Cuomo Blasts Democrats in NY Legislature Over Delay in Abolishing 'Gay Panic' Defense
Lawmakers have three weeks left in this year's legislative session to act on the bill, which hasn't moved in the Assembly since it was introduced earlier this year.
May 31, 2019 at 05:32 PM
4 minute read
Gov. Andrew Cuomo renewed his push Friday for lawmakers to eliminate what are known as the “gay panic” and “trans panic” defenses, which allow those facing murder charges to say their actions were driven by an emotional disturbance incited by a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Lawmakers have three weeks left in this year's legislative session to act on the bill, which hasn't moved in the Assembly since it was introduced earlier this year.
The State Senate, meanwhile, could take the bill up at any time after it was passed out of committee in recent months. A vote on the legislation hasn't been scheduled in the chamber, where it's sponsored by State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan.
When asked about the bill earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, D-Westchester, expressed optimism that it would pass her chamber.
“There's a lot of things that we all think we can get to and I don't see why there would be any reason not to do that,” Stewart-Cousins said.
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, D-Bronx, said Democrats in his chamber have yet to discuss the measure. Lawmakers routinely meet behind closed doors to decide which bills will come to the floor. Legislation to end the “gay panic” and “trans panic” defenses hasn't come up yet, Heastie said.
“I haven't brought that up to the conference,” Heastie said. “It's something we haven't talked about yet.”
Cuomo, during a press conference on Monday in Manhattan, criticized Democrats who control the Legislature for not yet bringing the bill to the floor for a vote. It's the first time in nearly a decade that Democrats have controlled both the State Senate and Assembly.
“This is what we elected them to do,” Cuomo said. ”If you're not going to stand up for the LGBTQ community, then why did we need you?”
Cuomo's presence on the issue is significant. He rarely holds events to highlight his legislative priorities without planning to make them a major sticking point in negotiations with state lawmakers.
He was joined at the press conference by Kristen Prata Browde, the board president of the LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York. Browde is a divorce attorney from Westchester. The LGBT Bar has long supported eliminating the defense from state law.
“Would it be OK if I said I lost my mind because I found out you were Jewish, or Catholic or Irish?” Browde said. “It's an absurdity.”
There are two versions of the bill that approach the issue differently. Both are sponsored by Hoylman in the Senate, while Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, D-Manhattan, and Assemblyman Brian Barnwell, D-Queens, carry them separately in the Assembly.
The Barnwell bill would not eliminate the ability for a defendant to say they were influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance in general, but it would set certain parameters on that defense. It would be prohibited when the defendant acted in response to the victim's sexual orientation, sex or gender, according to the bill.
That version is the one that's moved in the Senate. The O'Donnell version, as of yet, has not moved in either chamber.
O'Donnell's bill would approach the issue in a different way, by saying that a nonviolent sexual advance or discovery of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity does not constitute a “reasonable explanation or excuse” for an extreme emotional disturbance.
Cuomo included language to eliminate the defense in his executive budget earlier this year, but it dropped out of negotiations before the spending plan was passed at the end of March. His budget language more closely reflected the Barnwell bill than the O'Donnell version.
O'Donnell and Hoylman have been pushing the legislation since 2015 and were credited by Cuomo last year for bringing attention to the issue. He first included it in his executive budget last January.
If lawmakers want to pass either version, they'll have to move a bill in the next three weeks. The Legislature is scheduled to leave Albany on June 19.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 2UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 3Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 46th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 5On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250