nicely.
THE PRESIDENT: An explanation
has been requested, Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, this is a bill that first started
passing this house in big numbers in 1998.
And my only disappointment is that we have not
had this debate on the floor of the New York
State Assembly.
We have discussed this ad infinitum
or, as some would say, ad nauseam. But
nonetheless, the principles inherent in the
proposal remain sound. That is, that if you
choose to commit a felony in this state you
3319
should not be permitted to walk back into the
very courtroom that you snubbed your nose at
and then utilize that court system to gain
compensation for your injuries that resulted
from your own felonious conduct.
That's the bill in a nutshell.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I have been reviewing the records
of the Dollinger-Balboni debates on this bill
over the years, which, for those of you who
have purchased the collected Dollinger-Balboni
debates, are at page 4827. In fact, only two
copies have been sold, one in Rochester and
one in Nassau County.
But Senator Dollinger and Senator
Balboni engaged in an interesting debate last
year. And I wonder if the sponsor might yield
for a question so I might follow up on a point
made by our dearly departed colleague.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, are you
willing to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I'm sorry,
3320
Madam President. For the record, you're not
suggesting that Senator Dollinger passed away.
He's merely left this building.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No, but
people who have --
THE PRESIDENT: I take that as a
yes, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: He is out
of the country at the moment.
Through you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Much of
the debate last year related to the lack of
any language in this legislation requiring
nexus between the criminal conduct, the
felony -- the conduct that results in a felony
conviction and the incident that forms the
basis for the claim for damages.
This is an action, as I think
everyone knows, that some refer to as the
hapless burglar act. If someone is committing
a crime and is injured either by the person
who's the victim of the crime or by some
complete third party -- if someone walks by
and see someone stealing a watch and shoots
3321
someone in the back and paralyzes them, that
person would be exempt from liability because
it was in the commission of a felony.
SENATOR BALBONI: I'm sorry,
Madam President, may I just -- I want to make
sure that the record is clear. Let me just
correct that last statement.
The bill would not exempt that
individual from liability. It would merely
say that they cannot bring a state civil
remedy.
They would still be subject to
prosecution and incarceration under the state
Penal Law, and they would still be subject to
a federal civil rights action.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
Thank you, Madam President, thanks, Senator
Balboni, for that correction.
The point I am attempting to make
is that throughout the debate last year
Senator Balboni repeatedly referred to the
fact that this bill is limited to actions that
are in the course of the commission of a
felony.
It states, at the first page, this
3322
would prohibit individuals who commit a felony
from suing for any injuries incurred, quote,
as a result of the commission of that crime.
Senator Balboni went on to state
that this bill talks about being injured
during the commission of a felony.
I am reading the section 1411-A,
lines 9 to 16 of the bill, which is the
relevant section. I do not see anything that
requires any nexus whatsoever between the
culpable conduct that results in a felony
conviction and the civil action.
All this bill says is recovery is
barred in any action to recover damages for
personal injury or wrongful death. Any. It's
barred in any action, any culpable conduct of
the claimant or decedent resulting in a felony
conviction.
There's not even a preposition.
There's nothing that says in the course of the
act that's the basis for the civil action. It
doesn't say committed during the incident
resulting in a civil action. It doesn't say
it's the proximate cause of the injury
resulting in the civil action.
3323
What's the nexus, Senator Balboni?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you.
If I -- I don't have a Black's Law
Dictionary here, and I apologize for that.
But I can certainly send you the cite.
The key to the answer is what we
refer to this bill in the office. This is
known as the "culpable crimes bill." And your
question goes to the definition in this
state's jurisprudence of the phrase "culpable
conduct."
We tried to make sure that we had a
statute that recognized the judicial realities
in this state's civil justice system. And to
do that, we went back to 1975, when the CPLR
was changed from the contributory negligence
standard to a comparative negligence standard.
And we went back to the case law that had been
developed prior to the change in the statute,
and the case law specifically refers to
culpability. And that is the phrase upon
which we seized.
So if you read the language of the
bill, it says in any action to recover damages
3324
for personal injury, any culpable -- which
means responsible, connected -- conduct on
behalf of the claimant resulting in a felony
conviction shall be a complete bar to
recovery.
