Insurance Accountability, Wage Theft and Emerging Consumer Scams
Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection · April 29, 2026 · 4hrs 1m
Source: https://hearinghearings.nyc/hearings/committee-on-consumer-and-worker-protection-insurance-accountability-wage-theft-and-emerging-consumer-scams/
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14

================================================================

(00:00:06) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=6s

Good morning, everybody.

(00:11:43) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=703s

From 2020 to 2023, we have also heard reports that some buildings have had insurance surge over 300%, leaving a debilitating impact on renters and on homeowners. Homeowners insurance premiums in our state have been increasing by 26% annually. New York homeowners have experienced average insurance premium increases of over a thousand dollars since 2020. And almost half a million New York homeowners are completely uninsured. Car insurance has increased by nearly 35% nationwide from 2022 to 2025 and 52% in New York. Perhaps most troubling of all, there is absolutely no transparency whatsoever about what these insurance companies are charging New Yorkers. New Yorkers literally have no idea why their insurance rates are going up. They have no idea whether some insurance companies are more or less expensive than others. They have no idea whether some companies are bad actors. As consumers of insurance, New Yorkers have really been disempowered on this key issue. Rising insurance costs also make New York less competitive on the national stage. New Yorkers are overpaying for insurance of all different kinds and that money hurts our wages. It hurts our government's ability to invest more into direct services and it hurts our overall economic development where we know that we lost 20,000 jobs in New York City last year.

That is why I am very proud to be sponsoring a bill that I introduced back in February to create the city's first ever Office of Insurance Accountability. Under this legislation, the office would educate the public by providing information on types of insurance and issue generalized guidance for consumers on selecting an insurance plan. The office would also expose bad actors by tracking legal actions alleging deceptive, fraudulent, or other unfair practices by insurance companies that are harming consumers who purchase or seek to purchase insurance products and also alert the public about those findings. The office would provide transparency around insurance pricing by conducting an annual study and issue reports on the cost of insurance and the factors that contribute to the cost of insurance. The office would provide recommendations related to stabilizing or lowering insurance costs. And then finally, the office would actually support New Yorkers by creating a unit to assist consumers in resolving insurance related issues that would be headed by an insurance accountability advocate.

Now, we have a model for how this new office can work and I am proud to say it stems from another bill I introduced several years ago that created the nation's first Office of Healthcare Accountability that is now housed at DOH. That office is already performing the same kind of transparency and accountability and advocacy work regarding hospital bills and health insurance. So that office lists the price of every single medical procedure at every single New York City hospital and in fact led to enormous savings of over a billion dollars for New York by leading to a new health plan that the city is now utilizing. By publishing the data on how much our hospitals are charging for certain common procedures, it is changing the way that New York City government as well as many of our city's unions are thinking about healthcare coverage. And it was estimated that this new Office of Healthcare Accountability could save over $2 billion annually because, let's face it, when you shine a light on practices, that transparency leads to lower pricing. And that is exactly what is happening around that office.

So that is the same effect we want to achieve with our new Office of Insurance Accountability by bringing much needed transparency to the opaque insurance industry, empowering New Yorkers to make more educated consumer decisions and driving down the costs of various types of insurance in our city. That transparency, that education, that type of consumer empowerment will create a system that is more equitable, more sustainable, and more affordable for the people who rely on it every single day. And that is why we are here today. I am very excited to hear the administration's testimony on this. We have a lot of questions. We want to make sure this office is fully staffed and fully effective. So I want to turn it back over to Chair Epstein for his opening statement. Thank you.

(00:16:21) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=981s

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for being here. I want to turn it over to CM Brewer for her opening statement.

(00:16:31) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=991s

Thank you very much. I am just talking about a resolution to support legislation in Albany. But the reason I bring it up is, as the speaker knows, on West 86th Street and Columbus, there is a middle income co-op. And in 2024-25, the insurance for this middle income co-op, with a president of the co-op who is a very diligent president who does all of his research, was $93,000. A year later, $33,000 for the same policy. And they came to my district office very upset. What can Gale Brewer do about that? I do not know. So my resolution simply says to the people in Albany, we would like to have support for the bills in Albany because I know that although we are talking about a local bill, there is much more support really in Albany. So this would be Jamaal Bailey and others that are basically stating they would like to have a fund, an insurance fund for affordable housing. That is just one of the places that we have this kind of challenge.

And in talking to people at the press conference earlier, some of the people who work in housing, I know there are laws that you are not supposed to discriminate against affordable housing in insurance, but it is going on. Some insurance companies are stating, "I will not insure in the Bronx." Others are stating, "I will not insure affordable housing." That is illegal. You cannot say that. But all of this is going on. It is the redlining of 2026. I do not know why, but there are not that many insurance companies. That is the other problem, according to my friend who is head of this co-op board. And so they are able to increase the prices. I guess we can also blame climate change. I get told, you know, you are advertising the hurricane and the tornado and the flood and all these other challenges that are affecting our climate and that is why supposedly we are paying more. So I look forward to the discussion today. I hope that the resolution passes that basically says, please Albany, do something about this issue. There are some bills that talk about funds to do that, but I am sure there is even more that could be done. Thank you very much.

(00:18:49) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=1129s

Thank you. Thank you, CM Brewer. CM Lewis, for her opening statement.

(00:18:54) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=1134s

Thank you, Chair Epstein, for convening today's hearing and for your leadership in advancing consumer protection and affordability across our city. I am proud to discuss Int 0285-2026 and Int 0286-2026, two pieces of legislation that respond directly to the financial realities facing New Yorkers today.

Int 0285-2026 addresses a growing crisis of utility affordability across New York City. Families are facing rising energy costs year after year. Con Edison rates have already pushed higher bills with electricity and gas costs expected to rise by more than 10% and nearly 16% respectively over the coming years, placing additional strain on working families here in New York. At the same time, we know that nearly one in six customers have fallen behind on their bills and thousands of households have faced disconnections as costs continue to climb. For too many New Yorkers, keeping the lights on means sacrificing other basic needs. That is why this bill expands the role of the Office of Utility Advocate to meet people where they are. It ensures that every New Yorker understands their rights, has access to financial assistance programs, and receives clear, consistent education on how to navigate their utility bills. This is about equity, transparency, and making sure no one is left in the dark.

Int 0286-2026 speaks to another rapidly growing threat, the rise of cryptocurrency and digital asset scams. Across the country, Americans lost more than $7 billion to crypto-related fraud in 2025 alone, with scams increasingly targeting seniors, young people, and immigrant communities. In just one category, Bitcoin ATM scams alone resulted in over $333 million in losses, demonstrating how quickly these devastating schemes are expanding. This bill requires the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection to proactively educate New Yorkers on how to identify, avoid and report these deceptive practices, as financial literacy is essential. I look forward to working with my colleagues, advocates, and the administration to advance these measures and to ensure that our city continues to respond to these evolving challenges facing our communities. Thank you, Chair.

(00:23:22) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=1402s

Good morning, Chair Epstein and members of the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection. My name is Louise Young. I am New York City's chief climate officer and head of the mayor's office of climate and environmental justice. Today I am joined by deputy director for clean energy Hernandez and my team. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Office of Utility Advocate and Int 0285-2026.

At the mayor's office of climate and environmental justice, our team drives the city's efforts to protect New Yorkers from climate change and environmental pollution today and for generations to come. By overseeing innovative data-driven policies, plans, and programs, our office equips and coordinates citywide efforts to deliver a healthier, safer, and more affordable city. Our work is driven by an understanding that the climate crisis is inextricably linked to the affordability crisis. For New Yorkers whose budgets are under stress, extreme weather can severely increase energy costs. Each year, over 500 New Yorkers die of heat related illness. These are preventable deaths that are directly tied to energy affordability. While nearly 90% of households have air conditioning, many make the difficult choice to keep them off during summer months because they cannot afford the bill. No one should have to choose between putting food on the table, paying for child or elder care, and keeping their apartment safe and cool during a heat wave.

New Yorkers face some of the highest energy costs in the nation. With utility rates on the rise, bills for gas and electricity are eating up a larger and larger portion of New Yorkers' income, otherwise known as the energy cost burden. When energy bills make up more than 6% of a household's income, their energy burden is considered high. Families with low or moderate incomes that face high energy burden are more likely to experience energy insecurity and not be able to afford the heating, cooling, and other basic needs that they need to survive. In the last 5 years, three and a half million New Yorkers, which is about 42% of our city, have fallen behind on utility payments and 1.9 million have experienced utility shut offs because they could not afford to pay their bills. Energy burden does not impact everybody the same. Energy insecurity is even higher for Black and Latino New Yorkers who are eight times as likely to have their utility shut off than white and affluent New Yorkers in the last 5 years.

Lowering energy bills is central to confronting the climate crisis and the cost of living crisis that are facing working families. MOCJ is working on a new energy cost burden analysis to understand New Yorkers' struggles with high energy cost burden. This effort will inform our regulatory engagement and advocacy related to utility rate cases, energy affordability programs, and other opportunities to secure affordable energy for all New Yorkers. Right now, New York City has the dirtiest grid in the state with only 10% of our electricity coming from renewable energy. MOCJ, in collaboration with city agency partners, continues to advance clean and renewable energy, including solar, offshore wind, and other technologies. Clean energy stabilizes energy costs and reduces reliance on volatile fossil fuel prices. We will also work to ensure the transition to clean energy infrastructure and energy investments that benefit the communities that need it most, including disadvantaged communities and low and moderate income New Yorkers.

