Asm. Jen Lunsford

Defended the bill as necessary to protect children from intentionally-added PFAS in playground surfacing, noting alternative materials are available and the timeline allows for transition. She emphasized that penalties are standard across PFAS legislation and that the Department of Environmental Conservation will establish specific PFAS thresholds.

Assemblyman Slater spoke in support of the bill, noting that it closes an important loophole where volunteer firefighters who broke the law and took taxpayer money from fire districts could still qualify for LOSAP (Length of Service Award Program) benefits under current statute. He indicated that volunteer firefighters across the state have expressed strong support for this legislation.

Argued the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller affirmed that reasonable, narrowly-tailored limits on Second Amendment rights are constitutional, and ammunition qualifies as an arm under that precedent.

Majority Conference generally in affirmative on the bill.

As an attorney who handled dog bite cases, argued that bite severity depends on location, not dog size, and that prior bite history is a better predictor of liability than breed.

As an attorney handling dog bite cases, noted that bite severity depends on location, not dog size, and that prior bite history is a better predictor of risk than breed.

Argued that bite severity depends on location of the bite, not dog size, and that prior bite history is a better way to limit liability than breed discrimination.

Noted the bill will provide more time to address erroneous tolls before they are sent to collections, citing constituent cases where tolls were misassigned. Supported the measure as a practical solution to a problem that can quickly spiral out of control.

The state lacks comprehensive data on job vacancies despite existing job posting systems. A study will provide the foundation to understand staffing challenges and inform decisions about workforce expansion, particularly in competitive fields like nursing where recruitment and retention are difficult.

Assemblymember Glick clarified that the bill is limited to traveling acts and prohibits only large cats, bears, non-human primates, kangaroos and wallabies. She emphasized the bill does not limit domesticated farm animals at county fairs or other events, and is targeted at protecting the public from dangerous incidents. Glick noted that 4-H activities and county fair displays of safe animals remain unaffected.

Described the bill as a commonsense accountability measure that allows tenants to leverage local government enforcement of safe housing rights and hold non-responsive landlords accountable in court.

Characterized the bill as a non-dramatic change that simply provides a mechanism for small parties to do what major parties can already do, and noted the hand-wringing is unnecessary.

The bill is about library collections, not individual parental choice. It prevents one person from deciding what another person's child can read, which is the core issue.

Argued judges already run on party lines making them inherently political. The bill simply applies the same Wilson-Pakula requirement to judges as other candidates. Contended the current system is preposterous and the bill makes things fairer and clearer for voters without further politicizing an already-politicized system.

Commended the sponsor and noted the bill is timely and appropriate; emphasized that people with different lived experiences contribute different perspectives.

Cited that 80% of gun owners support safe storage laws; noted that 43% of households still store loaded guns unsecured; emphasized that safe storage prevents accidental deaths, suicides, and theft of firearms.

As a Rochester delegation member, explained Rochester's progressive rental inspection program exists due to high lead poisoning rates. Argued the economic cost of lead poisoning—increased medical costs and special education services—far outweighs implementation costs, making this a smart, proactive investment.

Ms. Lunsford explained that the bill requires retailers that prepackage food for sale on-site (delis, bakeries) to label packages with the seven major FDA-defined allergens: wheat, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, and sesame. Mr. Jensen questioned implementation details, including the one-year implementation timeline, labeling format flexibility, applicability to different business sizes, and enforcement responsibilities. Ms. Lunsford clarified that only allergen ingredients need be listed (not all ingredients), that labeling format is flexible as long as allergens are conveyed to consumers, and that the law applies uniformly regardless of business size to ensure consumer protection.

Argued the bill restores pre-Daimler law by requiring foreign corporations registering in New York to consent to general jurisdiction, limited to plaintiffs with State nexus. Noted the Supreme Court's Mallory decision upheld similar Pennsylvania statute and that no litigation flood occurred during 100+ years before Daimler.

Argued the bill restores pre-Daimler law allowing general jurisdiction over foreign businesses registered in New York; cited Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway upholding similar Pennsylvania statute; noted no litigation flood occurred in 100+ years before Daimler and businesses can avoid jurisdiction by not registering.

Argued the bill restores pre-2014 law and cites Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway upholding similar Pennsylvania statute; contends no problems arose during 100+ years this was law and limits plaintiffs to those with New York nexus.

Argued the bill simply ensures minors are aware of existing constitutional rights and does not confer new rights. Stated that slowing down interrogations is appropriate and that minors cannot consent to most legal matters, so they should not consent to police questioning without understanding their rights.

Argued the bill simply ensures minors are aware of constitutional rights that already exist, and that slowing down interrogations is appropriate. Noted that minors cannot consent to most legal matters and that parents would want their children to call them if questioned by police.

The body routinely appoints people of merit and experience over political affiliation; regional diversity within parties makes party-based appointments unnecessary.