Now, the ultimate safeguard in this
particular application is the judicial review
attendant to a motion for summary judgment at
the threshold of the action. And that's
really what this is.
As you know, being a litigator
yourself, Senator Schneiderman, that the way
that this statute would act as a complete bar
is upon the commencement of an action by the
felonious plaintiff and then a response by the
defendant to dismiss summarily this motion.
That motion would then be reviewed
by the court. And in that case, since we
actually use the phrase or the word
"culpable," the court would then make that
inquiry on the papers submitted, whether or
not in fact the conduct was culpable to the
felony.
So at the end of that review, the
court could do one of three things, as you
3325
know. The court could say, you are correct --
I'm sorry, do you have a train to catch?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: A train of
thought is what I'm trying to catch.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BALBONI: You've been
missing that train for several years now. But
don't let that discourage you.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BALBONI: I'm sorry, just
a little joking here.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Never
engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed
man.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BALBONI: The court could
say, number one: I agree with you, plaintiff,
you do have a case. This goes to jury.
Number two: I disagree with you, defendant --
I disagree with you, plaintiff, you do not
have a case because of your conduct. Or,
number three: It is a question of fact as to
whether or not your actions were in fact a
nexus or related to this particular cause of
action.
3326
So that's what the court would do.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President. And for my
part, I will endeavor to be brief in this
question.
I appreciate all of the historical
contextual discussion, but I want to focus on
the language of the statute. Because I
honestly, honestly do not believe that there
is any connection in the language, the way the
statute is drafted, between the felony and the
subject matter of the action for personal
injury.
This says, when you talk about
culpable, it doesn't refer to culpability in
terms of the action for personal injuries. It
states recovery is barred in any action for
personal injury, et cetera -- right? -- in any
action to recover damages for personal injury,
injury to property, or wrongful death, any
culpable conduct of the claimant or decedent
resulting in a felony.
"Culpable conduct" modifies
"resulting in a felony conviction." It does
not relate to the civil action. It's a
3327
complete bar to recovery. Culpable conduct of
the claimant or decedent resulting in a felony
conviction. That is the use of the word
"culpable" in the context of the criminal law
and the felony conviction.
There is nothing that requires that
that felony have any specific connection to
the civil action for personal injury, injury
to property or wrongful death.
And whatever we say about history
and whatever we saw about Black's Law
Dictionary, that doesn't cover up what I think
is a fundamental drafting error. If the
statute is drafted to say any culpable conduct
of the claimant or decedent resulting in a
felony conviction committed in the course of
the events out of which the action for
personal injury -- that would be different.
It doesn't say that. I think we've
been going year after year through this
without addressing a fundamental drafting
error.
There is no reason for me to
believe that a court could not interpret this
as broadly as to say, and this came up in the
3328
earlier debates, that someone who is fleeing
from -- or let's give a better example, since
we're big on criminalizing multiple
misdemeanors and making them felonies in this
house.
Say we had someone who's under one
of these statutes where multiple misdemeanors
turned into a felony, has been driving without
a license or some such thing, and is stopped
by the police and tries to get out of their
car and is beaten up. Now, that person would
be barred from recovery.
And I appreciate what Senator
Balboni says. We can only do certain things
in the state government. We cannot prohibit
them from bringing a federal civil rights
action. We cannot prohibit a criminal
prosecution. But in reality, it is a critical
remedy to be able to seek civil redress.
I don't see any connection here.
"Culpable conduct" refers to the felony
conviction. It does not refer to personal
injury. And I don't -- and if we're relying
on case law, the case law right now bars
recovery in the most egregious circumstances.
3329
And we've discussed this before, Barker versus
Kallash.
Where's the causal connection?
Where's the nexus between the recovery for a
civil action in the language of the statute,
not somewhere else out in the ethers of the
law?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR BALBONI: I appreciate
your concern about the word "culpable."
I would offer several pieces of
solace for you. The first is that the New
York State Trial Lawyers Association
memorandum on this particular bill -- and
they, as you know, have been reviewing this
bill for several years -- does not mention
anything about the nexus between the activity
and the felony and the lawsuit.