MOCJ works to hold New York City's private utilities accountable to ensure that New Yorkers have the protections and resources they need to thrive. MOCJ represents the city in the utility rate cases before the state public service commission. In these rate cases, we advocate for lower utility bills and stronger energy affordability programs, protections for utility customers like language access and prohibitions of service cut offs during extreme weather. We also advocate for the city's clean energy priorities to ensure that we are reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions while equitably investing in disadvantaged communities. And we advocate for reliable, well-maintained, and resilient energy infrastructure to withstand climate impacts. Our office is in the process of planning for the next phase of our utility advocacy. We will work to hold New York City's private utilities accountable and we look forward to advancing this critical area of work alongside efforts to advance clean energy and energy efficiency uptake in New York City.

Int 0285-2026 would amend the responsibilities of the Office of Utility Advocate to include additional public training, education, and more, especially in light of rising costs and more extreme weather conditions and potential reductions in federal funding for energy assistance. MOCJ is committed to advancing energy affordability and we support the intent of this legislation. In order to operationalize the goals of the legislation, MOCJ would need additional resources to expand our utility advocacy work and develop new partnerships. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify here and we look forward to working with the City Council on these issues of energy affordability and climate change in the years to come.

(00:28:23) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=1703s

Thank you, Commissioner.

(00:28:26) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=1706s

Thank you and good morning, Madam Speaker, Chair Epstein and members of the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection. My name is Sam Lavine and I am the commissioner of the department. I am joined by our chief of staff, Carlos Ortiz, and our associate general counsel, Andy Schwank. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee today on these important bills.

The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection is the nation's leading municipal enforcement agency charged with delivering economic justice. DCWP leverages its authority to bring New Yorkers real economic relief and protect them from predatory, deceptive, and unfair practices that violate New Yorkers' rights as consumers and as workers. This includes pioneering cutting-edge protections such as the City's consumer protection law, protected time off law, fair work week law, and delivery worker laws, including the minimum pay rate for delivery workers. Through licensing more than 45,000 businesses across 45 industries, we ensure fair competition and a level playing field for responsible small businesses that are integral to New York City's vibrant communities. DCWP also provides essential services such as free tax preparation and financial counseling to ensure New Yorkers can keep more of what they earn and plan for their futures. We are committed to making sure New York City is a fairer and more affordable place to live.

I am incredibly proud of our agency's work on the affordability agenda over these last four months and our fight for New Yorkers has just begun. We have taken on major corporations to recover millions of dollars for consumers and workers targeted by junk fees, stolen wages, and exorbitant price hikes. Mayor Mamdani has signed executive orders tasking DCWP to tackle subscription tricks and traps and junk fees under the City's consumer protection law. Since then, our team has been hard at work. Just this past month, we introduced a proposed rule, the click to cancel rule, to strengthen New Yorkers' consumer rights and ensure they can easily cancel automatic renewals and continuous service offers. We have also filed lawsuits against companies like Extraspace and Radiant Solar for the deceptive and illegal schemes that drove up costs for consumers, as well as against Instant Recovery Corporation, a Bronx-based tow operator, for charging illegal fees and using unlawful tactics to exploit the people of the City. Overall, since the start of the Mamdani administration, we have secured more than $9.3 million for New Yorkers, delivering real economic relief and justice to consumers, workers, and small businesses across our City.

Earlier this year, our strengthened protected time off law went into effect for more than four million employees across the City, requiring an additional 32 hours of unpaid time off and expanding the reasons for which an employee can use time off, including child care, workplace violence, public benefits hearings, and more. We implemented a package of laws that expanded protections to more delivery workers, including minimum pay requirements that will ensure grocery delivery workers for companies like Instacart receive a dignified pay rate and that we are closing the loophole that allowed apps to pay far less than the minimum wage. We also celebrated the Council's passage of much-needed deactivation protections, which will prevent arbitrary and unfair deactivations for contracted delivery workers and high-volume for-hire vehicle drivers, as well as the... safety and security act, which will provide security guards that keep us safe every day with better pay and benefits.

This is just the beginning. We will continue to lead the nation in implementing cutting-edge worker protection laws that strengthen workplace rights and improve labor standards for our workers. While we are thrilled about what we have done, we are also excited for the future of our department. As we continue our mission of delivering economic justice, we recognize that New York City, as a number of the Council members have alluded to, is facing a severe affordability crisis, largely driven by corporate greed and predatory practices by unscrupulous businesses. Our strategy of robust and aggressive enforcement is one of the critical steps to bring real accountability to the worst actors and real relief to the people of New York.

Turning now to today's legislation, Int 0285-2026 would amend the responsibilities of the Office of the Utility Advocate to include additional public training, education, and more, in light of rising costs from New York State approved rate increases, more extreme weather conditions, and potential reductions in federal funding for energy assistance. DCWP defers to the mayor's office of climate and...

(00:33:06) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=1986s

Environmental justice on this important legislation. With respect to Int 0286-2026, this legislation would require DCWP to develop and conduct ongoing outreach and education to raise awareness of deceptive and unconscionable trade practices involving cryptocurrency and other digital assets. We have serious concerns about the hazards of cryptocurrency and we support the intent of this legislation. We understand the rise of scams in the digital space has been detrimental to many New Yorkers. However, we do not have the policy expertise to advise on cryptocurrency or digital assets or to develop a meaningful outreach campaign. In addition, the New York State Department of Financial Services already actively regulates the digital assets industry and we believe is therefore in a better position to address these important concerns.

With respect to Int 0417-2026, this legislation would require those who are required to post construction permits to post information developed by DCWP on how workers can file a wage theft complaint as well as other information on worker rights related to wage theft under state law. We support this legislation. However, there are already a number of wage-related posting requirements for the industry. Rather than creating a redundant notice that may lead to confusion, we recommend the Bill instead require the display of our full workers bill of rights poster, which includes a QR code that would increase workers' awareness of core workplace rights under state, local and federal law.

With respect to Int 0685-2026, that legislation would establish an Office of Insurance Accountability within DCWP. The office would provide information on types of insurance and issue generalized guidance for consumers, track legal actions alleging unfair practices by insurance companies that harm consumers, and alert the public to relevant findings. It would also conduct an annual study and issue reports on the cost of insurance, provide recommendations related to stabilizing insurance costs, and create a unit to assist consumers in resolving insurance-related issues. We share the Council's deep concerns regarding the skyrocketing costs of insurance products and we recognize the need for increased transparency within the industry, especially in light of the affordability crisis our city faces. However, we are mindful that many insurance products are heavily regulated by the New York State Department of Financial Services. We have concerns, therefore, that the Bill's requirements could be duplicative of efforts by New York State. Additionally, the Bill would require DCWP to accept and triage consumer complaints and issues related to insurance without having the regulatory authority over this industry. This could cause confusion and possibly frustration for consumers who are experiencing major issues with their insurance and could lead them away from the state agency that actually possesses the authority to take real action against these companies' predatory behavior.

Insurance prices are a serious issue that New Yorkers are encountering, no doubt. For that reason, we look forward to working with the Council through the legislative process to successfully achieve this Bill's goals, especially giving consumers the help they need for their insurance issues — I should say consumers and small businesses — and ensuring transparency for this industry. We look forward to working with the Council on finding solutions to the affordability crisis that so many New Yorkers are facing.

Turning now to Int 0837-2026, this legislation would direct DCWP in consultation with CCHR, Moya, and Aging to establish and implement ongoing outreach and education programs for New York City residents about scams related to Hajj. DCWP supports the intent of this legislation. We are not presently aware of specific scams around this issue, but we recognize that it may be affecting many of our city's Muslim residents. As such, we are eager to hear from affected stakeholders to understand the scope of the problem and how issues like this have been tackled by other municipalities.

Turning now to Int 0847-2026, this legislation would require DCWP to establish and implement an outreach and education program to create awareness of common scams targeting and impacting tourists. The Bill would also require DCWP to develop and distribute educational materials specifically targeted to tourists during the 2026 World Cup. We support the intent of this legislation. Our consumer protection laws extend to the millions who visit New York City every year. We understand the importance of tourism to the city and our economy and we welcome the Council's eagerness to ensure tourists are protected from common scams they might face. We would like to hear more from stakeholders on how to best educate those who visit our city in the most efficient and effective manner.

In conclusion, I want to thank the Council for the opportunity to testify before this committee on today's important legislation. We look forward to working with all of you to further our efforts to protect New Yorkers in this new era of economic justice. I welcome any questions you may have for further discussion.

Thank you both for your testimony. I am going to turn it over to the speaker for some questions.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony today, Commissioner. I have a number of questions for you. Looking at your testimony that you just gave, I am concerned about some elements regarding Int 0685-2026. I just want to read a couple of lines from the testimony that I have very specific questions about. Your testimony indicates, "We are concerned that the Bill's requirements could be duplicative of efforts by New York State." I want you to please further explain that. New York State, with all due respect, does not have an insurance advocate. They are not addressing this issue. To me, as someone who has been a regulatory attorney for almost 20 years and formerly led this agency, this is one of the top consumer protection issues right now affecting New Yorkers. So I do not really understand the idea of just punting it over to the state.

