Asm. Michael J. Fitzpatrick

Sixty days is sufficient time to challenge an MCI application. Extending to 90 days unfairly delays building owners' ability to recoup costs from major capital improvements like boilers and roofs, adding to the burden of operating buildings when expenses are not capped but rents are.

Opposed binding arbitration, arguing it leads to higher costs for transportation services and increased taxes, citing a Long Island arbitrator's own complaints about high property taxes resulting from binding arbitration outcomes.

Opposed binding arbitration, arguing it leads to higher costs and taxes, citing a Long Island arbitrator who complained about high property taxes while being responsible for large contract increases.

Expressed concern about advertising targeting young people ages 18-25 whose brains are not fully developed, cited problem gambling in high schools, and questioned whether the bill provides private right of action or covers treatment costs for families harmed by problem gambling.

The best solution is to prohibit mobile gambling for ages 18-25. The industry is "run by bad people for bad purposes" and the state is promoting VLTs, marijuana, and mobile sports betting to young people while school districts report concerns about the impact on students.

Raised concerns about confusion for small business owners, lack of enforcement mechanisms, data security risks, and questioned why New York is enforcing something the Federal Government deemed unconstitutional.

Stated the real issue is not banning books but age-appropriate placement; controversial books should be in the adult section, not the children's section. Taxpayers are entitled to read what they want, but parents raised legitimate concerns about exposure of young children to certain content in his local library.

The issue is not banning books but preventing exposure of very young children to sexually explicit material in children's sections. Books can be moved to adult sections; no one is preventing adults from accessing them.

Opposed the bill on principle, arguing the Thruway Authority's board should reduce tolls on its own authority rather than the Legislature imposing a temporary benefit that will inevitably be extended, setting a dangerous precedent for other regions to demand similar exemptions.

Questioned whether evidence of actual collusion occurring in New York State exists, noting the bill is based on a ProPublica investigation and a pending DOJ lawsuit. Expressed concern that membership in organizations like REBNY or RSA could be construed as collusion under the bill's language.

No evidence of algorithmic collusion occurring in New York State; sponsor relies on examples from other states with weaker housing regulations. Bill represents government overreach into private sector pricing and will further discourage landlord investment, exacerbating housing shortages. Existing price-fixing law already covers this conduct.

Questioned whether evidence of collusion exists in New York State, noting the bill appears to be preemptive rather than responsive to proven violations. Raised concerns that membership in organizations like REBNY or RSA could be construed as collusion under the bill's language.

No evidence of algorithmic price fixing occurring in New York State; the bill is premature government intervention. New York's strict rent regulations already prevent such practices, unlike other states cited. The bill represents another example of government market manipulation that will discourage housing investment and take units off the market.

Opposed the bill as a back-door effort to burden property owners without compensation. He argued owners of older housing stock face rising operational costs and cannot afford additional mandates, and that this contributes to rental housing shortages.

Expressed concern about the bill being a 'camel's nose under the tent' that could lead to future expansion. Cited his Catholic faith tradition that suffering is part of life and that life is a gift from God not to be rejected.

This is a solution in search of a problem. With only 7,000 complaints out of one million units, the issue can be addressed by current DHCR staff using existing methods. The study appears designed to gather ammunition for future attempts to ban surcharges, which would force property owners to absorb costs for aging infrastructure and rising utility expenses.

This is a solution in search of a problem. With only 7,000 complaints out of one million units, the issue can be addressed by current DHCR staff. The study appears designed to gather ammunition for future attempts to ban surcharges, which would force property owners to absorb costs for aging infrastructure and rising utility expenses.

Argued the bill unfairly moves the goalposts for building owners who followed prior law rules. Questioned fairness of allowing lookback periods potentially decades long when records may be unavailable, and contended the bill attempts an end-run around the Court of Appeals' Regina decision.

Argued the bill breaks with decades of DHCR precedent on apartment combinations, discourages housing investment and property maintenance, and unfairly presumes landlords are guilty. Contended the Legislature has repeatedly moved the goal posts on housing regulations, discouraging construction and exacerbating the housing shortage. Called for market-oriented solutions rather than additional restrictions.

Stated that while defibrillators are a good idea, government should not mandate their purchase. Argued that responsible parents and organizations already know AEDs are beneficial and should be empowered to make the decision themselves rather than having government force compliance.

Opposed the bill on the grounds that benefit enhancements should be negotiated through collective bargaining, not enacted behind taxpayers' backs through the Legislature. He argued such measures contribute to New York's high tax burden and people leaving the state.

Opposed the bill, arguing benefit enhancements should be negotiated at the collective bargaining table and that the other side should offset costs to taxpayers rather than enacting increases unilaterally.

Opposed the bill, reiterating that benefit enhancements should be negotiated through collective bargaining with offsetting costs from the other side rather than enacted unilaterally.

Prohibiting credit reporting removes a legitimate business tool for landlords to assess tenant reliability; property owners must meet their own obligations and deserve the same reporting rights as utilities and credit card companies.