NYS Sen. Gianaris on the Albany Agenda

[music]

Brian: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. We'll return for the next few minutes now to an issue we've been covering on the show that has now exploded into controversy since we last talked about it. The makeup of the New York State Court of Appeals and Governor Hochul's nominee to be the state's chief Judge, Hector LaSalle. No Chief Judge nominee has ever been defeated in the state senate confirmation process, this one might. With us now is one of the leading opponents of Hector LaSalle's nomination, Senate Deputy Majority Leader, State Senator for the 12th District from Queens, Michael Gianaris. Welcome back, Senator Gianaris, always good to have you.

Senator Gianaris: Good morning, Brian. Thanks for having me.

Brian: Hector LaSalle is not a name the public has heard before for the most part, he would be the first Latino chief judge, and he's supported by prominent Latino progressive Democrats like Melissa Mark-Viverito and Fernando Ferre. What's wrong with Hector LaSalle?

Senator Gianaris: First of all, let me just clarify. He's also opposed by numerous progressive Latino Democrats, including multiple members of the Senate who ultimately have the say on this. To answer your question, what is wrong is that the Court of Appeals has been off for the last several years. Janet DiFiore's tenure by pretty wide, understanding has been-- [crosstalk]

Brian: The outgoing chief judge.

Senator Gianaris: The outgoing chief has been deemed by many to be the worst Court of Appeals Administration in modern history. A number of us are anxious to see the court regain its stature and get back on track. For me, at least, Justice LaSalle seems like more of the same and a continuation, and the history and his decisions back that up. I don't think this is a close call. Justice LaSalle represents the status quo on this Court of Appeals. I for one, am anxious to see the court move in a better direction.

Brian: I want to ask you about a couple of decisions that seem to come up as the most controversial from the progressive side leading to this opposition. I'm going to invite you to explain them from your perspective, and then I'm going to give you pushback that supporters of LaSalle are offering. One has to do with a case involving a crisis pregnancy center. The other has to do with the case involving union rights. Can you describe what happened, what he did in the Crisis Pregnancy Center case that contributes to your opposition?

Senator Gianaris: My understanding is that he joined a decision that restricted the then Attorney General's ability to properly investigate that pro-life center, and restricted the ability to bring proper enforcement for it operating fraudulently. I believe the Attorney General's office has indicated that it essentially put a stop to their investigation because they weren't able to obtain the information that they were seeking.

In the other case, which is why you see such a vast array of important organized labor unions opposing this nomination, is that there was a union action where one of the union leaders commented on the employer. The employer was allowed to sue that person for defamation, which creates a tremendous chilling effect on labor actions in the workplace. You have seen a very significant opposition coming from the likes of the communication workers, 32 BJ, the AFLCIO has expressed concern about this nomination.

I do want to also clarify some of the framing of this. It is not just the progressive left that has concerns here, it is organized labor, the progressive left, moderate Democrats within the Senate who have concern about this nomination, and that is why the opposition is so broad based and has created the situation we're in today.

Brian: Governor Hochul knowing that you are coming on today, her office sent us a few press clips that are more supportive of Judge LaSalle. On the labor rights case you were just referring to, which is Cablevision versus the Communication Workers of America, this pushback comes from a New York Law Journal opinion article that says, "The union is framing it as anti-labor saying LaSalle empowered management to harass labor."

They question it. They say, "We must question that analysis. LaSalle was one of four justices who signed on to a memorandum opinion by the diverse Appellate Division Panel, one of whom dissented in part." It says, "That panel ruled completely in favor of the union and union representatives in their union capacity, but simply held that a defamation claim against union leaders who may have acted in their individual capacity should not be dismissed even before discovery begins."

I know that's a lot of legalese. I guess what they're saying in his defense is, A, it was a Court of Appeals' majority ruling, it wasn't just him. He was in good company on a Democratic appointed body. Also all the ruling was, was that somebody could be sued for defamation as an individual, even if the union couldn't in their professional capacity, or at least that case could continue at least through the discovery process where the facts come out. That doesn't sound to this New York Law Journal writer like he's some kind of anti-union buster.

Senator Gianaris: First of all, I'll take the word of the unions, to begin with, as opposed to someone who's writing an op-ed likely at someone's request who's supporting LaSalle. The point is, it was a lot of legalese. To peel that apart, which you have to realize is you're allowing someone to be sued, which then incurs all sorts of burdens of having lawyers, hiring lawyers, producing discovery, giving employers even more ammunition to harass organized labor.