So apparently they have no problem
with that aspect of this legislation.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor would
3330
yield again, I am --
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will
you -- gentlemen --
SENATOR BALBONI: I have not
completed my answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Senators, it's
hard for the --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Oh, I
apologize. It's sometimes hard to tell.
THE PRESIDENT: It's hard for the
stenographer to follow you when two people are
speaking at once.
Senator Balboni, do you yield for a
question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I'm actually attempting to still be
responsive to the initial inquiry by the
gentleman.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you
may continue. You have the floor, Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: So that's the
first thing. The New York State Trial Lawyers
Association doesn't seem to have a problem
with the word "culpable" and did not point
3331
out, quote, drafting errors. Their opposition
is based upon other concerns.
Secondly, this is an interesting
defense, but let's take it out to its logical
extreme.
So what you're saying to me is that
if this statute were to become law and an
individual brought a lawsuit in an automobile
accident case, but had recently been convicted
of a felony for drug possession, that the
court would then apply this statute? Is that
what you are saying?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Oh. I am
not saying that at all.
If I have the floor back, I would
like the sponsor to yield for another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Sure. I just
want to get clarification on my question.
So, in fact, that is an absurd,
extreme example, this -- a perversion of this
3332
statute.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't
know. I think the statute is so incoherent
it's difficult to interpret what would be a
perversion and what wouldn't be.
But I would like the sponsor to
yield to another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I'm going to take the last response as a yes.
And then I will also yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Creative
creativity in interpretation is a very
important skill.
First of all, I think it is
excellent that Senator Balboni is now citing
the Trial Lawyers as the authority on legal
interpretation in this state.
I have learned something, though,
in my years here. And I'm often reminded of
this by Senator Ruben Diaz. Sometimes the
trial lawyers are wrong. I mean, I've been
3333
through a couple of debates on this bill, and
this issue was raised, but I had never really
focused in until this year to the drafting
error.
And I think it is clearly a
drafting error. There is no connection
between the second half of the phrase and the
first half of the phrase. And I don't know
how a court would interpret it.
I do know that an overly aggressive
prosecutor with an ax to grind for someone
could attempt to interpret it broadly. And
there are times when there are perversions of
statutes.
But once again, I would like to
request -- and this is the last time I will do
so -- what specific words in this statute
indicate that the culpable conduct of the
claimant or decedent resulting in a felony
conviction has some connection, or what the
nature of that connection is, to the action
for personal injury.
What are the words in this statute
that state there must be some connection
between the culpable conduct resulting in a
3334
conviction and any action?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, I'm beginning to discern the
gentleman's confusion over certain aspects of
the bill. And let me just clarify.
When you said that you're concerned
about a prosecutor's zeal, this is not a
criminal statute. So there would be no
prosecutor involved in the application of this
statute.
The only time that this statute
would be invoked is if in fact, say, a county
attorney or an attorney for the city or a
defense attorney on behalf of some insurance
company were to decide this is the applicable
statute that would bar recovery.
So I just want to make sure that
we're clear, this is not a criminal statute
even though it references felony.
Secondly, I will go back again to
the word "culpable." And the reason why we
did not go to the broader language is to try
to make sure it was in, you know, this action
and this particular -- because that's very
difficult to define. And what we're doing
3335
here, and you -- lastly, your reference to
Barker versus Kallash is an important one, and
that really goes to the crux of this bill.
This bill is not establishing new
ground, new precedent. It's not taking the
state in a different direction. What it is
doing is it is merely codifying existing case
law.
And I think you'll agree that if
there is a benefit to codification, it is the
utilization of that statute in motions of
summary judgment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I will
take that answer as there is no connection
language there.
I will now speak on the bill
briefly. Very briefly. Very briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
there are two fundamental problems with this
law.
One is that even if it was drafted
3336
correctly, I would vote against it. Because
what this bill seeks to do is to take away
from the jury the ability to take into account
all the factors in a case.
There is no easy course for someone
who is committing a felony and attempts to
bring a civil action based on that felony to
get a recovery. Many of those actions are
dismissed. Most are barred by the doctrine of
Barker versus Kallash.
