Budget deadline: T-10 days — April 1 FY2027, three-way negotiation enters final sprint AG James leads 22-state coalition suing Trump's Section 122 tariffs — $13.5B NY cost COA: People v. Jones — 4-3, gun conviction reversed for unjustified DOCCS pursuit AVOID Act: CPLR § 1007 rewritten — 90-day third-party deadline, effective Apr 18 Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act in force — Gen. Bus. Law § 349-a, $1K/violation Rikers: Remediation Manager Deml operational — sweeping reform powers, no receivership COA: People v. Henderson — new trial, prior drug conviction improperly admitted Assembly passes A8871 — corrections reform, independent in-custody death review Budget deadline: T-10 days — April 1 FY2027, three-way negotiation enters final sprint AG James leads 22-state coalition suing Trump's Section 122 tariffs — $13.5B NY cost COA: People v. Jones — 4-3, gun conviction reversed for unjustified DOCCS pursuit AVOID Act: CPLR § 1007 rewritten — 90-day third-party deadline, effective Apr 18 Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act in force — Gen. Bus. Law § 349-a, $1K/violation Rikers: Remediation Manager Deml operational — sweeping reform powers, no receivership COA: People v. Henderson — new trial, prior drug conviction improperly admitted Assembly passes A8871 — corrections reform, independent in-custody death review

New York State Fiscal Year 2027 — April 1 Deadline

T — 0 Days

Albany's Final
Countdown

Three proposals. One deadline. The Governor, Senate, and Assembly have ten days to resolve a ~$260 billion budget or New York state government enters crisis. Taxes on the wealthy, housing, criminal justice, and climate policy are on the table.

Governor Hochul No new PIT
Senate Proposal +0.5% on $5M+
Assembly Proposal +0.2% on $5M+
Total Budget ~$260B

Week of March 22, 2026 · Sunday Edition

New York Focus — Budget tracker
New York Attorney General — Federal Challenge
0 State coalition

AG James Sues Trump's
Section 122 Tariffs

Filed March 5, 2026

After the Supreme Court struck down Trump's IEEPA tariffs in February 2026, the administration pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a provision designed for "balance of payments deficits" under the gold standard, which the U.S. abandoned decades ago. AG James argues no president has ever attempted to use Section 122 this way, and the constitutional authority simply does not exist.

New York alone has paid an estimated $13.5 billion in tariff costs. The coalition seeks a court order declaring the tariffs unlawful and ordering refunds to states.

$13.5B

Estimated tariff costs paid by New York State

22

States in the bipartisan coalition led by NY AG James

§ 122

Trade Act of 1974 provision cited — never before used for broad tariff authority

New York (lead) California Illinois Colorado Connecticut Delaware Maine Minnesota Nevada New Mexico Oregon Vermont Arizona + 9 more
ag.ny.gov — Press release
Albany — FY 2027 Budget (Follow-up: Week 2)
0 Days to April 1 — New York Fiscal Year 2027 Begins

Every Battleground, Mapped

Negotiations have moved to closed-door sessions between Governor Hochul, Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, and Assembly Speaker Heastie. Last week: one-house proposals released. This week: the real horse-trading begins. Below, every major legal-policy fault line.

Issue Governor Senate Assembly Status
Personal income tax No new tax +0.5% surcharge, $5M+ +0.2% on $5M+; higher brackets Disputed
Corporate tax rate Extend 7.25% temp. through 2029 Raise to 9% on $5M+ earnings +2% for $10M+ income corps Disputed
Housing acceleration Streamline SEQRA, "Let Them Build" Joins Hochul on acceleration No similar proposal Gap
Criminal justice / prison Limited reform funding $3M for Correctional Association Chief Medical Examiner for prisons Gap
Auto insurance premiums Reduce premium growth Opposes rate cuts Opposes rate cuts Disputed
Climate / clean energy Modest targets Stronger emissions mandates Aligned with Senate Disputed
ICE cooperation — police Not addressed Prohibition on NYPD-ICE cooperation Similar prohibition Gap w/ Gov

If no deal is reached by April 1, the Governor may seek a budget extender — a short-term appropriation to keep state government funded while negotiations continue. Extenders have become routine in New York but legally require separate legislative authorization under Article VII of the State Constitution.

New York Focus — Full guide
New York Court of Appeals — March 17, 2026

Wrong Person.
Unjustified Pursuit.
Suppressed Gun.

People v. Joseph C. Jones, decided 4-3, a case that began with a case of mistaken identity and ended at New York's highest court.

4–3 REVERSED Court of Appeals
Decision
Majority — Judge Halligan

DOCCS parole investigators pursued Jones believing him to be the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant. Jones wore a black ski mask that prevented identification of his face or race. When officers pulled alongside him, he fled — and discarded a handgun. Upon apprehension, they discovered he was not the person named in the warrant. The Court held: "We conclude that the gun, along with the other recovered evidence, should have been suppressed because there is no record support for the lower courts' finding that the investigators' pursuit of the defendant was justified." Evidence from an unjustified pursuit must be suppressed under New York's exclusionary rule.