Yeah, I am very sympathetic to that view. In fact, I have had to file a complaint with DFS over personal insurance issues and, candidly, I was very frustrated by the response. It is something that we would not tolerate with the consumer response that came into DCWP. Our concern, I think, stems from the fact that DFS does have an established complaint intake unit for insurance. They received, we understand, more than 36,000 complaints last year. They returned more than $139 million to consumers who submitted insurance complaints. Nothing I say should suggest that is adequate. Nothing I am saying should suggest that DFS is already addressing the insurance affordability crisis in this city. I do not think they are. That said, they are in the position, because of their legal authority, to supervise the industry, license the industry, sue the industry and study the industry. If I were advising my own friends and family on where to file a complaint, I would still urge them to file it with DFS because DFS actually has the authority over the industry that can lead to better results for consumers. So I would be very eager to work with you to figure out how we can fix this broken process and make sure that New Yorkers can get effective responses. My concern, Madam Speaker, is I just do not want DCWP, an agency with very limited authority over the industry, to stand between consumers and getting the relief they need. And I know you do not want that either.

Certainly. I think not only would DCWP not stand in the way, the issue is the data that I mentioned in my testimony bears out the fact that DFS is not lowering insurance costs for New Yorkers. So while yes, they might be addressing some insurance complaints, they are not succeeding at all. They are failing in their goal to lower insurance costs. Whether you are a small business owner, whether you are a rent-stabilized tenant, whether you are a homeowner, whether you are a car owner — all of the different examples I gave — the insurance costs are skyrocketing in New York and are literally putting small businesses out of business, are standing in the way of the affordability crisis for renters and homeowners. So something has to be done. Obviously, DFS is the regulator, but just like we passed my healthcare accountability bill where hospitals are regulated by the state, the path is transparency. The path is shining a light on these opaque, predatory prices. And so that is the role that I want DCWP to play. There is no insurance advocate at the state level that is helping consumers, whether the consumer is a small business owner, a renter, a homeowner or a car owner. That is a role that DCWP needs to play in that regard. And certainly when I served as commissioner, that is the role we played. What comes to mind for me is we issued subpoenas against Santander Bank.

We issued subpoenas when I was commissioner against Santander Bank because they were engaging in what we believed to be predatory auto loans. And technically yes, DFS was supposed to regulate Santander Bank, but we saw a failure and we stepped in. That is what DCWP needs to do. We need to set up this office to really help consumers.

Yeah, I think those are exactly the right objectives. I think what we want to do is ensure that, for example, if we get a complaint from a consumer around a claim that had been denied or a rate that went up 300%, as CM Brewer was alluding to... at the end of the day, we would then go to DFS to understand what the rate regulations were that were in place that allowed, or perhaps did not allow, the insurance company to make that increase or to deny those claims. My concern as the Bill is currently drafted is that we would act as a middleman, essentially communicating back and forth between DFS and the consumer. That said, again, I have personal experience with this and it sounds like you do too, Madam Speaker. Nothing I say should suggest that the current process for consumers with complaints about the industry is working. And I fully agree that DCWP, including through an accountability office, could help uplift the voices of these consumers. I just want to be sure the Bill is written in a way that makes sure we are standing alongside consumers in their battle to get justice and affordability for insurance, rather than standing between consumers and actually getting them the relief they need.

The point of the office is to shine a light on the insurance industry and to really find out what are the drivers of these high costs. Why is it that people are paying these astronomically skyrocketing costs? And to issue reports that delve into that. That is not what DFS is doing. I just pulled up DFS's website and, look, I worked a lot with DFS when I was commissioner. We did joint cases. I am very familiar with the agency. If you look at DFS's website, when you talk about that rise in cost, it says, "You may be eligible for discounts on your homeowners, auto and health insurance, which could lower your insurance costs. For many kinds of insurance, insurers offer discounts if you take steps to reduce your risk, like installing hurricane-resistant glass in your home or taking a defensive driving course. Ask your insurer or an insurance broker to see what savings you might be entitled to." That is not what we need. What we need is a dedicated accountability office located at the city level because, let us face it, most people who are suffering from these high insurance costs are not calling DFS. Most people do not know that they should call DFS. But they do know about the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. You all are on the front lines. So that is why I feel so strongly about this issue and I am really passionate about having DCWP, an agency I care deeply about, serve on the front lines to address these issues.

Well, I think that is an excellent way of putting it. I think at the end of the day, thanks to work you did and thanks to work we are hopefully doing today, we are a trusted agency for New York City residents. I think people do know that when they file complaints with us, we actually mediate them and actually deliver big results for people. I alluded to that in the testimony and that is not many people's experience when they are dealing with the state. So I would again be very pleased to work with you. We have already been discussing ideas on how to make sure that New Yorkers know that there is no wrong door and that they can turn to an agency they trust to get the help they need. I just want to be sure it is written in a way that does not slow down that relief but speeds it up instead. And I would just add, I appreciate how this Bill and some of the other outreach and education bills showcase the trust we have built together and that we are a trusted resource for consumers and workers in New York City. And we want to build off that. We want to make sure that we are contributing to solutions here that are going to drive concrete results, whether that is studies that we can put together based on consumer feedback, whether that is leveraging our robust outreach efforts, and building on the work we have been doing so far.

Great. A couple of questions. Are you currently tracking insurance costs right now?

We are not.

Is there a reason why? I understand you are not the regulator, but are you getting complaints on insurance?

So we do get some complaints on insurance. We refer them to the Department of Financial Services. In terms of tracking costs, candidly, we do not have the expertise in that. Obviously, your Bill contemplates bringing on experts, so I recognize that is something you are addressing. But presently, we do not have that expertise. We do not collect that data.

I just wanted to add, speaker, that currently the city's 311 systems and referral pathways are set up so that when a consumer comes into the city, it directly sends them to DFS. Since 2024, we have received approximately 300 or so DFS-related complaints — that is not just insurance, that is also sometimes banking and issues like that. We also work to expedite those to DFS as well. In terms of in-house expertise, we do not currently have staff who work on studying insurance products. But that is why we also submitted a fiscal impact statement requesting 19 lines for $2 million.

Well, as you know, I think both myself and the chair are big advocates of you all receiving more funding. I am really unhappy about the 8% cut. I think that is unacceptable. Consumer and worker protection is of paramount importance and you all should be receiving more funding, not less. In terms of while I understand you are not regulating it, do you have any thoughts about why insurance costs are going up across the board?

You know, I have thoughts based on what I have read in the news. I think a lot of it is that insurance regulators have not been as aggressive as they could be. Certainly a lot of insurance companies are blaming climate change, or blaming fraud, or blaming actuarial issues in certain categories. But at the end of the day, I think you articulated very powerfully why New York rates are rising so much faster than almost anywhere else in the United States. And I do not know the answer to that, candidly.

I think that is also why we enjoy these hearing formats as a setting to learn from the stakeholders too, having conversations with our small business advocates and our worker advocates to understand intrinsically what is happening in their daily lives with their costs and how we could as a city address them.

Okay, those are the extent of my questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you, speaker. If I am going to continue along that path — we know that the city and state have overlapping jurisdiction in multiple areas. I think we see this regularly. So I am just concerned that you are saying, well, DFS has this power. The Division of Human Rights and the city Commission on Human Rights obviously have overlapping jurisdiction and in some ways they play a real hand-in-hand relationship. I am wondering why you see this differently, where DFS has some power to do regulations but you have the ability to... how many thousands of complaints are coming to your agency every year? People know to come and report. There is a real vital role at play. You are a vital player here. I am not understanding why you would... maybe it is a resource problem. I do not understand what would really stop you from wanting to have a direct relationship with consumers and trying to figure out what those issues are and, as the speaker said, bring a spotlight to this concern.

No, I appreciate that and nothing stops us. Let me share a little bit more on how I see the differences, because you are absolutely right. Just about everything we do, if not everything we do, the state has authority to do as well. Deceptive practices, the AG can take it on. Unconscionable practices, the AG can take it on, et cetera. I think the difference here is that our expectation — which could be wrong — is that the vast majority of complaints we get are going to be about rate increases and claim denials. With respect to rate increases, those are specifically regulated and either authorized or not authorized by the state. We could not allege that a rate increase is deceptive, for example, or unconscionable, if the state specifically authorized that rate increase. Now that might be different if an insurer says, "Get your first month of auto insurance free," and they do not give it free — that is very much in our wheelhouse. We have the authority and we would talk to the state because there is overlapping jurisdiction, but that is well within our wheelhouse. But if it is with respect to a 300% rate increase in a year, we would have to go to the state and say, did you authorize this rate increase? What was the basis for it? Why did it apply in this property? Why was there no opportunity to dispute it? Et cetera. That is not an area where we can bring our general consumer protection powers to bear if those increases were specifically authorized.

And I would just add, I think the commissioner in just these past four months has worked incredibly hard to build stronger ties with DFS, the AG's office and these state authorities so that we can coordinate when we need to on these issues.

But if I can dig in a little bit deeper on some of the outcome pathways for consumers as it relates to mediation — mediation for us is a very powerful tool to make sure that we can deliver restitution to New Yorkers. I think ultimately there is a reality that we have an enforcement stick in many of the cases that we mediate, whether that is a license category or something that we can cover through our consumer protection law. But to the commissioner's point, there are certain issues where we will not have that enforcement authority and we want to make sure that the consumer is ultimately connected to an authority that can bring them results through a legal action if necessary.

Can I just push here? Because if you had 300 complaints on a topic, you could bring those complaints together and really bundle them to get to DFS, saying, "Hey, we have seen this problem in this area." And so now you have got some real good information to share with DFS, like, "Hey, maybe you should target resources on this issue." We do not know what the issue is. Maybe it is a small business issue. Maybe it is like CM Brewer's co-op, who is experiencing a huge rate increase. But your ability to be the on-the-ground information source could do something that DFS would never have the resources, ability or capacity to do in a way that could really positively impact consumers. I am wondering why we see this disconnect here.

