Asm. Jonathan Rivera

Sponsor emphasized New York's oldest housing stock and permanent damage lead causes to children. Argued the bill provides proactive disclosure rather than relying on seller knowledge, noting modern testing takes 1-2 hours and costs under $500. Explained exemptions focus on transactions between familiar parties and that testing is required only once per property.

Sponsor argued the bill provides incoming homeowners with complete information about lead safety, noting federal disclosures are inadequate and often lost in closing documents. Emphasized New York has the oldest housing stock in the country and lead exposure causes permanent damage to children. Noted testing costs under $500, takes 2-3 hours, and uses non-invasive technology.

Asm. Rivera's bill requires sellers of pre-1978 residential properties to obtain lead-based paint inspections and certifications before sale, with results disclosed to buyers. The bill applies to sales and rent-to-own arrangements but not standard rentals. Multiple members sought clarification on scope: whether it applies to properties rezoned from commercial to residential (yes), how county clerks will verify property age (through existing title records), and whether remediation is required (no—disclosure only). Asm. Peoples-Stokes emphasized lead poisoning as the most preventable and prevalent health threat to children, comparing it to asbestos. Asm. Meeks detailed health impacts including developmental delays, learning disabilities, and seizures. A $400-$500 tax credit per unit offsets testing costs. The bill has passed three times previously with no reported concerns from county clerks.

Extensive debate over whether the bill's pre-closure notification and public engagement requirements strike the right balance between community protection and hospital operational flexibility. Assemblymember Jensen argued the bill was unnecessary because the Department of Health already implemented similar requirements through a 2023 Dear Administrator letter, and expressed concern that the bill's procedural requirements could jeopardize hospital financial viability by delaying necessary service reductions. Simon countered that guidance lacks the enforcement power of statute and cited the 2013 closure of her hospital as evidence that DOH fails to adequately assess community healthcare needs. Jensen noted that 41 hospitals have closed in the past decade but argued existing DOH processes and guidance are sufficient. Simon emphasized that the bill does not prohibit closures but ensures informed decision-making and that low Medicaid reimbursement rates, not the bill, threaten hospital viability.

Members discussed the population threshold of 90,000 for triggering Department of Health cancer cluster studies. Mr. Jensen expressed concerns that the threshold may exclude small manufacturing communities below 90,000 population that exhibit characteristics warranting study, while also potentially missing statistically significant clusters in small villages within larger municipalities. Mrs. Peoples-Stokes noted a prior cancer cluster study in her district identified two zip codes with elevated cancer rates and supported the legislation.

Limited debate focused on the population threshold of 90,000. Mr. Jensen expressed concern that the threshold may exclude small communities with manufacturing histories that exhibit cancer cluster characteristics, while also potentially missing statistically significant clusters in small villages within larger municipalities. Mrs. Peoples-Stokes supported the bill, citing a prior health department cancer cluster study in her district that identified affected zip codes.

The bill requires disclosure of lead-based paint test reports to buyers and the Department of Health. It does not mandate remediation, only reporting. The cost of testing is deductible by sellers in the closing process.

Explained the bill would prohibit lead poisoning exclusions currently found in most general liability insurance policies.

Sponsor argued that existing Federal disclosure requirements are inadequate because they rely only on seller certification rather than actual testing, and that the $300-$400 testing cost is minimal relative to typical property sale amounts.

Argued that utilities already collect this information and should provide it transparently to customers; clarified the bill only applies to commercial demand-metered customers and utilities, not municipalities; noted the PSC website provision allows additional information without printing costs.

Insurance companies covered lead claims for many years before the early 1990s exemption was enacted; no evidence supports claims of dramatic premium increases; New York has the oldest housing stock in the nation and lead poisoning remains a public health concern.

Insurance companies covered lead claims for many years before the early 1990s exemption was enacted; no insurance company has provided specific evidence of cost increases; New York has the oldest housing inventory in the nation and lead poisoning will continue to occur in these units.

The bill provides technical amendments to Chapter 795 of the Laws of 2022, which requires carpet manufacturers to establish and fund a carpet collection program. Debate centered on whether the amendments narrow or clarify the scope of the original bill, the liability imposed on retailers for non-compliant producers, the adequacy of the two-year implementation timeline, and whether the law unfairly disadvantages domestic carpet manufacturers compared to foreign-made flooring products. Supporters argued the bill addresses significant environmental costs of carpet waste in landfills; opponents contended it discourages business in New York and imposes unfair liability on retailers for producer non-compliance.