Asm. Jeffrey Dinowitz

The chapter amendment clarifies the definition of "employer" and narrows the scope of the original bill by carving out State employees and positions subject to State agency background investigations, while maintaining protections for private sector employees.

Assemblymember Palmesano opposed the bill, arguing that if the Chamber is concerned about consumer transparency, utilities should be required to display all green energy mandates on customer bills rather than just energy services company price comparisons. Palmesano acknowledged some improvements from prior years but maintained his opposition.

Expressed hope that the bill will prevent future deaths; praised the sponsor's work and noted that while it's too late for Francesco, the law will save lives.

Argued against generalizing about groups and for judging individuals; shared personal experience with a gentle pit bull owned by his daughter's family, noting that individual temperament matters more than breed.

Argued against generalizing about groups and for judging individuals; shared personal experience with a gentle pit bull owned by his daughter's family, noting that individual temperament matters more than breed.

The bill creates an independent advocate whose sole job is to represent utility consumers. Over 40 states have such offices and have saved ratepayers billions of dollars; New York is the largest state without one. The office would be funded through state tax dollars and would intervene in rate cases and court proceedings on behalf of consumers.

The office would be an independent advocate whose sole job is to represent utility consumers, unlike existing agencies that have other responsibilities. Over 40 states have created such offices and saved ratepayers billions of dollars; New York is the largest state without one.

Mr. Dinowitz explained the bill would prohibit employers from using consumer credit reports in hiring, termination, promotion, demotion, discipline, compensation, or employment terms decisions. Mr. Mikulin questioned the enforceability of the prohibition, noting that employers could still run credit reports and asking how violations would be detected. He also cited the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act as existing protection and raised concerns about positions involving financial responsibility or access to money. Dinowitz responded that credit reports contain significant inaccuracies (citing approximately 25 percent error rate from prior Assembly hearings) and that no correlation exists between credit history and job performance. He noted the bill includes exceptions for positions required by law to use credit history, police officers, investigative agencies, bonded positions, and positions with access to trade secrets.

Argued that insurers use broad information demands as a harassment tactic to avoid paying valid claims. The bill would still allow investigation of suspected fraud but eliminate extraneous requests unrelated to specific claims, ultimately reducing costs and speeding settlements.

Argued that insurers use fraud investigations as a pretext to demand irrelevant personal information, effectively harassing policyholders. The bill would require insurers to demonstrate specific articulable circumstances before requesting sensitive financial or personal records, while still allowing legitimate fraud investigations.

Debate centered on whether the bill adequately clarifies investigation timelines and whether the administrative burden on utilities is justified. Ms. Walsh questioned the vagueness of when an investigation concludes and when the 15/30-day reporting deadline begins, and raised concerns about duplicate penalties already imposed by the PSC. Mr. Angelino questioned whether the bill addresses problems not already covered by existing PSC procedures and expressed concern about increased administrative costs potentially leading to rate increases. Sponsor Dinowitz argued the bill is necessary because many complaints are not resolved timely, that utilities have sufficient resources to comply, and that the burden is minimal compared to the benefit to consumers.

ESCOs have engaged in fraud and abuse since deregulation. The bill requires simple price comparisons that will help consumers understand whether they are actually saving money, as ESCOs claim. If ESCOs are telling the truth about their prices, they should welcome the transparency.

ESCOs have engaged in fraud and abuse since deregulation, and this bill will help consumers understand whether they're actually saving money as ESCOs claim. The requirement is simple and not a burden, and if ESCOs are telling the truth about their prices, they should want to show the comparison.

The bill would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing electronic communications and data from personal devices, emails, text messages, and location information under normal circumstances. Debate centered on emergency exceptions, the requirement to provide copies of obtained electronic information to warrant targets, and the Attorney General's role in publishing reports on warrants issued without identified targets. Assemblyman Molitor raised concerns about requiring police to turn over sensitive materials like child pornography to suspects and questioned whether the Attorney General's publication requirements could compromise ongoing investigations.

