[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6544894,"mediaKeyId","3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46","parentId",3407104,"title","Senate Judiciary Committee action roundup — May 20, 2025","audioSeconds",904,"startMs",0,"endMs",904000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46&start=0&end=904","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46/thumbnail_0.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6544894/New-York/Senate-Judiciary-Committee-action-roundup-May-20-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544894-f0607354a1557098a67159c7350c3c32/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196340&Signature=SH~U1TL2FUszrB2qGsiC0UmNoU3AWootclmC57WnIgGMWNgZi79BsGhhZSeHbQi-5wNnIgVfBLc8n1coWG0OSJXPseWOPT8xxVlmFFfp4wM3cMN3csB5o~pbcAK6EjGREUPc6IQS869p9C24e1QgGY9KKroq~1lt1KAQ7oPc4yZZY7XjafjzS8UTZYhPxEbCfuJ3Icrfk0N~LoS9HDb6rHIDkG35u1c9OUuqx3BwXHJctkNc7B3TLDrlAF6mzx2iZwah-pqq4i9Z6ID01~hZlloTh-1NgmjAjbXW77ON3epPhhXYsyPgCep8gPQz~1RtAcVF-xrokVhTVgN28QW2bA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New York Legislature","date","2025-05-20T00:00:00Z","article","At its May 20, 2025 meeting the Senate Judiciary Committee considered the following items (transcript excerpt):

- Senate Print 0338 (sponsor: Senator Bailey) — Reported to finance (transcript: committee reported the bill to finance; full roll-call not recorded in excerpt).

- Senate Print 1557 (sponsor: Senator Mann) — Reported to housing (transcript records the bill was reported to the housing committee; recorded as without recommendation in the excerpt).

- Senate Print 71726 (sponsor: Senator Burke) — Moved and reported; several members recorded as voting without recommendation (see separate article for discussion).

- Senate Print 2698 (sponsor recorded as Senator Boyleman Segal) — Moved; would require disclosure of generative AI use in civil filings (see separate article). Transcript does not include full roll-call or receiving committee in excerpt.

- Real property inspection bill (introduced in transcript as an act amending real property law) — Moved and reported to the court committee; multiple members raised practical objections and at least two senators recorded no votes (see separate article).

- Senate Print 73295 (sponsor: Senator Henschen) (public holiday bill) — Reported to finance (transcript: bill reported to finance; some senators recorded without recommendation).

- Senate Print 7413 (sponsor: Senator Kavanaugh) — Addressing foreclosure for unpaid HOA assessments; moved and reported to the floor (transcript indicates committee reported to floor).

- Senate Print 7434 (sponsor: Senator Coyle) — Corporate/LLC liability changes related to towing; moved and reported to the floor with at least one no vote (see separate article).

- Senate Print 7440 (sponsor: Senator Lamas Engel) — Civil rights/arbitration measure; reported to the floor (transcript records committee action).

- Senate Print 7491 (sponsor: Senator Grisford) — Statute-of-limitations changes for certain civil claims; moved and reported (transcript records votes and some opposed, names listed in excerpt).

- Senate Print 7882 (sponsor: Senator Juan) — Algorithmic rent determination measure; moved and reported with some senators recorded as without recommendation (transcript notes votes and without-recommendation votes).

Where the transcript excerpt is incomplete or garbled, this roundup flags missing specifics (for example, full roll-calls and the precise receiving committee in every instance). Reporters and stakeholders should confirm official committee minutes for exact vote tallies and subsequent referrals.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary - 05/20/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The committee considered a slate of bills and reported several to other committees or the floor. Many items were moved with limited debate; a few drew extended discussion (see separate items). Where the transcript did not provide full roll-call or next referral, the entry notes that fact.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NY, New York","taxId",77685,"location","New York","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6544899,"Senators warn against 'piercing corporate veil' approach for towing companies; suggest bond alternative",57,637000,694000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46&start=637&end=694","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46/thumbnail_637000.jpg","/articles/6544899/New-York/Senators-warn-against-piercing-corporate-veil-approach-for-towing-companies-suggest-bond-alternative","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544899-87b8a35b9429aa891845e5f432c1d006/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196340&Signature=nZVYQhHOc-wH4ssaj8J1cy7WscMDiW~vCe0kta~OwFBx9J1eSvTw8JEG9pbv3HpNNJtamUJpoNDJ4AK7wvbMQ3aPa9rZYFrflbTOVHazp5dtBsIcjtfZqwN82Q3axlnieYzHgAF3XtgBw2RFIqbEiRWis27zka4tjfHV~sJeErYYsO6IjE95P4ywE-LXZoLfhvwJEqoSkKNrVDveOfC~b0GLrsIW1~XnWLySwR0r0XKb0fXCv2m7ACBq8ARFA3hJf8-J4xHlwL7Pv1k~I9WjugjQqvO7PNQhlIKZq8b-oTTUEIRgs8jnwplPVFdY7l10BONTo-IR7YW2t59~yZeu6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee discussed Senate Print 7434, which would amend corporate and limited liability company law to make certain shareholders or members personally liable for judgments in cases tied to misconduct by nonpublic corporations or towing companies.

