Asm. Jerett Gandolfo

Questioned whether the bill is duplicative of existing mental health parity laws and expressed concern that the bill may not address the root problem of aggressive gambling advertising and accessibility on mobile phones.

Argued that existing out-of-pocket expense caps and mental health parity laws may already cover these services, and that imposing rigid cost-sharing restrictions will shift costs to premiums, raising insurance costs for employers and consumers. Contended DFS can handle cost-sharing review internally.

Mandating all arbitrators be neutral would eliminate the established practice where each party chooses an arbitrator who then agrees on a neutral third party, potentially preventing labor unions from using their preferred arbitrators in labor disputes.

The bill lacks specificity about which vehicles are affected, does not require removal of infested vehicles from service, and provides no follow-up notification about when it is safe to ride again, leaving riders unable to protect themselves with vague alerts.

Criticized the bill as government bureaucracy requiring a 210-day advisory committee process to produce a one-page summary of the Declaration Page, arguing it raises costs for insurers, the state, and consumers without providing meaningful consumer protection.

Noted the absence of corrections officer representation on the State Commission of Correction and expressed concern about officer safety, citing the HALT Act's impact on assaults against corrections officers.

Concerned about the bill's vagueness and the power granted to the Commissioner, whom many New Yorkers have lost trust in. The bill does not explicitly outline that parents and school boards retain a role, which may inflame tensions. Requested an amendment clarifying school board involvement, as suggested by the New York State School Boards Association.

Too much power resides with the Commissioner rather than local school boards. Determining age-appropriateness based on sexual content is not banning; parents and school boards must be included in developmentally appropriate decisions.

Expressed concern that removing the license suspension threat removes an incentive for delinquent taxpayers to come in and make payment deals, and argued the state needs every incentive to collect tax revenues.

Distinguished between likelihood of a bite and severity of damage; argued that if a pit bull or German Shepherd bites, it causes more damage than a small dog, and insurance companies should be able to price in this liability exposure to prevent costs from rising for other policyholders.

Questioned whether the bill merely reformats existing declarations pages, creating bureaucracy and information overload. Argued declarations pages already provide necessary information and the summary requirement may confuse rather than clarify.

Distinguished between likelihood of a bite and severity of damage; argued that if a pit bull or German Shepherd bites, it will cause more damage than a smaller breed, and insurance companies should be able to price in this liability exposure to prevent costs from rising for other policyholders.

Questioned whether the bill merely reformats existing declarations pages, creating bureaucracy and information overload. Argued declarations pages already provide necessary information and the summary requirement may confuse rather than clarify.

Questioned whether eliminating retainage would increase litigation and project delays by removing the financial incentive for quick dispute resolution. Also noted a similar bill was vetoed by Governor Cuomo in 2015 and asked whether changes had been made in response to that veto.

Opposed the bill as pitting people with disabilities and veterans against formerly incarcerated individuals for the same contracts. Questioned why formerly incarcerated persons were being codified into statute while veterans were not, and argued the bill gives preference to people with criminal records over law-abiding New Yorkers and those with disabilities who need support through no fault of their own.

HOAs exist to maintain neighborhood aesthetics; native plant gardens off-season look wild and unkempt. More importantly, the bill nullifies existing contracts that residents voluntarily entered into with full knowledge of restrictions. The state should not alter contracts; residents can vote to change HOA bylaws if they wish.

Contended that restricting information access would make it harder to detect organized fraud rings and that insurance fraud costs all policyholders $400-$700 annually. Argued insurers would not voluntarily reduce investigations if it saved money.

Contended that restricting information access would impede fraud investigations and ultimately cost all policyholders more in premiums. Argued that financial records and other information are necessary to detect organized theft rings and fraud patterns.

Questioned the practical utility of notifications without specific train car or bus numbers, and raised concerns that vague notifications might discourage transit ridership and reduce MTA revenue. Noted that other transit hazards like crime are not similarly reported.

Voted against the bill, expressing concern about the legal defense provision creating potential leverage for the Governor over the Attorney General and questioning why the provision is retroactive to January 1st.

Questioned the retroactive January 1st effective date and whether the legal defense provision could be used as leverage; expressed concern about Governor's power in budget process; voted no.

Questioned whether the legal defense fund structure could be used as leverage between the Governor and Attorney General, and noted the retroactive January 1st date appears specifically timed to a federal investigation.

The bill places an unfair burden on ESCOs to compare prices with competitors, a requirement not imposed on utilities. The PSC's Power to Choose website already provides price comparisons. Requiring both utilities and ESCOs to provide comparisons would be more balanced and give consumers full information.

Expressed concerns about lack of external oversight of employee performance, potential negative impact on Albany's $400 million revitalization initiative if state workers remain remote, and questioned whether the bill should allow agency discretion rather than mandate telework policies.

Questioned why only ESCOs must provide comparisons and not utilities, and whether the Power to Choose website already provides adequate price comparison information. Suggested requiring both utilities and ESCOs to provide comparisons for true transparency.

Raised concerns about lack of external oversight to verify employee performance hasn't diminished, and questioned potential negative impact on Albany's economy given the Governor's $400 million revitalization proposal.

Expressed concern that smaller landlords operating informally may not be aware of the requirement to include the fee in written leases and could face liability for uncollected fees; also argued the $20 cap should be indexed to actual costs rather than fixed.

Noted that 'wherever practical' language present in last year's version was removed, creating a mandate without flexibility. Expressed concern that small State facilities with only two bathrooms (one men's, one women's) would be forced to convert one, eliminating gender-specific privacy and potentially allowing opposite-gender access.

Questioned the necessity of the terminology change and whether the sign would actually deter purchases. Criticized that penalties apply only to firearms dealers (up to 15 days jail and $1,000 fine) but not licensing officials, despite both being required to distribute warnings, suggesting the law targets dealers rather than genuinely promoting safety.

Argued the bill upends long-established arbitration practices and that existing law already provides adequate remedies for challenging awards based on arbitrator bias. Expressed concern the bill could turn arbitration into a precursor for further litigation.

Voted no, expressing concern about job losses and noting the bill makes the chapter worse.

Raised technical questions about sign placement, language requirements, and whether the bill might inadvertently prevent reporting of altered vehicles to DMV under Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 308(a).

Argued the bill should explicitly include Republican minority recommendations, particularly given that Republicans represent the majority of voters in Nassau and Suffolk counties and seven of nine Senate districts on Long Island.

Expressed concern that even with the one-year delay, the underlying program remains burdensome on small businesses and that businesses have already invested time and money in preparing for the original timeline.

Expressed concern that the bill prioritizes reclassifying people out of the White category rather than addressing systemic barriers to support. Questioned why the State's list of specific countries differs from Census examples and whether disaggregation will actually lead to new funding sources or program eligibility for MENA communities.