Sponsor defended the bill's protections for electronic privacy, explaining that the Attorney General can redact personal identifying information and that individuals retain constitutional rights to challenge warrants that violate state or federal constitutions.

Sponsor explained the chapter amendment makes technical clarifications to prior-year legislation requiring warning signs about firearm risks, particularly suicide. Argued the signage requirement is minimal burden—an 8.5x11 piece of paper with 26-point font—and that the goal is to inform people of risks, potentially preventing some suicides.

Sponsor explained the bill targets rifles and shotguns because they are used in tens of thousands of suicides, particularly among younger people. Defended the exclusion of 'weapon' as undefined in law, preferring specific terms like 'rifle' and 'shotgun.'

Sponsor argued that ensuring arbitrator neutrality upfront is preferable to trying to overturn awards after the fact. Defined neutral arbitrators as those without undisclosed known direct or material interest in the outcome or substantial relationships with parties.

Sponsor argued the bill is about holding companies responsible for damage caused by mining and extraction, assessing a fair fee on those meeting the criteria of extracting/refining over one billion tons of CO2 from 2000-2024. Stated the chapter amendment changes the covered period from 2000-2018 to 2000-2024, and that DEC will have up to 1% of the 3.5 billion dollar fund (approximately 35 million) for implementation.

Sponsor argued the bill applies the "polluter pays" principle to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate damage they caused. Cited staggering infrastructure costs (NYC sewers $100B, flood protection $50-75B+) and increasing extreme weather events. Noted that 35-40 major oil companies would contribute proportionally based on their pollution responsibility, with at least 35 percent of funds directed to disadvantaged communities. Compared approach to tobacco litigation settlements.

Sponsor argued the bill fairly applies the polluter-pays principle, requiring major oil companies responsible for climate damage to fund resilience projects rather than burdening taxpayers. Cited escalating extreme weather events, massive infrastructure costs, and company knowledge of climate risks, drawing parallels to tobacco litigation settlements.

Asm. Goodell opposed the bill, arguing it improperly overrides existing homeowner association deeds, contracts, bylaws, and agreements that govern landscaping. He contended the Legislature should not override voluntary legal agreements and that homeowner associations should retain authority to enforce their own rules.

Argued the bill applies the "polluter pays" principle to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate damage they caused. Cited massive infrastructure costs, increasing frequency of extreme weather events, and noted that oil companies have posted record profits while taxpayers bear climate adaptation costs. Mandates 35 percent of funds directed to disadvantaged communities.

The bill expands Workers' Compensation eligibility for mental injury claims from a limited list of professions (police, firefighters, EMTs, paramedics, emergency dispatchers) to all workers. Supporters argued it addresses gaps in current law by allowing workers in other high-stress professions like nurses, correction officers, and supermarket workers to have claims heard by the Workers' Compensation Board. Opponents raised concerns about undefined standards for 'extraordinary stress,' potential fraud, unknown costs to businesses, and the bill's impact on New York's already-high Workers' Compensation rates and business climate.

The bill expands Workers' Compensation eligibility for mental injury claims based on extraordinary work-related stress from a limited list of professions (police, firefighters, EMTs, paramedics, emergency dispatchers) to all workers. Supporters argued the expansion is necessary to cover workers like nurses, correction officers, and supermarket employees who experience extraordinary stress but are currently excluded. Opponents raised concerns about undefined standards for "extraordinary stress," potential fraud, unknown costs to businesses, and the impact on an already-strained Workers' Compensation system and business climate.

The bill would help the Legislature understand what non-rental fees landlords are charging and whether abuses exist. DHCR is capable of conducting the study and can use sampling methods to gather information, which will inform intelligent future legislative decisions.

The bill would help the Legislature understand what non-rental fees landlords are charging and whether abuses exist. DHCR is capable of conducting the study and can use sampling methods to gather information, which will inform intelligent future legislative decisions.