A member argued the proposal effectively pierces the corporate veil by creating joint-and-several liability for the 10 largest shareholders or members, which the member called a dangerous precedent. The member recommended a different approach: require towing and similar companies to post bonds to protect consumers and provide a clear fund to satisfy judgments rather than imposing personal liability on shareholders.

The committee moved the bill; a recorded no vote(s) appeared in the transcript and the bill was reported to the floor. The member who opposed the approach said they would vote no because of the precedent and recommended a bonding requirement instead of personal liability.","Senate Print 7434 would hold certain shareholders and LLC members personally liable for judgments tied to towing and other business practices; committee members criticized the approach as risky and suggested requiring bonds as an alternative. The bill was moved and reported to the floor.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6544903,"Members warn 10-day inspection window and 4% penalty could disrupt real estate contracts",63,426000,489000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46&start=426&end=489","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46/thumbnail_426000.jpg","/articles/6544903/New-York/Members-warn-10-day-inspection-window-and-4-penalty-could-disrupt-real-estate-contracts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544903-eac60a3652fe2d5d216b1d5694a09e0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196340&Signature=gB4XXYtu98Yk~6ssgCM6Mu02I2aGBBtM8RWb8DU4IMejiBHYFxMIIRThrvvUs1G9PWBLzBroaIY~PBqjkhf9sDX3etH2RTAnxjslr2cQUfZOJFUEJvNCO0elh9GYC8uSCzJv26JecdRwFEYLoAB5jmN8NvkpL2AaUyurtNVCjFpDK8GJqGuAw4nYtlyd5pn6R0xu9knaNVFl-qzF4e2oswMow6cdBCW3kCMIguhhljH8DDDR2sAPNpMUbuy5kMvmLcX0Llemco~JWXAriCnwhw-k87d4r5lPJVfe4tb1nN3pUtuW~C2c4xzgbXH4Bsj06SuK1OMJlsGcxvhx2PfZqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee examined a measure amending the real property law to create a statutory inspection period for residential transactions. Committee members raised concerns that imposing a mandatory 10-day inspection window and a penalty (described in the transcript as up to 4%) could interfere with fast-moving real estate contracts in hot markets.

Speakers described practical problems: in competitive listings that receive multiple offers, properties may be under contract within 24 hours, and a fixed statutory inspection window could force buyers or sellers to cancel deals or pay more. A committee member called the penalty “significant” in the context of six- and seven-figure home sales and urged more practical discussion about how the requirement would operate in standard real estate processes.

Another committee member indicated shared concerns and said they would vote against the bill as drafted. The committee moved the measure and recorded opposing votes (the transcript identifies at least two senators as voting no); the bill was reported to the court committee per the record.

The transcript does not supply implementing details such as exemptions for waived inspections or interplay with contractual waiver language; members urged further work to reconcile statutory mandates with established real estate contracting practices.","A proposed change to real property law that would create a 10-day inspection window for residential sales and a penalty for noncompliance drew sustained criticism that it could derail rapid offers and harm market transactions; several senators said they would vote against the provision as written.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6544907,"Committee debates requirement to disclose use of generative AI in civil filings",13,345000,358000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46&start=345&end=358","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46/thumbnail_345000.jpg","/articles/6544907/New-York/Committee-debates-requirement-to-disclose-use-of-generative-AI-in-civil-filings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544907-6ab31a5d053d0497bee658df9359f73f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196340&Signature=WkmPhYmv9vuUn-7fTcz~iKxwsUvh~DeGhBOMzY4i4Nao8jT2jANtoxXr2RzeQV~S06c~MAon~MhmgZKrh7V8TwSowUJ6Q6aI9oMWaaqCc7t690UWBvL~dCTi3n5jIzScunydybe6tLBl9lbVJwWcbrnFahDUU55JLymnKkg4RCWEgRtsyN3SX6jnczw4NcLsgqIA3ExCOO6fNCjDc0glxTFgCkNOn44QpK6skDSB1FlHI1lElKw9wDqXz4F-Ofhx1wmcmbgfXfkDmxy026xsjU8o0XIW6cu2eregK~f9p7XqC1HTIIfoZISYh0JvdHadFuZ~PEle8DWcXx8uQwuepA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the May 20 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting the committee considered Senate Print 2698 (sponsored in the record as by Senator Boyleman Segal), which would amend the civil practice law and rules to require disclosure when generative artificial intelligence tools are used in civil filings.