I actually do not think there is a disconnect on that, council member — or chair, excuse me. I absolutely agree. If we get 300 complaints about something, we can spot patterns and elevate those voices to DFS. I think the concern is...

(00:53:26) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=3206s

Not with what you said of the middle step. What to do with those 300 complaints as they are coming in. These are folks that are getting bills in the mail for massive rate increases. How do they get quick relief? And at the end of the day, an insurance company is more likely to take a call from the superintendent of DFS than the commissioner of DCWP because at the end of the day, DFS regulates licenses, etc. But that does not...

Can I just interject? I actually disagree with that. While yes, DFS is the regulator, but you as the commissioner have the power of the bully pulpit as the lead agency on consumer protection. This is a fundamental consumer protection issue. So I actually do disagree with that. I think your calling or speaking out about it would make a big difference. This is why I do not want the agency giving its power away to the state agency that clearly has not effectively lowered people's rates. I mean, we have a crisis on insurance rates. It is an epidemic and it is exacerbating the affordability crisis across every different sector. Renters, homeowners, small businesses, car drivers. I mean, you name it. So this is why we really feel so strongly about this.

And to be clear, I feel strongly about it too. I have been affected by skyrocketing rates. I had an insurance policy I could not cancel. I could not get someone on the phone. I literally had to call someone I knew at DFS because my complaint was not going anywhere. So I want to just underscore that I deeply support the intent of this legislation and recognize that the process — both the rates right now are broken from an affordability perspective and the complaint resolution process is not working from a consumer protection perspective. All I want to make sure of is that we are working with DFS in a way that does not duplicate, that does not create additional layers, that does, I think, what both of you have articulated, which uses our voice to uplift what is happening to consumers on the ground without getting in between consumers and the actual regulatory authority that might be able to lower the rates. Can I just move a little closer to the issues of the power you might have around writing reports and highlighting the issues? I am wondering, even in that area alone, there is a lot of power that you could have to highlight a problem, to flag a recurring problem, to issue a report, to bring attention to an issue. I am wondering why this might not be a good vehicle for you all to talk about and exacerbate a problem, whether it is a small business issue or a homeownership issue.

I think it could be a good vehicle. I think we would want to talk about what the best angle is for us. If it is about, for example, how much of a rate increase there is, we do not have actuaries — we could, with funding, but we do not have that expertise at the moment. But we do have the expertise, for example, of saying we are getting a pattern of New York homeowners in a certain neighborhood facing rate increases that are way above any other neighborhood in New York City. Why is this happening? And you are absolutely right. DFS will take a call from us. We can issue a report that would draw attention to this issue and put the state in a position of, I think, having to hopefully respond to us. So no, I do not disagree with you at all. I think there is an important role we can play, the advocate can play, in raising frankly the heat on the state to pay more attention to this issue.

Yeah, I would just add to that that I think our testimony on this is that we share the goals about addressing these skyrocketing costs. We just want to make sure we are crafting a Bill that leans into our strengths and does not create unnecessary unintended confusion for consumers. But aspects like the bully pulpit that the Speaker mentioned — I think we have been actively over the past four months trying to utilize that power as well to make sure that businesses are on notice that we are vigilant and that consumers and workers have a resource with us too.

And I think it is also more than the bully pulpit. I think there are also proactive steps you can take, like we took against Santander Bank. DCWP does not regulate banks but yet we subpoenaed them on a subprime auto loan. We also actually released an auto loan product that was fair to consumers. We put out a whole RFP on that to actually tell banks these are the types of auto loan products you should offer. There are so many tools in the toolbox that could be utilized on the insurance point. No disagreement there, Madam Speaker.

So I guess what I am hearing from you is that while in the testimony there was some concern raised, I think there is a lot of shared values on doing something here. The Speaker, I know, raised this as a priority. I think we have heard from you how report writing, highlighting issues, being a place for consumers to go to flag something, being a real partner with DFS and doing this like we do in almost any other issue with the state where there is potentially overlapping jurisdiction — I see those pieces here. I am just wondering, are you concerned about the cost to do this? Are you worried because we do not have a fiscal note on this? Is there something that you are concerned about in relationship to the fiscal?

Yeah, I could get into that a little bit. We did provide our own fiscal analysis and, you know, this committee has been a great supporter of this department and the Speaker has of course been a great supporter of this department. We estimated we would need 19 lines. We can have that conversation separately. That is not the source of our objection or our concerns here. The sources of our concern are more specific, which is why I really believe we can work together and make this achieve all of the goals the Speaker articulated. For example, analyzing the factors that contribute to the cost of insurance — in theory we could use additional lines to hire the kind of experts to study the cost of insurance, but to Carlos's point about leaning into our strengths, an alternative way we could approach this is saying here are the patterns we are seeing. Here are the patterns by neighborhood. Here are the patterns by zip code. Here are the patterns by Council district. Here are the different types of insurance that are skyrocketing. We could use that, which leans into our existing strengths, to again raise the temperature for DFS. I think there are other small points as well in the Bill, but again we think this is an intent we support. We think there is language that we could work on that could get us to a place where we would feel confident that we could be constructive and contribute to affordability for New Yorkers.

Yeah, I would add to your statement, Chair. I think yes, we broadly agree with what you just mentioned. I think it is the commission's point that the nuances are what we want to engage with in redlining, to again lean into our strengths. And I think the stakeholder feedback is critical here. We have already heard from small business advocates, for example, on other options they need publicly to make sure that insurance costs are coming down. I think the more that we hear voices like that, maybe we can think about other pathways to lower insurance too.

Yeah, I would like to give you more tools in your tool belt to be able to address the insurance issues. And it sounds like you seem very open to it. I understand 19 lines is obviously a fiscal matter that I will defer to the Speaker on how we are going to get there. She has already, and I have already been public about how we want to increase funding for you. So I think there are a lot of opportunities there. I just think there is this hole here that I think the Speaker has identified where people are struggling. We heard from our small business chair earlier today who said small businesses are struggling. So there is something here. Maybe you find it geographically. Maybe you see, by doing this study, that there is discrimination in a neighborhood that we could argue is race or class-based. And so that could allow other litigation to come up because you have done the necessary research to find this information.

Yeah, certainly. And I know the Speaker would be very familiar with this work. We have done really important studies on unbanked populations across New York City and on the student loan burden across New York City. We have deep expertise in how to identify and uplift the economic concerns facing New Yorkers in a very local way, in a way that recognizes the unique issues that different neighborhoods of the City face. So we would be very keen to do that in the insurance sector as well, for all the reasons you have articulated. This is an affordability crisis.

I know the Speaker does not lie. I do not have more questions. I am going to turn over to CM Brewer because I know she has got some questions as well.

Yeah. So if this Bill were to pass, or even — I know you said that currently everything goes to the state — but is there some other way that the complaint process could be taken on at the local level, or do you think they really should all go to the state? In other words, you had said maybe you had some other ideas.

No, I am glad you asked this. I think we need to think about it a little more — that is my candid answer. At the end of the day, the state needs to be aware of them because they are the ones who license the insurance companies, approve the rate increases, etc. But that does not mean we need to be out of the process. For example, there might be a process where complaints go to both agencies at once. There might be a process where they go to us and we escalate them to DFS. We have not had an opportunity yet to figure out exactly what that mechanism could look like. We want to talk to the committee. We want to talk to stakeholders. But again, I just want to repeat myself here. I am not suggesting the status quo works and we would be very happy to work with stakeholders to make things better for folks.

I know you send them along, but we heard earlier from the Hospitality Alliance that their local businesses used to have other top survey answers like labor and rent, and now it is insurance at the top. So my question is, is this a new topic? In other words, is there any historical expertise you know of, that this has been part of their complaint process, or is this somewhat of a new topic? Or is it hard to tell because you have been referring?

Well, yeah. I mean, typically our consumer protection law covers consumers rather than business-to-business. So typically we would not be getting that type of complaint. But I want to be clear — I have heard from the same folks all of you have, from the Yemeni American Merchants Association, from the Hospitality Alliance. I have heard from folks in the affordable housing world that this is the biggest threat to the expansion of affordable housing in New York City. So these concerns are not new to us. Our expertise is something we are working on.

Okay. And again, we are all trying to help consumers. That is the bottom line. So I am not sure that giving information helps consumers. I do not know what the state should be doing to help consumers. This is beyond the Bill, but how do we help consumers? I do not know that anything on the local level that we do could help consumers.

I think the Speaker's point was very well taken, which is that there is no transparency around this industry. Again, I have experienced this firsthand. You talked about your constituent who saw a massive increase with no explanation. You get seven letters in the mail — I am just thinking of my health insurance now. Every time I have a visit, I get seven different letters in the mail and none of them say what I am actually being charged for. I am the Commissioner of Consumer and Worker Protection. I have trouble tracking my own healthcare bills and what is being covered by insurance. So this is absolutely an area where I think the insurance companies do not feel accountable to their ratepayers. I think the insurance companies do not feel they are going to face severe consequences for mistreating their consumers. And I think at the end of the day, the best way of helping consumers is to make sure that the insurance companies know that they are going to be accountable for mistreating them.

But I think what you are also saying is that your agency does not really have the ability to control insurance prices. That is sort of the bottom line.

That is exactly right. We do not have the authority to control insurance.

So the state does.

Correct.

Okay. And have we seen — I mean, I have a resolution, as you know, that says do something about helping — it does not say controlling, because all the bills that I see are coming up with some kind of a fund. I do not know that it has passed, to help some of the affordable units. That is what my resolution calls for. But do you have any suggestions, even though you are not the Commissioner of State Financial Services, as to what could control these agencies?