And I think that, you know, the
examples that have been cited in past debates
are clear enough. If someone, you know, is in
the process of stealing a watch and a
bystander -- because it doesn't even have to
be the victim -- shoots him 18 times in the
legs, then no civil recovery would be
available in the courts of the State of
New York if this passed. A question about --
question about its application in other areas.
But more centrally, I think today
we have in fact identified a drafting error.
There is no language that connects any
culpable conduct of the claimant or decedent
resulting in a felony conviction to the civil
3337
action. It doesn't say culpable conduct in
the course of events that led to the civil
action. There is no nexus.
This could be interpreted as
broadly as a court wanted to interpret it. It
is an invitation to confusion.
And I would like to call the
Senator's attention to the fact that, as he
has cited the law dictionary, Black's Law
Dictionary, "culpable" is defined simply as
blameable, censurable, criminal.
So this refers to culpable conduct,
culpable conduct of the claimant or decedent
resulting in a felony conviction. I think
it's absolutely clear that culpability here
refers to the conduct resulting in a felony
conviction. There is no definition of the
relationship between the civil action and the
conduct. I think that's a fatal flaw.
I do understand people's concern
about some cases that get a lot of publicity.
But I do think the law as it exists in the
State of New York now does adequately address
those concerns while providing a balance. The
balance is this. You don't want people's
3338
rights to recover, to put their case before a
jury, to be preempted by us saying we're
better than a jury, unless you have a very,
very extreme circumstance.
In this court, cases brought by
felons or alleged felons for civil recovery
are frequently thrown out at an early stage.
The law works as it is now. And I think
passing a statute as poorly drafted as this is
just going to make the situation worse.
I vote no, and I urge everyone to
vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Having heard my learned counsel
colleagues debate the drafting error or
non-error, I would say, based on my
experience, we're looking at a four-three
decision from the Court of Appeals should this
ever become law. Which way it will go, I
don't know. But that's how drafting issues
get resolved.
And that makes our job difficult,
3339
because we're never sure when we pass a law,
any law, that it's going to end up meaning
what we thought it meant when we all voted.
But I'd like to focus on something
less technical and a bigger picture. Because
what has disturbed me for some years is the
lack of an approach to the total texture of
tort law and what it's about.
We tend to see -- and the
advocates, whether people who want so-called
tort reform or the trial lawyers and consumer
groups that talk about individual rights to
recover, we tend to focus on the dollars and
of a particular case involving a tort or
alleged civil wrongdoing, recovery, damages.
It sounds like it's all about
money. You know, the advocates for existing
law will talk about the poor victim of a tort
and their need and ability to recover damages
so that they can be put right or get medical
treatment or live out their lives in comfort
or medical attention, whatever they need.
So we look at that as a onesies
thing. And, yes, one purpose of the tort law
as it evolved from the common law down into
3340
the state, into our statutes, is to compensate
victims of civil wrongdoing for the damages
they incurred as a result of someone else's
negligence, someone else's actions contrary to
their duty to the public or a person, or
someone who fails to act who has a duty to
act.
But we always lose sight of the
larger -- there's a second, equally important
function or purpose in tort law. And that is
as a means by which society deters certain
dangerous or negligent conduct to protect
everybody. And we deter it by giving damages
to the victim of a particular act, but we do
that to deter the tortfeasor's conduct, to
protect the public at large.
And, Mr. President, I think this
bill is too focused on that onesies situation.
My gosh, the burglar gets injured, he's the
wrongdoer, yet the homeowner has to pay
damages. That does strike the public and
everyone else as, gee, that's not fair, the
felon gets damages.
But the justification is that
larger picture that we want to deter
3341
homeowners or whatever, in the case of a
burglary, from doing particularly dangerous
things that could hurt not just burglars but
other people.
And the classic common law
enunciation of this is the question of the
trap or the tripwire gun, the spring gun.
Worried about your safety, you set up a
shotgun with a spring gun attached to the
window or whatever, door. And if someone
breaks in, the gun goes off and you shoot the
burglar.
The law has always imposed absolute
liability in this case. There's no
justification for it. The homeowner can't say
"I was justified." The law is always absolute
liability.