A committee member suggested the bill should place explicit certification responsibility on attorneys preparing and signing filings that disclose AI use, analogous to existing certifications for litigated filings. The member said an attorney should be accountable for the accuracy of documents submitted to the court when AI tools have been involved in drafting or generating material.

Committee members acknowledged the policy purpose of transparency around AI use in litigation, while some expressed concern about operationalizing attorney certifications and possible burdens that could follow.

The committee moved the bill; the transcript shows discussion and a motion but does not include a full roll-call in the record excerpt. The bill was reported onward (the transcript does not clearly specify the receiving committee or final disposition in this excerpt).","Senate Print 2698 drew comments urging clearer attorney certification language; a committee member argued attorneys should certify accuracy of documents that disclose AI use. The bill was moved and reported (final referral not fully specified in the transcript).",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6544912,"Senate Judiciary members raise concerns about rent-to-own dealers being swept into consumer-cap bill",163,168000,331000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46&start=168&end=331","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3407104-c1fd0280288c7424eae9543ae4bcce46/thumbnail_168000.jpg","/articles/6544912/New-York/Senate-Judiciary-members-raise-concerns-about-rent-to-own-dealers-being-swept-into-consumer-cap-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544912-4f29216f37c913e9514e5b5a461f15c4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196340&Signature=liXI0Awk5mibOGT3M~gqMNa0EFWF48~VvBhemruVY2jiKSrhKzmOQ~FEei0X3l1PE65IdaKnjkMGNh5cJw7qHvj8x5k4jHRkinPtwyHF9YJLeekfhd7VSrUn7J8gc~MTbwQK3Wg5Kq07SXmBliET1StOxXWsJjiERUT7xTJRmI-~Ob0ALSjndo~iOIGcpGUtd6mnM4pJ6iM7HQ-U4EAXtAOd5~F4G-T8bWJGhousNOmqPcEAy-mwuvaCfxuHGOrXdrWBP-TMB5TPlm2FqiEUiCnEqfdARQxkmqNif-EZ37~g4LVUZYLC7LDuRxIsa3RfkaMWNbaTBIiFuc~tf7XdCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee considered Senate Print 71726, sponsored by Senator Burke, at its May 20, 2025 meeting. Committee members raised concerns about whether the bill’s language would bring rent-to-own personal property vendors under the same caps and regulatory scheme that apply to other consumer finance products.

Committee members said they had received input from the rental dealers association, which represents businesses that lease household goods (for example, furniture and appliances) under lease-to-own arrangements. Members cautioned the bill could create confusion or unintended consequences when applied alongside Article 11 of the New York personal property law, which already regulates rent-to-own arrangements.

A committee member noted the potential for adverse impacts on lower-income households and young families if the bill reduced costs in some cases but caused others to lose access to essential household items. The sponsor, Senator Burke, described the intent as narrowing an existing gap in allowable charges — bringing rent-to-own pricing closer to the caps that apply to other finance arrangements — rather than expanding regulatory burdens beyond current practice.

Discussion addressed tradeoffs: members said stricter caps could lower excessive charges but might also push some vendors out of the market or affect availability of rental options for credit-challenged consumers.

The committee moved the bill. The transcript records several senators voting “without recommendation”; senators recorded as voting without recommendation included Senators Bailey and others noted in the record. The committee reported the bill onward (details of the receiving committee were not fully specified in the transcript).","Committee members questioned whether Senate Print 71726 would create conflict with existing New York personal property law and disproportionately affect low-income households; sponsor said the intent is to align caps with other finance regulations. The bill was moved and the committee recorded several members as voting 'without recommendation.'","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Judiciary Committee action roundup — May 20, 2025

Senators warn against 'piercing corporate veil' approach for towing companies; suggest bond alternative

Members warn 10-day inspection window and 4% penalty could disrupt real estate contracts

Committee debates requirement to disclose use of generative AI in civil filings

Senate Judiciary members raise concerns about rent-to-own dealers being swept into consumer-cap bill