State government. The state needs to listen to the people of New York City — excuse me, to people throughout the state, not just in the City — who are crying out about the skyrocketing cost. It is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is not an upstate issue or a downstate issue. All New Yorkers are facing this and the state has the authority to approve or not approve rates. It is very similar to what we were talking about in the utility context and we need a state that places the interests of consumers first, not lining the pockets of insurance executives.

Okay. And I know that the administration has folks in Albany doing lobbying, and I was a Washington person for Dinkins so I am very familiar with that role. So are we helping our legislative persons in Albany to suggest that they do this? What are we doing to get Albany to focus? I guess that is...

I am happy to have those conversations with the State Legislature. I have not had them yet. I will tell you, CM, my concern is that for every lobbyist the City of New York has, the insurance companies have ten.

Right, no, I understand.

And that is part of the reason we are in this affordability crisis.

You know, certainly for the auto insurance and I suppose also for regular insurance, but we do need to have that kind of discussion absolutely. But your agency cannot control insurance prices.

Correct.

Thank you. Sorry, I just want to interject. Well, you cannot control pricing but you can control price transparency. It was the exact same thing we had with healthcare. We as a City could not regulate what hospitals were charging, but we could regulate the disclosure of the pricing. That is how we did the healthcare accountability office, which then required hospitals to disclose the price of every medical procedure. It is price transparency that I am focused on with this new office, where you absolutely have the legal power to do that.

I think that is accurate. And I think the outcome you mentioned earlier too, Madam Speaker, on the Office of Healthcare Accountability as it related to new plans the City was able to offer — new insurance plans able to offer — I think is maybe another outcome we can try to work towards if we engage in a study or consumer education as well.

As a result of the healthcare accountability office that we created, the City has now saved a billion dollars due to the new Emblem plan. So that is one unbelievable result we got from that. And right now the City of New York is spending approximately 11 billion dollars on healthcare in the New York City budget. So by lowering the price that we are paying for Emblem, it is a huge savings. And Commissioner, just to be clear — if you did this, if we move forward on this and you were able to, you could say here are the five insurance companies that are providing whatever blank insurance. These are the rates. These are the comparisons. So you could potentially give consumers information that could allow them to have better information in the market. Even though we could not control those prices, we could educate consumers around those options, whether it is businesses or homeowners, that would allow them to maybe have some additional leverage in that conversation.

I think that is the case, Chair. I think — and this is why I agreed with everything that the Speaker said as well — I want to make sure... sometimes these rates are set individually based on individual circumstances, right? They are going to look at a specific homeowner, going to look at a specific property. So we would have to figure out how to do it and there might be circumstances, as there are in the healthcare context, where it is hard to have pricing transparency. But as to the question of whether there is more we can do to make insurance prices transparent, of course, absolutely the answer is yes. Andy, if you want to add to that.

No, I think that is exactly right, Commissioner. And I think it is important to add that DFS, while they may not be doing a great job of informing consumers in this space — and we have talked about a lot of the issues there — we have seen past examples where the state has come in and told DFS, in response to emergencies such as Hurricane Sandy, "You need to mediate these insurance claims. We have got a big problem here. We have got all these insurance companies laying down on the job. We need a mediation process. You are paying for it. If you are denying a claim, we want that mediation to follow up on it." And so I think that is an example where the state does have the ability to step in and take action in some of these spaces as well.

Yeah. But do you not think the City could play a vital role — you know, the next Hurricane Sandy, or the next... the Speaker had to live through 9/11 and her business issues and the insurance issues and the failures of the insurance companies. The City could use its bully pulpit. The mayor could use his bully pulpit to highlight the problems that were going on, to force or to encourage or support whatever DFS is doing. I think there is a real vital role the City could play there, exactly in the example you gave.

I think that makes sense. I think the one thing I would want to be sure we keep in mind is that I do not want the pressure candidly to be off DFS. They do have the most direct tools to actually lower costs. Now, that is not saying the City should not be involved. That is not saying the City should not help. I believe we can. But I also do not want DFS to say, "Well, New York City is taking care of it," when actually DFS is the agency with the regulatory, licensing and enforcement authority and expertise to actually lower rates and make the state more affordable.

That is precisely why the City should act — because DFS is not lowering the cost. So we have a failure of a state agency for years to do this and that is why it is incumbent on the City to force them to act. And I think DCWP is perfectly poised with this Bill to play that critical role. Again, anything we can do to put pressure on DFS and help consumers in New York City, we would be keen to do.

I just want to talk about the utility advocate too, because you mentioned there would be a resource issue. I think this falls in that same context — thank you, Speaker — because we have talked a lot about affordability and utilities. We saw that huge Con Edison rate increase in January that really... we are going to just see more people having their utilities shut off. What kind of costs do you think you are going to need? What kind of staffing do you need and what role could you play if this legislation passed?

Thank you so much for that question, Chair. In our fiscal impact statement we call for four new staff to be able to fulfill the responsibilities laid out in the legislation. And I should also mention that we are in the process of appointing a new public utility advocate. So we are really excited for that and to be able to use that position to really expand the City's utility engagement and advocacy to protect New Yorkers.

And in the same context, the Public Service Commission is the one who is going to oversee rate increases. Obviously the City cannot control that...

(01:13:10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=4390s

But you feel like there is a role that we could play, through the mayor's office and your office, to be able to have influence over what those rate increases might look like and how that might impact regular New Yorkers?

Yeah, most certainly. Our office, the mayor's office of climate and environmental justice, has historically represented the City's interest in the rate cases. We have been a party to the many rate cases and many energy regulatory proceedings before the public service commission. In these proceedings, we call for strengthening consumer protections, strengthening energy affordability programs, strengthening things like language access so that New Yorkers can get customer service in the languages they speak, and making sure that we are integrating equity into the utility decision-making at the state level. So we are really excited for a new utility advocate to come into our administration and hold utility companies accountable. These are private utility companies and there is a huge role that we are really excited to play, particularly in front of our energy regulators.

And how do you think this would interplay with DCWP? Obviously a lot of these consumer issues go back and forth.

Of course. I appreciate that question too. Our office as a mayor's office works across the city with many agencies, including DCWP, including our health department and our department of DASS. There are a lot of ways that energy issues come into play when it comes to city agency missions and operations. So part of our role is both to represent New York City operational needs on energy, but also and more importantly New Yorkers' needs. So I am really excited for the Office of the Utility Advocate to be channeling the needs and voices of New Yorkers in our proceedings in front of the public service commission.

Well, I am really happy to hear that. So you said four additional lines. You think that there is commitment within the administration to provide those additional staffing lines for you?

As you know, we are still in the middle of finalizing our budget. So excited to talk about what that looks like and even more excited for the utility advocate appointment.

And can you tell us what you would like procedurally — what would this role look like? What would this office do? How would you see that interacting with regular New Yorkers? How would that impact what was happening at the public service commission for future rate increases? What kind of proactive role would you be playing?

Sure. This administration is really committed to holding corporations accountable and that includes our private utility companies. We do not have choices when we live here. You have to get electricity from Con Edison and depending on your location you have to get your gas from Con Edison or National Grid. So the utility advocate role is really going to be representing the interests and needs of New Yorkers. I mentioned a couple of statistics in my testimony about energy insecurity and energy cost burden. When 42% of New Yorkers have fallen behind on utility payments in the last five years, that is a really major issue. Part of what we do is bring these issues before the public service commission and secure commitments and wins that are baked into the requirements for the utility companies every couple of years when they go before the state for the new rate cases.

So this office is going to be doubling down on what it looks like to keep our energy bills affordable, to expand our energy affordability programs. This is something that the public service commission can directly require of our utility companies. Making sure that as we are hearing different issues when we are talking to New Yorkers, we are then bringing that back into our testimony and into our rate case proceedings.

Yeah, thank you for doing that. I want to acknowledge CM Banks and CM Ossé for being in this committee. In some ways, what you are saying really is that even though we do not have authority here, because the public service commission is the one who has authority, you would play a proactive role ensuring that New Yorkers who might have insurance issues or affordability issues around utilities would have a real place to turn to to get that support. You could be issuing a report. You could talk about affordability. You could be a place where people could come to get that information that could advance these affordability goals in relationship to utilities.

Absolutely. And that is part of the reason why our office has initiated an energy affordability study. This is becoming an increasing issue for New Yorkers and we want to better understand what the needs are, who is facing disproportionate energy insecurity in our city, and how do we make sure those needs are actually addressed through the energy regulatory proceedings.

Commissioner, I want to just turn back to you because I just feel like this conversation — the conversation we just had — feels very familiar to me.

I thought you were going to say that. I kind of view this really in that same bucket and I am having a hard time not seeing this direct overlap here of your role in relationship to insurance — in some ways the same role that we were talking about in relationship to utilities. I hear your concern about this and your commitment to it and it sounds like we are going to get there together, but do you not see that this is the same role that we are talking about with utilities, that we can see in insurance, and that you could play that vital role?

No, I think there are absolutely parallels here. I think we would all agree there is more the PSC could do for state rate payers and there is more that DFS could do for city insurance payers, folks who are overpaying for insurance. So again, we would be very keen to support this. We just want to make sure that at the end of the day, the agency accountable for setting rates for insurance companies is DFS. The agency accountable for licensing them is DFS. The agency accountable for evaluating claims denials is DFS. But I think there is a role for elevating the concerns of New Yorkers and I think that is where we want to steer the legislation to the extent we can.