Why? To protect burglars? Because
the burglar is going to get a recovery, the
burglar get a judgment against the homeowner
because he's a burglar and we want to protect
burglars?
No, it's to protect the newspaper
delivery person. It's to protect the
firefighter who has to go in there. It's to
3342
protect the police officer who may have reason
to go in there. Maybe he has a warrant to go
in there, has every right to go in there.
It's to protect children who -- you
know, are they burglars? I don't know. Kids
are kids. Ten-year-old kids sometimes are
tempted to open a window and go in and peek in
somewhere. Do we really want their heads
blown off? No.
So the function of the law isn't
necessarily -- or, in that case, the primary
purpose of the rule of tort liability is not
to compensate the person who gets hurt, it's
to deter everyone from ever setting a spring
gun trap.
And I suggest that this bill, in
focusing on, as Senator Schneiderman pointed
out, the bystander who believes they've just
seen a purse snatching and puts, you know, ten
bullets in the back of a fleeing
perpetrator -- everybody will say: Oh, but
why should the purse snatcher get money?
Well, we don't want bystanders to
shoot ten bullets in anybody. They don't
necessarily know the facts. They don't know
3343
what they've seen, necessarily.
We want to deter people from doing
dangerous things. Not to protect the felon
who may be injured, to protect everybody.
And I suggest that we go down a
very slippery road here when all we focus on
is who's going to get the damages.
We don't want -- and the way you do
it -- so you say: Well, why protect felons?
Protect the innocent. This bill doesn't
affect the innocent. This bill doesn't
prevent the firefighter who gets shot because
of a spring gun going into a building. This
bill would let that firefighter recover, but
not the burglar.
Sounds logical, doesn't it? Okay,
we won't let the burglar recover, but the
firefighter can recover.
That misses the point. The point
is, we don't want anyone to set a spring gun
because we don't want that firefighter to
recover damages for having his legs blown off.
We don't want him to get shot in the first
place.
And that's the purpose of the law.
3344
And that's why I'm against this.
That's why, while you can talk
about stories -- oh, he was a criminal, why
should he get damages -- a better way,
perhaps, Mr. President -- and I'm not in the
business of drafting Senator Balboni's
bills -- if you want to serve his purpose and
still vindicate the larger purpose of the law,
to protect the public, to deter dangerous
conduct, let the felon recover the damages and
give the money to a crime victims fund.
It deters the person who does a
dangerous thing, because they're still going
to have to pay through the nose for such
dangerous conduct as setting a spring gun or
some other kind of trap or maintaining a
totally unsafe building. You know,
whatever -- whatever these things arise in.
They'll be deterred, because
they'll still have to pay. And you won't
reward the felon. And the public at large
will be protected, and innocent people who are
damaged will collect the judgment.
I'm going to vote no on this bill,
Mr. President.
3345
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Diaz.
SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I represent the 32nd Senatorial
District in Bronx County. They call that
section the South Bronx. And when you read in
the newspaper how terrible the crime is in the
South Bronx, some people talk about the South
Bronx as something negative.
There is a great incidence of crime
in the city of New York, especially in our
black and Hispanic neighborhoods. And we
politicians, when we go running and asking
people to vote for us to get reelected, one of
the things that we promise is that we are
going to be tough on crime, is that we're
going to clean the streets, that we're going
to support the senior citizens. And that
we're going to give people -- if you vote for
me, we tell people, I'm going to bring a
better environment, I'm going to bring peace,
and I'm going to be tough on crime.
Year after year, year after year,
you see that in our neighborhoods, crimes
3346
continue to be. I'm here only five months,
but I am starting to know why. It is because
we come here and we put our minds and our
effort in semantics: this word here and this
word there. Meanwhile, the criminals are
committing crimes, and we're giving, day after
day, more power to the criminals.
I heard here and I found out here
that if I'm sleeping in my house and a
criminal breaks into my home and I do
something to that criminal, that criminal
could sue me for damages.