Dissent (3 judges)

The dissent argued that investigators had an objectively reasonable basis to believe Jones matched the description of the wanted absconder at the moment they began the pursuit, and that the subsequent flight itself provided additional justification under People v. De Bour.

People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (1976) CPL § 140.50 NY Excl. Rule

Practitioner note: This decision reinforces that New York's independent state constitutional grounds for suppression can produce broader exclusionary outcomes than federal Fourth Amendment doctrine. Defense counsel should evaluate the basis for pursuit at the outset of any case involving flight-and-discard scenarios.

NY Daily Record — Full coverage
New York Court of Appeals — March 20, 2026

Prior Conviction ≠
Propensity to Sell

People v. Lashawn Miller Henderson — New Trial Ordered

"

Judge Shirley Troutman
writing for the Court

Evidence of prior misconduct cannot be admitted if it is not logically connected to some specific material issue in the case and serves only to demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged.

Henderson was convicted on three counts of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and four counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia, following a 2019 Rochester search that yielded cocaine, scales, and packaging. At trial, the prosecution introduced his 2017 drug conviction — found in a vehicle — to show intent and knowing possession.

The Court of Appeals reversed: the 2017 vehicle possession was not "logically connected" to the 2019 home search. Admitting the prior conviction served only to suggest Henderson was the kind of person who commits drug crimes — textbook propensity evidence, barred under CPL § 60.40 and longstanding common-law principles.

Why it matters: New York courts routinely face Molineux applications (prior-act evidence). This decision tightens the "logical connection" requirement and signals the Court's skepticism of prior-conviction evidence offered primarily to infer guilt by character.

CPL § 60.40 People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264 (1901) Penal Law § 220.16
NY Daily Record — Full coverage
Civil Procedure — Effective April 18, 2026

CPLR § 1007
Rewritten.

The AVOID Act — Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay — fundamentally reshapes third-party practice in New York civil litigation. Signed December 19, 2025; effective for cases commenced on or after April 18, 2026. Every litigator in New York needs to know this rule before it takes effect.

Old CPLR § 1007

A defendant could implead a third party at any time before trial, with leave of court if after answer.

No hard deadline. No automatic sanction for late filing.

Third-party actions routinely filed months or years into litigation, after discovery opened.

No prohibition on re-consolidation of severed actions.

New CPLR § 1007 (AVOID Act)

Defendants must commence third-party actions within 90 days after serving an answer — no court approval needed within that window.

Hard cutoff: No third-party action after note of issue is filed, absent good cause or interest of justice.

Sanction: Late third-party actions must be severed or dismissed. Motions to re-consolidate severed actions are expressly prohibited.

Exception: Employer/grave-injury claims may be filed within 90 days of discovering employer identity or grave injury.

Key Dates

Dec 19, 2025

Signed by Gov. Hochul

Apr 18, 2026

Effective — applies to new cases

+90
Day 1 + 90

Third-party deadline from answer

NOI
Note of Issue

Hard cutoff — no exceptions absent good cause

Strategic impact: Defendants must now front-load risk-transfer analysis — identifying potential third parties, reviewing contracts, and filing third-party summons and complaints before discovery even begins. Early case assessment is no longer optional; it is required by statute.

Holland & Knight — Analysis
Consumer Protection — In Effect March 18, 2026

New York's Algorithmic
Pricing Law Is Now Live

New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (Gen. Bus. Law § 349-a) requires businesses that use personal data to set individualized prices to display a conspicuous disclosure at point of sale. AG James has enforcement authority. Violations: up to $1,000 per violation after a cease-and-desist period to cure.

🎯

Who it covers

Any entity domiciled in or doing business in New York that uses an algorithm with personal data to set prices. Broad scope — retail, travel, hospitality, e-commerce, financial services.

⚖️

Who it exempts

HIPAA-regulated entities, licensed insurers, and certain subscription pricing practices. Financial institutions subject to federal oversight may also qualify for carveouts.

🔍

Enforcement process

AG issues cease-and-desist first. If non-compliant: injunctive relief and $1,000 per violation. California AG has already launched parallel investigative sweeps, signaling a national enforcement wave.

JDSupra — Enforcement overview
Nunez v. City of New York — S.D.N.Y.

Rikers Gets a
Remediation Manager

Operational since February 23, 2026

7K People detained at Rikers Island Feb 23 Deml onboarded

Federal Judge Laura Taylor Swain appointed Nicholas Deml as Remediation Manager of New York City's Rikers Island jail complex in January 2026 — the most significant federal intervention in the facility's history short of full receivership.

Deml, 38, brings an unusual profile: former CIA clandestine officer, aide to U.S. Senator Durbin, attorney, and most recently Commissioner of Vermont's Department of Corrections. He accepted the position February 17, onboarded February 23.

The Remediation Manager holds sweeping executive powers — stopping short of full federal receivership — to address violence, staff absenteeism, medical neglect, and cultural dysfunction. He reports directly to Judge Swain.

