Asm. Michael Durso

Argued the bill is too broad, potentially treating casual repairs like oil changes the same as licensed shops, and criticized that the $500 penalty goes to the State rather than consumers, undermining consumer protection goals.

Expressed concern that the bill's language is not specific enough in defining what constitutes "negative" information, creating ambiguity about employer obligations. Worried the bill could expose municipalities and small businesses to significant liability and fines ($500-$2,500 per incident) if the AG later determines information should have been flagged as negative.

Expressed concern that the bill's language is not specific enough in defining what constitutes "negative" information, creating ambiguity about employer obligations. Worried the bill could expose municipalities and small businesses to significant liability and fines ($500-$2,500 per incident) if the AG later determines information should have been flagged as negative.

Expressed concern that the bill's language is not specific enough in defining what constitutes "negative" information, creating ambiguity about employer obligations. Worried the bill could expose municipalities and small businesses to significant liability and fines ($500-$2,500 per incident) if the AG later determines information should have been flagged as negative.

The bill appears redundant since employers already conduct annual sexual harassment training in multiple languages and maintain records. The six-year recordkeeping requirement may be cumbersome and the bill does not change existing penalties or enforcement.

Questioned why the bill protects all drivers equally rather than targeting only those with legitimate billing issues. Argued the Legislature should hold toll authorities accountable for timely billing instead of preventing credit reporting.

Questioned reliance on a 2021 California study rather than New York State DOT research, noting California's different climate and road construction standards, and asked whether the State has studied impacts on New York infrastructure.

Questioned why the bill relied on a California study rather than New York State DOT research, noting California has different weather and road construction standards. He asked how the state can follow federal standards selectively.

The bill mandates MTA notification of bed bugs without requiring trained personnel to identify them, essentially legislating that untrained staff must report on something they cannot identify, and lacks consequences or training requirements for the MTA.

Raised concerns about consistency, noting the bill exempts only abortion medications from FDA oversight while not banning drugs like Viagra that allegedly have worse safety profiles. Questioned whether the bill protects dispensers but not patients or those transporting the drug across state lines, and whether federal law could still prosecute those involved.

Expressed grave concerns that retailers will be required to store dangerous batteries without established safety protocols, training, or storage specifications, and that the bill ignores recommendations from the Uniformed Firefighters Association and FDNY.

Questioned why minor parties without county committees need state protection, argued the bill appears targeted without clear examples of current problems, and expressed concern about government involvement in party membership decisions.

Argued the bill effectively transfers power from local school districts to the Commissioner, despite sponsor claims otherwise. Pressed the sponsor on the appeal process and concluded that the Commissioner has final authority to overrule school board decisions, undermining local control. Expressed concern that the bill works both ways—the Commissioner could override removal of inappropriate content.

Local school boards are elected by parents to protect children and are the closest elected officials to schools. Granting all power to the Commissioner circumvents local control and elected representation.

Questioned why the requirement was reduced so drastically and raised concerns about fraud risk in online-only transactions without brick-and-mortar verification of licenses, insurance, and age. Argued that higher insurance is necessary to protect the public when companies cannot verify driver qualifications or vehicle maintenance.

Argued the bill amounts to false advertising and gives party bosses gatekeeping power over judicial candidates. Contended judges should represent all parties and people, not be restricted to one party's values. Questioned why judicial candidates—who should be apolitical—would be prohibited from running on multiple lines.

Questioned whether corrections facilities would be included under the broad 'law enforcement' definition, raised concerns about realtime reporting creating public danger by drawing crowds to incident scenes, and questioned the enforcement mechanism for determining what constitutes sensitive information.

Raised concerns about officer and public safety, arguing that the bill is too broad in its definition of law enforcement and does not adequately specify what constitutes sensitive information. Expressed concern that discretion is left to individual officers with Department of State review coming after the fact.

Argued the bill fails to protect riders because notifications lack specificity (no train car numbers, times, or dates), effectively giving the MTA legal cover while leaving riders unprotected. Compared it to a weatherman announcing a storm without saying where it will occur. Stated the bill protects the MTA rather than riders.

Questioned the bill's readiness, citing concerns about doctor shopping and the definition of terminal illness. Noted the contradiction between the state's $1 billion annual investment in suicide prevention and passage of this bill, and referenced the Senate sponsor's separate Suicide Prevention Act.

Pointed out that New York has 39 not-for-profit and 2 for-profit hospice providers but severe shortages of care, with patients waiting months for services. Argued the bill discourages expansion by good-performing for-profit providers without evidence that new for-profit entrants would provide poor care. Questioned why the legislature would shrink the pool of potential providers.

Voted against the bill, stating the state has no clear plan for how many facilities will open within the year and that the program misses the mark because the state is not properly set up with facilities to handle food scraps.