And chair, if I could add as well — DFS is an agency with about 1,400 staff and a budget of $545 million and, to the commissioner's point, has direct responsibility over these issues. So I think we totally agree that this Bill and this office can complement initiatives from the City to drive affordability. But I want to make sure too that the expectations are set for folks, and to the extent that insurance companies should be transparent, city government should be transparent. What can we deliver for folks? We are not going to be able to mediate complaints necessarily the same way that DFS could, potentially based on their past experience, or issue enforcement actions the same way DFS can. I think we should be clear-eyed with that when we communicate to consumers about what results they can get from us. We cannot, to CM Brewer's point, control prices for insurance companies either. So I want to make sure consumers understand that, because where we can jump in is at this educational level — the ability to study this industry a little bit more — and I think if we can achieve those nuances in the Bill then I think we can have a successful Bill.

Great. Did you want to add something? No. Okay. Can I turn to 286 around cryptocurrency? CM Lewis was here earlier, but I just want to understand — you are worried about your policy expertise here and you seem to be concerned about regulation. I just want to understand, obviously we are seeing New Yorkers being scammed of hundreds of millions of dollars, billions across the country, and obviously this is something that none of us want to see continue. So it does seem like while DFS may have some regulatory power, especially with these ATMs themselves — you and I talked about these ATMs — it is just awful. Is there not something we could be doing to shine a spotlight on this problem?

Maybe we can get the state to regulate more. Maybe someday we will have a Congress that can actually do something. But is it not really incumbent upon us now, the City in this moment, to say people are being harmed and we need to step in?

Yeah, I think that is right. Part of it, chair, I think, is how you think about cryptocurrency generally. I think there are major problems with crypto, even in regulated sectors, especially around preying on young people, especially young men, urging them to make extremely risky investments. That is not a scam necessarily. That really calls out for effective state and federal regulation where we do not have authority. That said, the kind of issues you and I have talked about, whether it is Bitcoin ATMs or scam wallets that people cannot access, I absolutely think there is more education we can and should do around this. I think we were candid in the response to the Bill that we do not currently have this expertise, but we can develop that expertise, and I think we have a really good track record on outreach and education, and I think that is something that we could contribute meaningfully to protecting consumers. I think you want to add something, Andy?

Yeah, and just to add, chair, I think anytime we are talking about an issue where another state or city agency does regulate, we of course want to work very closely with that other entity to ensure no consumer confusion and to ensure we are really providing outreach and services for the consumer in the best way possible. And this is an example where DFS does have tip sheets and information available on crypto scams. So we just want to be sure that we are crafting an approach that is totally consistent with DFS and not adding any confusion to the sector.

Yeah, I think we are all on the same page, but I do think the sponsor is obviously trying to understand what our role could be to really protect New Yorkers who are being scammed. It does seem like there is some shared vision on that role. Do you think there is a staffing cost associated that you are concerned about on this one?

Yeah, I can respond to that and I just want to make a brief point to build on what my colleague said. It is fairly limited. We think we would need two community coordinators and about $120,000 for materials to get the word out. The one thing I would add — which I think would be a way that could not necessarily require changes to the Bill, but an implementation — is that in our research for this hearing, we found that the Brooklyn DA has created a virtual currency unit to handle criminal prosecutions of these scams. We understand there may be other criminal enforcers. So one thing I think we could do positively is that if we get complaints in the door that really sound in criminal fraud rather than regulatory issues, we can also refer them to criminal enforcers.

Yeah, it seems there is a real role that you could play to make those connections for folks, because when someone calls the City, they do not know, they do not understand...

Certainly.

...who to talk to or what to talk about. What they do know is they can call 311 and in some ways the City is supposed to help. So I think there is a real role for you all to do.

Yes.

I want to acknowledge CM Aldebol has joined us as well.

So on this Bill, Int 0837-2026 — you have not had complaints around these Hajj scams at all?

I am sorry to interrupt. We have had two complaints since 2021.

And do you think it is because people are being scammed, or do you think people just do not know that there is a way to connect to you?

I think people do not know and I think we have concerns about these scams. We want to hear from stakeholders and learn more about these scams and we would be very pleased to educate ourselves and be more aggressive in making sure we are responding to consumers.

So do you want to talk to the — I mean, I am happy to make sure the sponsor connects with you all. I do not know if you have spoken to the sponsor of the Bill yet.

I have not spoken with them. We certainly have not had a ton of time but we are certainly happy to do that.

Okay. Because obviously he is raising this for a reason. And maybe it is a language issue. Maybe the people...

We can work around language issues. We really take pride in having materials and folks in our agency who speak — how many languages?

I think across the agency we speak over 40 languages and I think about half of the agency almost has a second language capacity.

Yeah.

We can make this work. I am confident.

Great. And for Int 0847-2026, you said you wanted to hear more from stakeholders around the tourism issue. I am wondering — obviously we have all been to lower Manhattan and seen people try to scam you for money for getting on some ferry that does not exist to some island that does not exist. Obviously tourism is a vital part of New York and we do not want someone to feel that they are being scammed whether they are in Times Square or at Battery Park or anywhere in my district. So what are you looking to hear from stakeholders about in relationship to this tourism issue and scams?

You are talking about Int 0847-2026?

Yes.

Well, I think the main issue we wanted to flag candidly is that implementing this Bill in time for the World Cup I do not think is realistic. But we have been very active on addressing tourist-related scams. We have stood with you and CM Brewer when we announced the hotel junk fee rule. We have done other work over the last few months and really over the last many years to address scams related to tourists. We get a lot of complaints we think are from tourists, whether it is around pedicabs or horse-drawn carriages. So I think we want to be sure we are reaching folks in the right way. I can tell you one issue we have had in the past is that tourists will file complaints, we will follow up to get additional information, but by then they have left the city and they do not respond, which I am sympathetic to, but that is sometimes a gap in our ability to respond effectively. But I think generally we just want to figure out what is the best way to reach tourists. In terms of the sort of day-to-day outreach events, we are aiming to do two outreach events a day for reaching New Yorkers. How do we reach the people visiting our city? That is what we are trying to think about.

Yeah, we have connected, for example, with the hotel association of New York City and New York City tourism. We have worked very closely with CM Brewer on addressing pedicab issues around Central Park. We actively participate in mayoral task forces around enforcement of these issues too — pedicabs, ticket sellers as you were mentioning, chair. I think in terms of outreach we are very committed to making sure that we develop resources for tourists as well. And I think we are always open to conversations about regulatory changes that can happen to address issues in these industries, like pedicabs and ticket sellers. I know there are a lot of bills out there to target scams that might be arising there.

Yeah, I will turn it back. Well, actually, CM Brewer, will you come back for a second?

Commissioner, how are you?

Good to see you, Council.

Nice to see you and team. I know that this has maybe been touched on, but we all know in this room that Con Edison bills are extremely expensive and high, and they are obviously able to charge exorbitant prices because of their monopoly on the City's utilities. Yet whenever there is an extreme weather outage, our neighborhoods are always at risk due to blackouts because of the weather. The blackout that we had this past January in my district due to Con Edison not updating some of their infrastructure meant that many of my constituents were not even able to get reimbursements for their losses. If Int 0285-2026 passes, what are some proposed recommendations the Office of the Utility Advocate would have to make our utilities more affordable?

I will take this one, commissioner. Hi, CM. I am Louise Young. I am the chief climate officer for New York City and the head of the mayor's office of climate and environmental justice. Among the many functions that we play in citywide energy policy, we represent the City in energy regulatory proceedings before the state and the federal government with FERC. So when it comes to utility shutoffs, this is something that we are very focused on, in part because of the blackouts that happened this winter, but also as we are thinking about coming into summer season. This is a really big issue because 500 New Yorkers die each year of heat-related illness that are entirely preventable.

I want to note that in past Con Edison rate cases, which our office has historically been a party to in order to advocate for the needs of New Yorkers, we actually successfully advocated for stronger protections for electric utility shutoffs during extreme heat. Using the Department of Health data, we successfully got Con Edison to ban shutoffs the day before, the day of, and two days after any weather forecast that predicted 90 degrees or above, which is what is considered a heat wave. New rules at the state level actually weakened those protections, and that is really frustrating to us. That is why as we continue to go before the public service commission, which regulates all of the private utility companies, we will be advocating for strengthening those consumer protections for New Yorkers, particularly focused on shutoffs and making sure that in extreme weather nobody is penalized for getting their utilities turned off if they have arrears or for any reason whatsoever. This is a matter of life and safety.

So we are very active participants in that. Every couple of years all the utilities come before the public service commission for setting rates and so that is one channel where we will be making sure that those needs are very centered in our testimony and in our advocacy to the public service commission.

I appreciate hearing that. And maybe just for an example, in terms of what many of my constituents have experienced over this past winter — during the blackout they had perishables that spoiled, some of their equipment broke, and Con Edison has offered to reimburse folks for damages as well as any items that were perishables. How would you aid my constituents in getting some of that money back into their pockets?

Yeah, and just to be clear, my understanding is that Con Edison really just reimburses you for 25 bucks. It is a low threshold. Do not quote me on that one, CM, but...

I think it is up to $250.

There is a certain threshold depending on how long the outage is. So this is something that is really important. The public service commission holds a lot of energy regulatory proceedings — it is not just during the rate case process but throughout the year. This is an issue we have actually been studying. We want to be able to more strongly advocate for expanded protections with shutoffs. In my testimony, I noted that three and a half million New Yorkers have fallen behind on utility payments and 1.9 million New Yorkers in the past five years have had their utility shut off. So this is not a unique issue to your constituents and I know it hit your district really hard during the cold snap this winter. But it is an issue that is really affecting many New Yorkers. So we are committed to holding our private utility companies accountable. I mentioned earlier to...