It actually touches on a broader point, which is important, which is the balance of power in our society is way too often in favor of the wealthy, the big corporations, the employers. The last thing we need is a court that's tipping the scales even further in that direction. That's what that decision does. A lot of these decisions, they're obviously close calls or they wouldn't be getting into the appeals courts and the courts of appeals. They could tip either way. What we've seen from Justice LaSalle's record is that they too often tip in the direction of the already powerful.

I've heard this claim that he's just joined opinions of others, and that's where the subject of the critique is. Frankly, Brian, that's all we have to go on. In 10 years on the Appellate Court, Justice LaSalle has only written six opinions, two of which were reversed. The only the only record we have to go on is those where he is joining majority opinion and signing onto opinions of other judges. That's how we're going to make our judgment.

Now, the two cases you mentioned get the bulk of the attention, but there's been an analysis also trying to understand his philosophy in the absence of a broad written record. There's been an analysis looking at cases that Justice LaSalle was involved in that ultimately made its way to the Court of Appeals, where the court ended up divided, and looked at which side he was on in those cases. In seven out of eight cases where that scenario applied, he cited with the Conservative block, with DiFiore and Singas, Cannataro and Garcia, the exact group that has created problems at the court, and moved it in a direction that many people think is problematic.

For those of of us who want to see a change from the tenure of Janet DiFiore, Justice LaSalle does not seem like the best choice.

Brian: Your reaction could have been predicted, probably was predicted inside the Governor's office. As I mentioned, we've done two previous segments already on the makeup of the Court of Appeals, including one shortly before Christmas that was explicitly about the list of seven potential new chief judges for the state of New York who Governor Hochul was considering. There were some, including LaSalle, who the groups who you're referring to opposed, and some who they supported. This reaction was entirely predictable and known to the Governor as a consequence in advance. Why do you think Governor Hochul chose LaSalle knowing that this explosion would come?

Senator Gianaris: That's a question we're all asking, Brian. I don't know the answer to it. It wasn't just those groups, but there were 20 senators who wrote a letter, without identifying people we liked or didn't like specifically because we didn't want to color the Governor's- or restrict the Governor's ability to make her own decisions, but we made it very clear the type of jurist that we would look favorably upon. So the controversy that has arisen from this choice was entirely predictable. Now, here we are, we're not spoiling for a fight with the Governor, we're anxious to work with her. We have worked well with her on so many issues up to this point.

For those of us who feel so strongly that this court has been a problem at a time when because of the US Supreme Court, the state court systems are more important than ever, we can't in good conscious vote to confirm a nominee who we think would not improve the Court of Appeals here in New York.

Brian: Let me take a question for you from a listener, I think it's an interesting question from Luther in Washington Heights. Luther, you are on WNYC with the State Senate, Deputy Majority Leader, Michael Gianaris of Queens. Hi, Luther.

Luther: Hi. How are you? Thank you very much for taking my call. My question is this to the state senator, to what extent is your opposition to Judge LaSalle related to the four to three decision of the Court of Appeals which overturned the redistricting maps that you championed last year? Are these related, because they certainly appear to be particularly given the allegations that you and other state Democrats may have overreached in arriving at those maps?

Brian: Senator?

Senator Gianaris: The answer is not at all. That decision is already made. We are living with the maps drawn by the courts indirectly through the Special Master. By the way, the State Senate has returned with the supermajority regardless so I don't know what Justice LaSalle has to do with that.

Brian: No, the Democrats lost Congress largely because of the redistricting being thrown out by the court in New York.

Senator Gianaris: Look, I'm not happy about that decision. I think it was wrong. Justice LaSalle was not involved in that decision. [chuckles] I don't know what the connection would otherwise be. What-- [crosstalk]

Brian: That's the relevant answer. He was not involved in that decision.

Senator Gianaris: Correct.

Brian: Okay. There's also a question of due process here and some of his supporters are saying, "Wait, you and other members of the Senate are coming out against him before you've held confirmation hearings. Don't you want to hold confirmation hearings, grill him on his record, these cases we've been talking about and others, and hear his version and then come to your conclusion?"

Senator Gianaris: I'll say a couple things about that, Brian. First of all Senator Hoylman who chairs our Judiciary Committee has made it clear, of course, we're going to have confirmation hearings, that was always going to be the case. As to the timing of when people form opinions, we do our homework. I have read every case that Justice LaSalle has written. I met with Justice LaSalle and talked to him directly and asked questions and we had a good conversation. People, just as they do at the federal level, reach their opinions when they feel comfortable that they have drawn a conclusion.

