Sen. Anthony H. Palumbo

Palumbo expressed concern that the statewide language removes local control over window requirements, particularly for smaller buildings where egress and other safety concerns may require openable windows. He supported expanding housing but opposed the loss of local authority.

Raised constitutional takings clause concerns, citing examples of $50 million penthouses that would lose equity value. Argued the bill retroactively applies rent regulation to buildings never previously subject to it and questioned why the state should force loss of equity without means-testing. Suggested regulating ground-lease increases like manufactured mobile homes instead.

Character and fitness screening is critical because lawyers manage millions of dollars in client escrow accounts and have fiduciary responsibilities; sealed convictions for serious crimes like theft, fraud, and embezzlement should not be automatically hidden from bar admission reviewers, and the bill removes necessary rehabilitation scrutiny that existed before Clean Slate.

Criticized discovery law changes as merely codifying existing law with minimal substantive changes, arguing the prejudice standard will result in cases being dismissed on technical grounds. Called the mask penalty provision ineffective as it requires underlying felony/Class A misdemeanor and merges with sentences.

Lamented the rejection of drugged driving law provisions, noting that New York is one of only four states requiring drugs to be on a statutory list to prosecute impaired driving, and that synthetic drugs not on the list are causing deaths.

Raised significant concerns about Part RR, arguing it violates basic fairness by preventing defendants from accessing discovery when sued by the Attorney General. Cited examples like hospital bills and small business enforcement actions where defendants would be disadvantaged.

The bill is counterintuitive and will harm small borrowers by eliminating a useful tool in private lending agreements. Lenders will refuse to lend money without the ability to use confessions of judgment, making it harder for entrepreneurs to access capital for starting businesses.

Argued the bill's definition of "investigation" is dangerously broad and could encompass routine rate cases lasting 12-18 months. Expressed concern that the bill creates a multi-year moratorium on collections and terminations even for unfounded complaints, effectively allowing customers to avoid payment indefinitely while utilities "play bank." Noted the PSC already has authority to suspend fees and questioned why the bill mandates protections rather than leaving discretion to regulators.

Argued the bill substantially impairs lease contracts by effectively shortening the lease term from 99 years to potentially 75 years, violating the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause. Questioned whether lenders would actually invest in mortgages if renewal terms could be renegotiated at the cooperative's discretion, potentially affecting costs and lease stability.

Argued the bill reduces transparency by allowing larger nonprofits to lobby without registering, contradicting commitments to open government and enabling nonprofits to lobby on issues beyond their charter scope with impunity.

Voted in opposition to the bill.

Attempted to introduce an amendment on guardianship visitation rights (Karilyn's Law) to prevent abuse by guardians and conservators, citing cases of Britney Spears, Casey Kasem, and Wendy Williams. Argued the amendment was germane as an access-to-justice measure.

Argued the bill's language allowing evidence to prove "propensity" is constitutionally problematic and will be challenged, unlike the 123-year-old Molineux standard which is unquestionably constitutional. Criticized the bill as rushed and politically motivated, and expressed concern that the Court of Appeals has been improperly stacked with activist judges.

Argued good-cause eviction violates the Contracts Clause of both state and federal constitutions by modifying existing lease agreements. Warned the provision will destroy the housing market outside New York City and reduce property values through immediate implementation.

The bill is politically motivated and timed to target Latino advocacy groups that opposed Judge La Salle's nomination, while the Center for Community Alternatives faced no scrutiny when opposing Judge Singas. The disclosure requirement could enable retaliation against advocacy organizations and represents selective enforcement based on political outcomes.

Palumbo argued that the voters of New York approved an Independent Redistricting Commission to prevent gerrymandering and that the IRC map passed 9-1, representing 90 percent agreement on a fair map. He contended the new map favors incumbents and represents politics overriding the voters' choice for a bipartisan process, noting that the new map splits additional counties and towns on Long Island compared to the IRC proposal.

Argued the bill is overly expansive and goes beyond what the Regina Metro decision requires. He expressed concern that additional burdens on landlords will reduce housing availability and discourage investment in rental properties.

Raised concerns about out-of-state charges, unlimited sealing opportunities, the civil liability shield for employers, and argued the bill is too excessive. Advocated for incremental reform rather than sweeping changes, citing concerns about bail reform implementation.

Expressed concern that the bill's retroactive aspect is unconstitutional and creates a 'do-over' for litigants after the highest court rejected their claims. Argued it discourages landlord investment in housing and is unfair to property owners.

The bill allows attachment of personal property of company owners based merely on a wage theft accusation without judgment, undertaking, or proof of individual involvement in wage theft. This circumvents traditional veil-piercing law and creates a chilling effect on business investment in New York by allowing plaintiffs to freeze assets for years without consequences.

While acknowledging the housing crisis, Palumbo argued the bill adds burdensome regulations on landlords that discourage real estate investment in New York and are counterproductive to affordable housing development, despite agreeing the underlying issue needs remedy.

Questioned whether bail reform changes are substantive, noting no new qualifying offenses were added. Raised concerns about judges' inability to set bail for repeat offenders and questioned the legislative intent regarding theft as harm to property.

Acknowledged the bill's laudable intent but expressed significant concerns about the liability waiver provision that absolves municipalities of responsibility for volunteer injuries on water. Argued that lakes are more dangerous than parks and questioned whether adequate safety equipment requirements were mandated, suggesting the bill asks volunteers to 'sign their life away.'

Argued the bill is unconstitutional because it violates the exclusive list requirement in the Constitution. The current list of seven would be reduced to four if a sitting judge is chosen, or expanded to eleven if a new list is requested, contrary to constitutional prescription. Expressed concern about the timing during budget negotiations and the lack of Latino and Asian nominees on the current list.