Then I was talking to my wife, and
I explained that to my wife. And my wife
said: Why don't you pass a law saying to the
criminal, Here, come on, here's my daughter,
here's my wife. Because what we do here is
sending messages to people. Go ahead, keep
committing crimes, because crime pays.
Crime -- ladies and gentlemen,
crime does not pay. And any behavior, any
conduct, anyone that enters into a behavior to
commit crime, to do damage, should be
punished. And if in doing so someone gets
hurt, they weren't supposed to do that.
3347
Why -- what was you doing trying to
commit that felony? What are you doing trying
to come into my house? You got no business,
you have no business trying to -- I got
elected to be tough on crime. And I got
elected to protect the senior citizens so they
could go into the streets, so they could enjoy
the park, so they could live a life out of
fear.
I got elected so my district could
get -- could be tough on crimes so criminals
know that they cannot commit crime, that we
are tough on crimes and that they, anyone
anywhere, if they go into a bodega to rob the
bodega and they get hurt, you wasn't supposed
to be doing that.
If they go into any one -- if they
enter into any kind of criminal behavior and
they get hurt, they wasn't supposed to be
doing that.
So, ladies and gentlemen, when you
go back to your communities and open your
mouths and telling the people: Vote for me,
because I'm going to be tough on crime, I hope
you come here and do that too.
3348
But stop going through the
semantics and finding out this word and that
word and -- and yes, Mr. Schneiderman, I think
that sometimes the trial lawyers are wrong.
But I didn't get elected here to defend the
trial lawyers. I got elected to defend my
community and to be sure that people walk free
of crime in my community.
And that's why I'm voting for this
bill. Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Parker.
SENATOR PARKER: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Parker, on the bill.
SENATOR PARKER: Let me first
begin by thanking Mr. Balboni, Senator
Balboni, for again a very thoughtful effort in
terms of the idea of protecting our
communities. It's really important that we
have, you know, a real commitment. And I
think that's absolutely what the Reverend
says.
And believe it or not, I actually
3349
get up to support the Reverend and to join
with the Reverend in saying that we ought to
be sending a message and that we ought to be
protecting our communities. And I agree that
we ought to be protecting our communities.
But I'm not clear that this bill does exactly
that.
Our communities get protected not
just through deterring crime because people
are afraid of violence. Our communities don't
get protected because, you know, people are
afraid to get shot in the streets.
If we want to help senior citizens,
we want to help young people, we want to help
our communities get better, let's pass a
living wage bill that raises minimum wage in
this body. And I'm willing to join anybody to
work on doing that. Because we absolutely
understand that when in fact people's incomes
get better and when the economy is better,
then in fact crime goes down.
Let's do things like invest in
youth programs. Because we do understand that
when we engage our young people, our young
people have less time to be engaged in, you
3350
know, idle activities that get them in
trouble.
So let's add more money for youth
programming. Let's add more programs. Let's
put more money for school programs, add music
and dance and art back into the classrooms so
that young people are engaged in the school
system.
Let's in fact do things to help,
you know, Chancellor Klein in New York City
and other chancellors around the state in
terms of bolstering their school systems so
that we have better education. Let's continue
to do the things and the hard work that Ken
LaValle and other people have been doing to
bolster higher education, to give people more
economic opportunity.
Economic opportunity is really
where we do protection. But that's not what
this bill is about. This bill is really about
a question of whether we continue to send the
message to our community that freedom and the
important things that are put forth in our
U.S. Constitution continue to hold true.
And I think that the message we
3351
want to go forward is that the Constitution is
right, that to the degree that we have a
system that is not perfect but works and is
good and we continue to work with it, is the
message that we want to go forward with.
And so that, you know, we're
looking for now, you know, in this bill an
opportunity to, you know, decide whether
juries have the last say in whether somebody
should be compensated or not for injuries.
And my thing is, that's the way the system is.
I'm not clear that this bill improves on that
system.
And I feel more than comfortable in
letting my neighbors and friends who sit on
juries in Kings County make the decisions
about, in a particular situation, whether
somebody should be compensated and whether
that person, you know, was engaged in a
felonious activity or whether that person was
a newspaper delivery boy or just a neighbor or
some curious kid. It's the jury's decision,
not our decision, to make sure that people get
compensated or not compensated as the case
goes.
