It’s a holiday tradition in New York.
Each year, Empire State governors find themselves staring down a pile of bills they must act on before December runs out. It’s legislation that state lawmakers approved earlier in the year that hasn’t yet been approved or vetoed for one reason or another.
Such is the case again this year.
Gov. Kathy Hochul has until the end of this week to sign or veto more than 85 bills that are currently on her desk awaiting her decision, including measures that would ban noncompete agreements and move many local elections — though not New York City’s — to even-numbered years.
She also has another five bills that require her action by the end of the year, though the state constitution does provide her the opportunity to buy herself an additional 30 days to decide.
Here’s a look at some of the bigger pieces of legislation Hochul still has to act on:
The Grieving Families Act
What it would do: The bill, which Hochul could delay a decision on until late January, would make it easier for family members of deceased New York residents to sue for damages when their loved one was killed due to negligence.
New York’s current law, which dates back to 1847, doesn’t allow family members to sue for pain and suffering caused by a wrongful death. Instead, they can only sue for “pecuniary” damages — quantifiable economic losses, such as lost income. For small children, elderly people or those with low incomes, that leaves little for surviving family members.
Hochul vetoed a prior version of the bill in January of this year, suggesting lawmakers failed to properly consider the potential consequences of the measure, such as a possible spike in insurance rates.
Lawmakers made changes they hope will sway the governor, including limiting the list of people eligible to sue to partners, children, siblings and other similarly close family members.
If Hochul signs the new bill, it would allow those family members to seek compensation for things like funeral expenses, medical care, “grief and anguish,” and “loss of love, society, protection, comfort, companionship, and consortium resulting from the decedent’s death.”
Who supports it: An array of labor unions, grieving families and organizations like the state Trial Lawyers Association, which is a major player in Albany and a lobbying force behind the bill.
“Unfortunately, the current law as it stands in New York is that when someone’s killed as a result of another’s carelessness or negligence, the value of the case is almost entirely based on what the person who died was earning,” said David Sher, president of the trial lawyers group. “And the results of that are absolutely perverse and unethical.”
Who opposes it: Insurance companies and groups like the state Medical Society, which lobbies on behalf of doctors.
Expanding the type of damages available in wrongful death suits could potentially drive up insurance costs, including medical malpractice insurance, they say.
“These costs would cause significant damage to our healthcare safety net, imposing staggering new costs for our hospitals, driving physicians out of state, and exacerbating the already challenging patient access to care issues we face, particularly in underserved areas,” Medical Society President Paul Pipia said in a statement earlier this year.
The even-year elections bill
What it would do: If Hochul signs this bill, it would consolidate most town- and county-level elections to even-number years, which would line them up with presidential and congressional election years and, in theory, boost voter turnout.
It would apply to races like county executive and town supervisor, which are significant in New York City’s suburbs on Long Island and in the Hudson Valley. But it wouldn’t apply to races in New York City and other cities, whose election years are set in the state constitution. (Changing the constitution is a multi-year process, far tougher than simply changing a state law.)
Who supports it: Good-government organizations and many Democrats, who say it’ll help boost voter turnout for often-sleepy local elections.
Who opposes it: Republicans, who say the whole thing is a ploy to ensure more local elections are held in years when Democrats traditionally turn out in high numbers in deep-blue New York to vote for their presidential candidate.
The ‘Frankensteining’ bill
What it would do: This legislation has to do with the New York City rent regulation system.
If Hochul signs it, it would further close a loophole that allows landlords to hike the monthly rent by combining two empty, rent-stabilized units into one — a practice known as “Frankensteining.” Instead, the new rent would be based on the most recent combined price of the two units added together.
It’s basically a belt-and-suspenders measure. Earlier this year, the state Division of Homes and Community Renewal finalized a set of regulations that included the anti-Frankensteining measure. This bill would set those same protections into state law, which could further cement their legal status.
Who supports it: Tenant advocates, who say Frankensteining has kept rent-stabilized units off the market and reduced the housing stock.
Who opposes it: Landlord organizations, who say the bill is unnecessary — especially now that a state regulation is already in place.
A ban on noncompete clauses
What it would do: This measure would effectively ban nearly all noncompete agreements – which many employers include in employment contracts to restrict where someone can work after leaving the company for a period of time.
Noncompete clauses are often used to protect against employees going to work for their employer’s competitor. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that about 1 in 5 workers in the U.S. are subject to some sort of noncompete agreement.
Hochul has publicly floated a compromise, which would limit the ban only to jobs with salaries less than $250,000. But so far, her office hasn’t been able to strike a deal with lawmakers on potential changes.
Who supports it: The bill has big support from labor unions, including SAG-AFTRA, the union that has been leading the push for noncompete bans across the country.
Who opposes it: Business organizations, like The Business Council, and Wall Street firms, who argue it could significantly hamper the state’s economy and put their trade secrets at risk.
The Challenging Wrongful Convictions Act
What it would do: The bill is designed to make it easier for someone to challenge their criminal conviction when new, potentially exonerating material comes to light.
As it stands, someone who pleads guilty to an offense can only challenge their conviction if new DNA evidence is uncovered. With Hochul’s signature, the bill would add different types of evidence — such as if an expert recants their testimony, or if their prior testimony is undermined by new technology.
It would also create the right to a court-appointed attorney for post-conviction cases, and make it easier for people to get access to a prosecutor’s evidence after they’ve been convicted.
Who supports it: Groups like the Innocence Project, which is devoted to exonerating people who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes.
Who opposes it: The state District Attorneys Association, whose then-president sent a letter to the Assembly earlier this year warning that it could overwhelm the state’s criminal justice system.
The NYC recycling bill
What it would do: It would require New York City to install recycling bins at every park, playground, historical site and recreational facility in the five boroughs.
The city would also be required to post signs at each location saying: “Please take any trash you generate while upon this facility with you for your disposal when you reach a trash receptacle.”
Who supports it: The bill was sponsored by a pair of outer-borough Democrats: Assemblymember William Colton of Brooklyn and Sen. Jose Serrano of Queens. Colton, in particular, has long taken an interest in policies surrounding trash and littering.
Who opposes it: It’s not clear if Mayor Eric Adams’ administration has taken a formal position on the bill, but it would certainly impose a cost on the city at a time when Adams is pushing budget cuts.
Leave a Reply