A09496Introduced in the Assembly
Relates to what qualifies as an applicable, timely and relevant issue for no fault separation.
Introduced by Charles Lavine, District 13
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Relates to what qualifies as an applicable, timely and relevant issue for no fault separation.
Where it stands
substituted by s8798
January 28, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
AssemblyStage: Assembly Rules Committee: Favorable · January 28, 2026
29
Yes
0
No
2
Absent or Not Voting
31 assemblymembers recorded in this Assembly vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each assemblymember voted
| Assemblymember | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Doug Smith | 5 | Yes |
| Charles Lavine | 13 | Yes |
| Edward Ra | 19 | Yes |
| Nily Rozic | 25 | Yes |
| Edward Braunstein | 26 | Yes |
| Andrew Hevesi | 28 | Yes |
| Alicia Hyndman | 29 | Yes |
| Vivian Cook | 32 | Absent |
| Clyde Vanel | 33 | Yes |
| Catalina Cruz | 39 | Yes |
Bill history
referred to judiciary
reported referred to rules
reported
rules report cal.66
ordered to third reading rules cal.66
substituted by s8798
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.