3352
So unfortunately, I'm not going to
be able to vote for this bill. But I do
applaud the attempt. And I think that we
should continue to have these discussions
about how we better protect our communities.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I'm smiling because this has been a bill that
I put in when I was in the State Assembly back
in 1992. And back then, I never got the
chance to discuss it on the floor. When I
came here, I got my big chance and I put it
out here.
And I want to thank Senator
Dollinger, if he's listening from whatever
place he is, but also -- from Paris,
probably -- and Senator Schneiderman for
indulging me. This is one of the finer
aspects of law that I've really enjoyed
getting into.
But that aside, this bill is about
bigger concepts. It's about bigger issues.
And, Senator Parker, you're right,
that you need to broaden the scope and the
3353
approach.
And, Senator Connor, I'm thrilled
that you've joined this debate. I really mean
that. And your points outline the
differences.
You know, there aren't that many
bills in this Legislature that we can truly
say from a philosophical perspective there's a
clear line and be able to articulate it. Our
constituents say to us all the time that the
line between Democrats and Republicans has
blurred. We don't really fall down on one
side of an issue or another. This is
different.
But let me now, as I try to make it
into a grander issue, let me take the air out
of that balloon and tell you I have bad news
for all of you who vote against the bill.
This is already law. That's the point. The
Court of Appeals has already decided this
issue.
So, Senator Parker, the court
already takes away from your neighbors the
ability to decide this issue in court.
How do I know this? I've tried it.
3354
And then you say to me, Well, then, why did
you put in the bill, Balboni?
Because this will save money. It's
the implementation through statute of what our
Court of Appeals has already determined.
What would really be interesting --
and I challenge all of you to do this -- let's
see if you really believe what you're saying.
Put in a piece of legislation that repeals
Barker versus Kallash. Put a piece of
legislation in right now that says: You know
what, the Court of Appeals is wrong; as a
felon, you should be able to go to a jury
every time. Put that bill in, I dare you.
But you won't. You know why?
Because you understand what the court
understood and what we're trying to understand
here and why this bill has passed every year.
Because there's a broader message. It is
about deterrence, Senator Connor, deterrence
of criminal behavior, of all sorts of criminal
behavior. But that deterrence is in a lot of
different ways.
The thing I truly object to here is
that you're right, it's not about dollars and
3355
cents. But yet somehow we elevate, in this
debate, dollars and cents to a level that it
doesn't belong in. Because here's the
absurdity. With the spring gun -- your
example, Senator Connor. Here's the spring
gun analysis.
As a farmer with a rural piece of
property, I'm not going to set up a spring gun
to catch a burglar coming into my barn,
because I'm not going to be able to stop the
guy from suing me but I'm going to spend
25 years in prison for having taken off his
legs.
I mean, you know, deterrence?
Folks, I mean, maybe my experience in life is
a lot different than yours. But lawsuit on
one hand, imprisonment on the other hand?
There's no comparison, guys.
You know, deterrence is prison.
Which is why -- by the way, there's another
issue that no one's mentioned, but let me
bring it out here. And I'm trying to do this
quickly, because I know it -- I'm very
conscious of where we are on the calendar.
When the bill first came up, the
3356
main concern was of the minority community and
police brutality, that this bill would be used
to shield police organizations so they could
commit acts of brutality, particularly against
the minority community, and not be deterred or
be accountable.
Well, let me address that right
now. First of all, personally, if I truly
believed that that was the effect, I would
never put my name to this piece of
legislation. Never.
But here's the way it works in the
real world. If you have a police organization
that commits an act of brutality, first off,
the individual officers are subject to
criminal prosecution. And if there's anything
we know for sure, when a police officer goes
inside to a prison system, they're treated a
lot worse than almost anybody else. So
there's a real deterrent there.
But here's the second thing. The
federal civil rights legislation, law, 1983,
it's a statute that allows for a broad-based
civil liability lawsuit not just against the
individual officers, which you can do, but
3357
against the organization as a whole, against
the city and the municipality.
And I'll tell you what, that's a
lot harder statute than the CPLR here in this
state. I know. I've tried it. I've been in
court cases where this has been applied.