(01:33:04) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=5584s

Chair Epstein and the committee, we are also excited to be appointing a new utility advocate to really lead the charge on that work. We are really excited to work with your office on designing what that looks like and making sure that we can take care of our constituents.

Absolutely. Chair, can I ask one more question? As climate change continues to bring more extreme weather to our city, it is important that our power grid and infrastructure can withstand this environment and ensure our communities do not have to face another blackout like the one that we saw in January. How does the Office of the Utility Advocate hold utility companies like Con Edison accountable to ensure that their infrastructure is weatherproof, more specifically for any snowstorms or extreme heat that is bound to come in future years?

That is a great question and something that we think about all the time. It is unconscionable that we have a grid that is unreliable. This is something that is a necessity, not a luxury. Through these energy regulatory proceedings, we actually recently submitted testimony about the reliability of our energy grid. This is an issue that through the rate case process, we also push the utility companies to really explain what they are doing to strengthen the resiliency of their grid and making sure that as we have more and more heat waves and hurricanes and sea level rise, our infrastructure is actually prepared. There are lots of things that we are doing at the city level, but we need to also make sure that our utility companies are making those real investments in their systems to make sure they are modernized and able to withstand all those things that you mentioned.

Thank you. I appreciate hearing that. Do we like these bills?

I can only speak for Int 0285-2026. We support the intent of the legislation. We submitted a fiscal impact statement. We would need four additional staff people to fulfill the roles and responsibilities in the Bill and $1.37 million to support ongoing operations.

All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member.

Thank you. And let me turn to CM Brewer. I just want to be clear, tourists will be ripped off. Let us just be clear. So we are not sugar coating it. When I get in a pedicab to go to an event, because I do at Central Park...

Outside Manhattan...

...because I am late and I have to get to the event. They give me a price. I say hell no. And then somebody calls out, "It is Gale, give her the price she wants."

I love it.

I like my pedicab. That is surveillance pricing.

Well, I will be glad to take a yes.

I get the price that is legal and then I say I wrote the Bill so you better damn well give me the price I want. No, I have a question about the Con Edison situation because the public knows to call the Public Service Commission. I have tons of complaints. We work with the PSC, et cetera. I have whole buildings, Mitchell-Lamas, and I think others do, that have passed bills. They are not cutting it off, but they make you pay. So I do not really understand what the City can do. All people want is — it is not just accountability. They want lower rates or they want to understand why the rates are so high. So maybe you can be explaining to the public why it is so high. But what else can you do at the local level? I am concerned.

I happen to think that it is really great to work with the state on some of these issues. Maybe others feel differently. So what exactly can you do to help lower the rates, if anything? What can a person in your situation do to help with that, or is that just advocating?

So one of the things that most New Yorkers do not know is that there are these rate cases where the utility company goes before the commission and there is actually a process for commenting on it. It is very notoriously challenging to be a party to the rate case. It requires a significant amount of technical expertise. It requires a lot of time and effort. So when we appoint the new utility advocate, we are really excited to be rethinking the way that we are engaging New Yorkers and bringing them into that process to democratize it, to make it more transparent, and to make sure people even understand that there is such a process.

All the things that you are saying, we totally agree with. We want to make sure that we are doing that education, that we are really explaining to people how this process works, and more importantly, that when we are submitting testimony and negotiating — being a party to the rate case means you are actually negotiating with the utility company. That process takes about a year for each rate case. That is where we can really push them on why they are requesting rate increases and they have to justify every single amount of increase. We will push them on their return on equity, how much profit they are giving to their shareholders. These are private utility companies that are investor-owned. We will be focusing on that in our testimony. We will be pushing them on what kind of affordability programs they are offering to ratepayers, making sure that we can expand them so that anybody who needs support to pay their utility bills can access that support.

These are the kinds of issues that we bring forward to the rate cases and that we ourselves invest a lot of resources in developing expert testimony, calling upon expert witnesses, and really making as airtight a case as we can so that when the Public Service Commission is deliberating what kind of rate increases they are approving, they understand the needs of New Yorkers and they understand how our testimony can inform their final decision.

Okay, maybe I am just jaded, but I do not know if one or two people can do all that. But I hear you. Thank you.

Well, we are asking for four...

I am just saying we have heard all this before. I do not mean to be jaded, but we have. Thank you.

Thank you, CM Brewer. I think for this panel, we are done. So thank you all for your testimony. I look forward to continuing to work with you and hearing any edits you have on these Bills.

We are working on it right now, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you all for being here. We are going to go to public testimony. This is a formal government proceeding, so people should be mindful of that. If you have not signed up to testify and you wish to testify, please sign up in the back. You will all have just two minutes to testify. If you have not submitted written testimony, please do. The people on the panel are Lauren Aquino, Linda Baron, Anthony Pena and Samuel Ludo. Okay, sorry, I could not get the handwriting.

Okay. So the four people I called, they can come join us. It sounds like we might have a potential fifth person.

Yeah, I think so. Do you want to testify too?

Okay. We can get you to fill out the form. Come on up to the table and we can go. To my right, maybe introduce yourself, and then we can start. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Epstein and members of the committee for allowing me to testify today. My name is Linda Baron. I am the president and CEO of the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce. We appreciate the intent behind this Bill and support efforts to bring more transparency and understanding to the insurance market, especially as small businesses continue to face rising premiums and fewer options.

For small businesses, insurance is not a simple or standardized product. It looks different depending on the business and what they need. It is also important to recognize the role of brokers. For most small businesses, their broker is their main point of contact, not the insurance company or the regulator. They help them navigate a very complex system. We would encourage the brokers to be specifically included in the language of this Bill, particularly in sections related to consultation and reporting, to ensure that real world experience helps inform the work of this office.

While the City does not have direct authority over insurance regulation, which is handled at the state level, it can still play a helpful role in making the system easier for small businesses to navigate. At the same time, we would encourage that this effort be designed to be complementary, not duplicate existing services. A focus on coordination and efficiency will be key to making it add value without creating more confusion.

We also encourage the City to use the office as an opportunity to take a closer look at what is driving insurance costs. Rates are set at the state level, so this is not just about pricing, but about the broader environment that impacts these costs. The legal environment and the cost of claims play a significant role in what businesses are paying. As the state continues to look at reforms in these areas, those conversations are directly connected to what small businesses are experiencing.

At the same time, policy decisions and regulatory requirements can directly impact coverage and costs. Identifying where City policy may be contributing to these pressures and where adjustments could help stabilize costs would be a meaningful step forward. The value of this office will ultimately depend on its ability to not only inform but to identify and elevate the factors driving cost and help inform policy decisions that impact small businesses.

Finally, as the Bill contemplates an assistance office, we would encourage that it clearly apply not only to individual consumers but also to small businesses, who face many of the same challenges but often navigate more complex insurance needs. Small businesses are already operating in a high cost environment and insurance is becoming harder to manage. Efforts like this can be helpful if they stay focused and practical. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Lauren Aquino. I am a commercial insurance broker and third generation owner of Alpha Omega Coverage Corp, an independent agency on Staten Island. Like most members of the Staten Island Chamber, both my clients and my agency have ten or fewer employees. So I am speaking from direct experience with the businesses most affected by rising insurance costs.

I want to start by saying that I support the intent behind the Office of Insurance Accountability. My focus is on how this will function in practice. The Bill calls for simplified, publicly accessible guidance on insurance. However, in the commercial space, insurance is highly individualized. Pricing and coverage depend on factors like industry, payroll, claims history and contractual requirements. Two businesses that appear similar can have very different risk profiles and consequently very different insurance needs.

For example, small business owners can purchase insurance online and unintentionally misclassify their operations. A residential daycare provider might select a daycare center policy because they think it is the same thing, but they are actually underwritten extremely differently. That can lead to coverage gaps or even denied claims. Guidance that oversimplifies insurance can risk creating a false sense of clarity and cause costly mistakes.

That complexity is also why most small businesses do not navigate the system alone. The Bill frames the system as consumers and insurance companies, but that omits how it functions in practice. Most small businesses rely on licensed brokers. Brokers help explain coverage, access the market and advocate for claims. For example, in construction, insurance requirements are often highly specific and contract driven. Policies may go through multiple rounds of review by third-party risk managers and brokers are the ones that negotiate terms mid-policy to maintain compliance. Incorporating broker input would be critical to ensure that the office reflects how the market operates.

Affordability is not just a market issue. It is also shaped by policy decisions. Insurance requirements tied to New York City licensing and regulation create an opportunity for the office to evaluate whether they align with actual risk. For example, Business Integrity Commission licenses could incorporate tiered insurance requirements based on gross vehicle weight that align with currently tiered emissions regulations. The office also has the opportunity to leverage pooled risks to negotiate better pricing for target markets. In the child care sector, insurance costs are a significant barrier, particularly for smaller residential providers. As the City expands universal child care, targeted support and programs could help ensure those providers remain accessible while maintaining appropriate coverage.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Epstein and members of this committee. My name is Anthony Pena. I am the president of the National Supermarket Association, also a Key Food store operator. We represent over 600 independent supermarkets across New York City and the downstate region — businesses that employ more than 15,000 New Yorkers and serve as lifelines in their communities. Our members are small family-owned operators, many in underserved neighborhoods where larger chains no longer invest. Every day they provide fresh food, local jobs and stability where it is needed the most.