When Amy Coney Barrett was nominated a number of senators, including the Democratic leader, refused to even meet with her. They had formed their conclusions and announced their opposition almost immediately upon her nomination, so it is not unusual for people who will ultimately stand in judgment to announce their opinion when they have reached it.

I have reached a conclusion as have over a dozen of my colleagues, and so it's better for that conversation and that dialogue to happen in public. Should we privately know what we're going to do and not tell anybody? Is that what the alternative is? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Should this nomination still be put forward, in the coming days and weeks, Senator Hoylman will chair a confirmation hearing and the dialogue will continue through that forum as well.

Brian: All right, in our last couple of minutes, let me tack on two unrelated questions because you're also, and people who follow politics in New York State already know this, and people who don't follow so closely should know it, a new session of the legislature is beginning for every potential issue for New York under the sun and I just want to ask you very briefly about two that I wonder if you're going to take up in any way.

One is the ongoing affordable housing crisis in New York, and particularly as it intersects with the issue of crime in New York. So many people say, "Look, whether Mayor Adams is doing the right things in the way he's removing homeless people from the streets and people who appear to have serious mental illness problems from the streets, what we really need is a lot more supportive housing."

Is [crosstalk] the legislature going to give us that this year?

Senator Gianaris: That's a priority of mine as well, Brian. I'm glad you brought up. The Governor has it, she's focused on affordable housing. I and my colleagues have been very focused on it. In fact, there's a program called HONDA, Housing Our Neighbors with Dignity, that I offered that has money in it to help convert unused hotel space to support housing exactly to create the stock you're talking about. We need to do a lot more of it than we have seeded that program with but I'm hopeful that is part of the budget process. In the next couple of months, we will do a lot more and focus on that. It is absolutely necessary and complete priority of mine.

The other thing I would mention, I don't know if you were going to ask about it or not, but let me put a plug in there is, myself and Assembly Member Mamdani, here in Astoria, also have been talking about really doing what's necessary to get the MTA on its feet financially, perpetually not just this band-aid approach where they're in a deficit, we give them a couple of bucks to keep them afloat but not solving the fundamental underlying problem. We're trying to also focus on that to create a robust functioning transit system that's not always begging for money or trying to raise fares every year.

Brian: Yes, my other question wasn't going to be specifically MTA-focused, but we certainly can get there through that because it was going to be potential fiscal crisis focused. I was watching Morning Joe today on MSNBC, progressive television station, and they were showing charts reflecting the people who earn a million dollars or more in New York State leaving, like the Republicans say they're leaving, at an alarming rate for other states and pointing out that the top 1% of earners in New York State pay 40% of the taxes. If those people leave, it's potentially devastating for all kinds of state services, certainly MTA included. Are you concerned about that and is it something you feel you need to address?

Senator Gianaris: Yes and yes. Obviously, we don't want people who form a big part of the tax base to leave the state. A lot of the data that has recently emerged on that front is looking at pandemic era movement, and obviously in 2020, New York was the middle of the national crisis around Covid-19 and so a lot of people I think left as a result of the shutdowns and the problems that we were forced to endure during that period.

So do we want them back or those who are here to stay? Absolutely 100%. Part of that is also we want the working class of New York to stay as well and that means providing the services that they need to be able to live in this very expensive city that we have. So it is a monumental task and I know we're anxious to roll up our sleeves and get to it.

Brian: How are you going to get some of those wealthiest people to not be tempted to move to Florida in particular?

Senator Gianaris: I think dialogue is important but we also have to realize that they need to be engaged and understand that the services that these tax monies go to are things that benefit them, their workplaces, their employees, and make it a better place that might want to have them as well as the people around them in the community stay. We need to make New York better. We need to make New York better for the people who live here, and that's not just the wealthy people that keep them from leaving, because what's going to happen if you bend over backwards to make sure they don't leave is everybody else is going to leave because they can't afford to live here anymore. They can't afford childcare, they can't afford to send their kids to school.

It's important that we continue on the path we started last year of creating a universal childcare in this state, making pre-k statewide, doing the things that will make New York more desirable and more affordable for everybody.

Brian: New York State Deputy Majority Leader, New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader, Michael Gianaris of Queens. We always appreciate when you're coming on. I'm glad you came on to talk about the Hector LaSalle nomination and to launch this very important new session of the legislature. Thank you very much.

Senator Gianaris: Thanks so much, Brian.

 

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.