Asm. Rebecca Kassay
Rebecca Kassay represents AD-4, a D+6 district on Long Island that has become one of the most competitive seats in the chamber; she won her 2024 general election over Edward A. Flood by just 1.4 points — the same margin by which her predecessor lost the seat in 2022 — and the district's scenario model rates it a toss-up under a favorable Republican environment in 2026. The district is majority-homeowner (78.7%) with a median household income of $126,580 and a registration breakdown of 35.0% Democrat, 28.7% Republican, and 31.7% Independent, reflecting a suburban electorate with a substantial unaffiliated voter bloc. First elected in 2025, Kassay has sponsored 52 bills in her initial session, with her top focus areas being Education and Environmental Conservation at 6 bills each, followed by Cannabis, Public Authorities, and Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding at 3 bills each; passed legislation includes the Whale Awareness Act and a Public Authorities Law expansion funding septic and cesspool upgrades benefiting Long Island communities.AI
Topic Focus AI
Topics extracted by AI from floor debate speeches, joint committee hearing transcripts, and sponsored legislation. Tag size reflects number of supporting citations.
Key Issues AI
Key issue areas derived from floor debate speeches and sponsored bill law sections.
Legislative Activity (2025–2026)
Bill sponsorship from NYS Open Legislation API. Hearing appearances from joint Senate-Assembly committee transcripts. Floor debate from official Assembly session transcripts (Granicus, 2023–present).
Bill Focus Areas 2025–2026
Grouped by law section from sponsored Assembly bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation API.
Floor Speeches: In Support (25) AI
Sponsor explained the bill prohibits chatbot toys to protect children from AI-related risks. Chatbot toys are designed to create emotional attachment through constant availability and personalized responses, posing significant harm to children who cannot distinguish AI from humans.
Debate centered on the scope and necessity of a five-year moratorium on AI companion chatbot toys. Sponsor Kassay argued that existing AI toys have demonstrated weakened safety guardrails during extended interactions, citing examples where toys provided dangerous information (knife locations, pills, matches). She emphasized the technology is rapidly evolving and poorly understood, making a precautionary approach necessary. Opponents like Assemblyman Chang questioned whether a complete ban was too restrictive, arguing the market should dictate development and that other countries with advanced AI toy sectors should be studied. Assemblyman Chang also suggested three years might be more appropriate than five, and advocated for age restrictions rather than an outright moratorium.
Sponsor explained the bill prohibits chatbot toys to protect children from AI-related risks. Chatbot toys are designed to create emotional attachment through constant availability and personalized responses, which can harm children's emotional regulation and relationship building during vulnerable developmental stages.
Debate centered on the scope and necessity of a five-year moratorium on AI companion toys marketed to children 12 and under. Sponsor Kassay argued that existing AI toys have demonstrated weakened safety guardrails during extended interactions, citing examples where toys provided dangerous information (locations of knives, pills, matches). Opponents like Asm. Chang questioned whether a complete ban was necessary versus age restrictions or standards, arguing the market should dictate development and that other countries with advanced AI toy industries should be studied. Sponsor emphasized the unpredictable nature of AI technology and the need for research time to establish proper guardrails before allowing such toys on the market.
This bill protects a beloved greenway trail that has become central to community identity, preserving open space in a region where natural areas face development pressure. The legislation aligns State law with the current and best use of the land while supporting local business communities and infrastructure improvements.
Floor Speeches: In Opposition AI
No recorded floor speeches in opposition found in our transcript archive for this member.
Electoral History AD-4
General Elections
| Year | Winner | Runner-up | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Rebecca A. Kassay 50.7% (30,795) | Edward A. Flood 49.3% (29,964) | ⚡ 1.4pts |
| 2022 | Edward A. Flood 50.7% (24,199) | Steven C. Englebright 49.3% (23,503) | ⚡ 1.4pts |
| 2020 | Steven Englebright 55.2% (33,766) | Michael S. Ross 44.1% (26,941) | 11.1pts |
| 2018 | Steven Englebright 60.6% (27,733) | Christian W. Kalinowski 39.4% (18,019) | 21.2pts |
| 2016 | Steven Englebright 59.2% (31,941) | Steven Weissbard 40.8% (21,994) | 18.4pts |
| 2014 | Steven Englebright 58.1% (16,383) | Christopher C. Keegan 41.9% (11,828) | 16.2pts |
| 2012 | Steven Englebright 62.8% (28,653) | Deborah J. Mc Kee 37.2% (16,990) | 25.6pts |
| 2010 | Steven Englebright 56.1% (20,446) | Deborah J. McKee 43.9% (15,972) | 12.2pts |
| 2008 | Steven Englebright 66.1% (34,975) | Bruce C. Bennett 33.9% (17,946) | 32.2pts |
| 2006 | Steven Englebright 69.2% (22,442) | Bruce C. Bennett 30.8% (9,970) | 38.4pts |
| 2004 | Steven Englebright 62.7% (34,137) | Peter D. Busacca 37.3% (20,299) | 25.4pts |
| 2002 | Steven Englebright 58.4% (18,676) | Nicholas S. Klissas 41.6% (13,309) | 16.8pts |
| 2000 | Steven Englebright 65.1% (30,839) | Anthony P. Moncayo 34.9% (16,563) | 30.2pts |
| 1998 | Steven Englebright 53.1% (17,440) | John Jay La Valle 46.9% (15,410) | ⚡ 6.2pts |
| 1996 | Steven Englebright 59.0% (25,377) | Kenneth E. Gaul 41.0% (17,651) | 18.0pts |
Source: NYS Board of Elections certified results. ⚡ = margin under 10 pts. District history reflects 2022 redistricted boundaries.
Vulnerability Index AD-4
Base lean: D+4
- Won last contested race by only 1.4 points
Scenario model: ±5pt national environment shift applied to district base lean (D+4). Base lean blends voter registration (40%) with recent contested general election margins (60%), using up to the last 4 general elections with margins under 40 points. Ratings: Safe D/R = 15+ pts, Likely = 8–14 pts, Lean = 3–7 pts, Toss-up = within 2 pts (Assembly districts are smaller and more homogeneous than Senate districts, so tighter thresholds are used). Generic ballot from Silver Bulletin (Nate Silver), as of 10/20/2026. Not a prediction — reflects structural competitiveness under different cycle environments.
District 4 Profile
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2024).
Voter Registration
Demographics
Commute Mode
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2024). Race and ethnicity figures may not sum to 100% — Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity category that overlaps with racial groups.
Lobbying Activity
No lobbying disclosures on record for this member in the available dataset.
Source: NY Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government via data.ny.gov.