But today those same businesses are under real pressure because the insurance market is breaking them. General liability premiums have surged — many up from 50 to about 150% in just a few years — not because they are becoming riskier, but because the system is failing them. In some areas, especially in areas like the Bronx, coverage is being denied altogether. In other areas, premiums are so high that businesses are having to close their stores.

Let me be clear: this is not just a business issue. This is a food access issue. This is a community survival issue. As you may be aware, many businesses have what is called triple net leases, which means that the building insurance costs ultimately get passed down to the lessees. When independent supermarkets close, neighborhoods lose access to fresh, affordable food, jobs disappear and communities that are already underserved fall even further behind.

Right now, business owners are navigating an insurance system that is complex and unaccountable. There is no central place in New York City where their challenges are tracked, understood or addressed. That is why Int 0685-2026 matters. Creating an Office of Insurance Accountability gives small businesses a voice, brings transparency to this market and begins to level the playing field. For our members, this is not policy — it is survival. On behalf of the National Supermarket Association, I urge you to consider passing Int 0685-2026. Thank you for your time and your leadership.

Thank you.

Hi. Thank you, Chair Epstein. Thank you to the Council members for being here today. My name is Samuel Ludo. I am with the Building Trade Employers Association of New York, representing the union contractors of New York. We really appreciate Int 0685-2026. I just wanted to speak for a moment about something that has not been discussed, which is construction insurance. It is very expensive in New York and it is one of the highest cost points for building in New York.

I know specifically that CM Brewer was concerned about the insurance for her co-ops. One of the reasons why insurance for co-ops is so high is because the actual construction on co-ops and the repairs are so high that it spills over, making New York the most unaffordable place — not only in the country but actually in the world — to build. That is very much driven partially by construction insurance.

I will give you the full testimony, but just to hit the high points: we really appreciate Int 0685-2026. We just wanted to address the root cause of why insurance is so high specifically in New York, which is the absolute liability issues facing our industry. The liability when there is an accident on a job site is so much higher in New York than anywhere else — not only in New York but on the planet — in terms of what happens. This pushes all of our contractors out of business. It also spreads the problem. It pushes us toward more non-union work. New York is rapidly increasing its non-union construction and it is a big problem because of this absolute liability, which means that businesses have to save on other parts of the construction process, pushing it to non-union job sites. I would be more than happy to address any questions, comments or thoughts.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate the ability to come here and tell our story today. My name is John Crowy and I started a while ago, with a number of affordable housing developers, something called the Milford Street Association. Milford Street is a conglomeration of affordable housing borrowers and developer-owners of affordable housing here in New York. We are the people who built and used money from the New York City Housing Development Corporation, HPD and HFA. We have a number of buildings both in the association and work with everyone. We went and created this insurance captive specifically for the purposes of dealing with the cost of insurance here in New York. We spent about the last three years doing that and we have learned a number of things along the way.

One of the things we were able to do — and I want to share this specifically with you in this brief period of time — was we were able to work with AI and get the whole New York State court database system, which has every single lawsuit on it brought by anybody registered here in New York State in any one of the courthouses in New York State. We broke that down completely. New York is the most litigious state in the union. There are over one million lawsuits. That is about double the highest of the next state. I am happy to share these facts. I have a presentation I have shared with one or two of the members before, but I am happy to make sure you all get it.

What we did was we took that database of all the cases pending against all residential housing and then we went to NYU. They have an institute called the Furman Institute, which has every single affordable housing building in the City of New York — all the ones that have been financed by government in a variety of different capacities and programs. We overlaid the court case data against the affordable housing addresses. This data has never been seen before. Frankly, it has never existed. While each of the previous people testifying — I felt their pain and I understand what they are saying to be true — now we can quantify exactly what that means.

When we put that together, we found that New York City has 200,000 residential buildings. 41,000 of them are affordable. Of the 41,000 that are affordable, there are 15,000 lawsuits. On the other 150,000, there are 12,000 lawsuits. The conjecture and talking points about being sued more are all accurate. But now I can tell you exactly what that means specifically by building.

As we roll this out and the City starts looking for new insurance programs, I have been working with members of the Council and others to both highlight the statistical and data-driven results of where we are, along with creating a better option for affordable housing in New York, which is absolutely pivotal if you care about affordable housing in a macro sense. I want to make sure you get the presentation. What we have legislatively is what we call the unstoppable force meeting the unmovable object — that is the desire to produce affordable housing against a very tightly held trial lawyer bar up in Albany. I am happy to answer any and all questions. I think you would find the data illuminating if you had a chance.

I want to see if any members have questions for this panel. CM Brewer...

For John Crowy: what is it that your organization can do to help affordable housing? Obviously in Albany there are some bills. We have a resolution in support of some of them. Jamal Bailey has one for funding. So what exactly do you suggest that we do?

The data drives the answer. And what the data says is that you have...

(01:53:45) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5aNuu0pL14&t=6825s

Affordable housing is based on the premise of charging lower rent for buildings, right? If you move into this building, your rent will not be reflective of the market rent. Your expenses, however, are still market rate expenses. The financing and plans that exist at HPD and HTC take that into consideration and create a funding mechanism to fund that. That has been blown up by the increase of cost and insurance primarily. There are other cost drivers, inflation and different things, but most of those are sort of accounted for. So this is a complex problem. It took years — decades — to get here and it is going to take a little bit to solve.

Specifically to answer your question, it is a two-step process. Process number one, New York City should invest in — and the governor already has given us a couple million bucks to do this. It is rolling out. It is relatively new. Many of you may not have heard of it, but the governor gave us a couple million bucks to start writing policies here in New York and aggregate that traffic onto a singular platform at Milford. Number two, between the data that we have that exists now, the current data, and the future data that will come in from the members participating, we need to modify the New York State laws to reflect the priority that we care more about affordable housing than we do about making lawyers rich. The only way to effectively do that though, when you change it in Albany, is to make sure that the change goes exactly back to the benefit of the affordable housing operators here in New York who you need to keep providing this housing.

So, CM Brewer, aggregate the traffic on a platform, go to Albany and change the laws and share those dividends back with housing to get the foot off of their throat. Otherwise you are just going to have continued failure and obsolescence. Nobody is terribly sympathetic to the landlords and there is good reason for that. But the numbers are what they are and if you look at them, you can only come to one conclusion about the problem. I am sure there is more than one way to solve it, but that is the most direct.

Just for this panel, it does seem like you were just concerned around the Bill. You are concerned because of the transparency, or you are just concerned because — I think what we are trying to do is trying to make sure that people have more information and the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection plays a more active role in this insurance world.

I understand that. I mean, I reached out to a couple of my member brokers and that is why Lauren is here with me today. I think at the end of the day, we want to make sure there are teeth in this agency that is created here. I think the intent is good but, from what I hear from everybody, it is just that the state regulates pricing and again, how can you be effective? On these labor law issues, can we influence the state so construction does not cost so much money? And on some of these smaller issues, are there tactical things that we could do with the state, like she mentioned, just to get things done? So I think our concern is just we do not want to see a duplicative agency. We want to see something that has teeth in it that can actually affect change at the end of the day.

Yeah. Thank you. And just to go back to you, John, about the nonprofit housing. We have talked over the years, as a former state legislator, we spent a lot of time talking about trying to create funds or create state insurance programs for affordable housing. Do you think that having the state or maybe even the City do an insurance program could kind of reduce the cost, or do you think we just need to make sure that there are better regulations on that front?

No, so I think you know me from Stuyvesant Town, right? When we undertook that sort of conflict in the beginning, it was about how did they get to this point where they were able to do this. Part of it was an interpretation inside of DHCR given years before on J51 and the applicability of the timeline of that tax break. That change was made at DHCR by somebody who is the son of two people who owned a bunch of Mitchell-Lamas. It is housing regulation in the 70s. Nobody pays attention. Nobody cares. They could do whatever they want. I think the scenario is analogous to the current Department of Insurance in the state of New York. Do you know anyone who works there? Do we know what they do? Do we know where they all end up afterwards? Right? They end up at some insurance company.

The data that we have assembled, which is the first of its kind, has never been seen before and that is great and I am glad that we did it. I think it is really important. But you have a state department of insurance that never bothered to look at it. They never bothered to pick out the facts. So we are going to go into what is a very broken organization that has failed us meaningfully and say, "Oh, now can you help us fix it?" That is fine. Maybe that is what is necessary. I would not hold my breath. In the end of the day, they have allowed this situation to occur and if we do not both illuminate what the issue is and then detail out a very comprehensive fix, you are going to be hearing a lot about this.

We are not crippled. I understand this is a state issue. We have a loud megaphone. I encourage you to take a look at the data I will provide to you and I do not think there is any other way around it. I am happy to talk about both the aggregation of that data, what it means and the impacts of it as it relates to affordable housing here in New York. It is killing us, right? If it was the mob doing it, they would be in front of the steps talking about how they have to push back on this, right?

We also aggregated, luckily — and again, you will see it in the PowerPoint — the information on the law firms bringing the lawsuits. I will give you an example: in the last 90 days, affordable housing was sued something like 560 times. 90 days. Go back and look at the calendar. There are a bunch of weekends. There are a bunch of holidays, right? And it is just a mill that is never going to stop. We are being had and they are robbing the wealth of the City and state of New York that is being put into these affordable housing buildings. It is crippling our opportunities to build more. It is crippling what exists now. And again, you can take a look at the number of people benefiting. It is incredibly small.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. I look forward to getting the data from you. Great.

All right. Any other questions for this panel? All right, you are dismissed. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify online or in person? I do not see anyone else.