So again, you don't lose the
deterrent because of the application of
federal law. As a matter of fact, and I've
said this before, if you were to bring an
action for police brutality in state courts,
it's legal malpractice. Because you should go
in federal courts. That's exactly where you
should be.
So to wrap up, number one, this is
already law. If you really have an issue with
this, then repeal the law as it is now. But,
number two, recognize that we're not taking
away deterrence with this statute. All we're
doing is we're saying to everybody else, every
other hard-working stiff out there who has
never committed a crime in their lives, that
if you do commit a crime, you're not equal.
You're not equal. You've stepped outside the
boundaries. You don't belong here. You
3358
belong in prison. And we're not going to help
you. We would help you if you stayed within
the bounds of society.
And that's the message. That's
what we want to say here. Don't do the crime.
Not because you can't do the time, but because
we're not going support you in your attempts
to be compensated.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Very
briefly.
This was a good debate. I think
everyone debating is sincere in their beliefs.
Even if we disagree, we all have the same
agenda of protecting our constituents and
making sure that the system of justice
operates fairly for all.
I do need to clarify something.
Senator Balboni stated that this is already
the law. My concern with drafting is not just
a technical concern. The law now under the
Court of Appeals requires, for the wrongful
plaintiff rule to apply, that if a plaintiff
3359
is injured while engaged in conduct that is a
serious violation of the law -- and this is
the operative language -- the injuries must be
a direct result of that violation.
The Court of Appeals has the nexus.
The law in the case law is better than the
language in the statute that is being
proposed.
I think that, you know, the good
senator, who no one doubts his sincerity, is
simply wrong that this is an improvement on
the case law. The case law's language I think
is much more clear than the language in the
statute. And maybe when we revisit this issue
next year we can work up some new language to
at least take that issue away.
I will continue to vote no, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
3360
SENATOR DIAZ: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Diaz, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DIAZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
In voting in favor of this bill, I
also would like to say that in our communities
we keep sending messages to criminals and then
we try to cover behind blaming the system.
Keep committing crimes; it's the system is the
one that has you committing crimes. Because
the system doesn't give you this, go ahead,
kill; go ahead, rob; go ahead, assault.
And we keep blaming the system.
And we keep telling the criminal, Go, keep
abusing senior citizens; go, keep abusing
ladies; go, keep raping; go, keep doing
everything. And then we say the system. We
should give them this and we should give them
that.
And we send the message to
criminals, it's okay for you to continue to
doing crimes, it's okay for you to continue
abusing senior citizens, it's okay for you to
3361
continue doing rape and all those sorts of
things because the system is at fault.
I understand that we have a rotten
system and that we have to give education and
that we have to give more jobs and more
opportunity to our people. But we, ladies and
gentlemen, we got to stop this blaming the
system. People are committing crimes, people
are killing people because of the system.
When we come here: Oh, they're
doing this because they don't have this. And
then the criminal on the street says, You see?
I could do it, I could continue killing people
and robbing people and abusing senior citizens
because the system is forcing me to do this.
Well, my mother, my mother -- I am
the eighth child of my mother. And she had to
wash, clean floors and wash dishes and do all
those kind of things so we could have an
education. And those times were very
difficult.
Ladies and gentlemen, the system is
wrong. Stop blaming the system and stop
telling the criminals to continue committing
crimes because of the system.
3362
Thank you. I'm voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Diaz will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 896 are
Senators Andrews, Brown, Connor, DeFrancisco,
Dilan, Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger,
Montgomery, Parker, Paterson, Schneiderman,
A. Smith, M. Smith, and Stavisky. Ayes, 45.
Nays, 14.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, we
have a motion. And Senator Maziarz has also
asked to be recognized for another purpose.
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On page number 47, I offer the
3363
following amendments to Calendar Number 912,
Senate Print Number 4872, and ask that said
bill retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'd also ask unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
681.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Maziarz will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 681.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, there being no further business to
come before the Senate, I move we stand
adjourned until Monday, June 2nd, at
3:00 p.m., intervening days being legislative
days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
3364
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday, June 2nd, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days being legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)