  • Reform DOC policies, staffing practices, and vendor contracts
  • Modify union agreements with correction officers
  • Address systemic violence and medical neglect
  • Direct operational decision-making alongside the DOC Commissioner
  • Report directly to the federal court — bypassing City Hall on Rikers matters
Epicenter NYC — Profile
New York State Assembly — Passed

A8871: Corrections Reform
After Robert Brooks

In response to the in-custody deaths of Robert Brooks and Messiah Nantwi, the Assembly passed A8871 — a sweeping corrections reform bill that expands oversight, mandates transparency, and extends the window for civil accountability. The Senate and Governor have yet to act.

A8871 New York State Corrections Reform Act — Assembly passed Assembly Passed
📷

Expands security camera coverage in all state correctional facilities — every cell block, corridor, and intake area

🎥

Requires disclosure of video footage of any officer-involved death within 72 hours — mandatory, not discretionary

📢

Mandates notification of family members within 24 hours of any in-custody death

🔬

Creates Office of Chief Medical Examiner within the Commission of Correction — independent autopsies by certified forensic pathologists

🔍

Grants Correctional Association of New York expanded inspection authority — unannounced visits, access to records

⚖️

Extends statute of limitations for survivors of in-custody violence to seek civil damages — currently critics say it expires too quickly

🏛️

Awaiting Senate and Governor action — over 50 advocacy organizations are lobbying for inclusion in the FY2027 budget

The City NYC — Prison deaths investigation
Third Department Follow-up — What Happens Next

After the Section 8 Ruling:
AG James's Options

Last week, the Appellate Division, Third Department held that Executive Law § 296(5)(a)(3) — barring landlords from refusing Section 8 voucher holders — is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling is the first of its kind from any appellate court in the country and immediately triggered questions about what comes next for New York's 400,000+ voucher recipients.

What the Ruling Said

Section 8 participation requires landlords to consent to inspections — of units and records — by Public Housing Authorities and HUD. The Third Department found these inspection requirements lack Fourth Amendment safeguards regarding timing, scope, and duration. Mandatory anti-discrimination law cannot constitutionally force participation in a program with those inspection terms.

Jason Fane's Ithaca Renting Company (Commons West) — originally sued by AG in 2022

AG James's Stated Position

"Every New Yorker deserves access to safe and dignified housing regardless of their income or background. Housing vouchers help thousands of New Yorkers stay in their homes, make ends meet, and raise their families." The AG's office announced it is "reviewing all options" to prevent housing discrimination.

01 Appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (highest court) — ask the COA to reverse the Third Department's constitutional holding, or certify the federal constitutional question
02 Seek legislative fix — Governor and Legislature could amend the Section 8 inspection protocol to provide adequate Fourth Amendment safeguards, potentially rescuing the statute
03 Enforce through other state law provisions — NYC and other municipalities have local source-of-income protections that may survive independent of the struck-down state statute

The ruling's impact extends beyond New York: it is the first appellate court anywhere in the country to invalidate a source-of-income anti-discrimination statute on Fourth Amendment grounds, with implications for similar laws in 19 states and 130+ municipalities. — New York Law Journal

New York Law Journal — Full analysis
SDNY Follow-up — Dept. of Transportation v. MTA

Congestion Pricing:
Appeal Looming

Judge Lewis Liman's 149-page SDNY ruling on March 3 called the Trump administration's rescission of congestion pricing approval "arbitrary and capricious" — upholding New York's $9 peak toll and the program's first-year results. The Department of Transportation said it "disagrees with the ruling" and is reviewing "all legal options, including an appeal, in coordination with the Justice Department." Here's where the litigation stands.

Litigation Timeline — SDNY / Second Circuit
MTA / NY State files suit challenging DOT rescission Apr 2025 Filed
SDNY: Judge Liman rules rescission "arbitrary and capricious" — 149-page opinion Mar 3, 2026 NY Wins
DOT / DOJ reviewing appeal options to Second Circuit Pending Reviewing
Second Circuit appeal (if filed) — panel assignment, briefing schedule TBD Unknown
Program continues operating — $9 peak toll, $550M raised in Year 1 Ongoing Active

Judge Liman did not enjoin the program pending any appeal, meaning congestion pricing continues to operate at the $9 toll rate while the government decides its next move. The Second Circuit would likely move quickly given the public-interest significance of the issue.

The Hill — Ruling coverage
New York Legislature — 2026 Session

NYHIPA Returns:
Health Privacy Bill, Revised

Reintroduced — 2026 Legislative Session

After Governor Hochul vetoed the original New York Health Information Privacy Act (NYHIPA) in December 2025 citing business concerns, lawmakers have returned with a revised version — narrowing some provisions while keeping the law's core framework intact. If enacted, it would be among the most expansive state health privacy laws in the country.

Passed 2025 Legislature
Vetoed Dec 2025
Reintroduced Jan 2026
?
Floor Vote TBD
?
Governor TBD

What Changed in the 2026 Revision

Expanded exemptions for certain regulated entities to address industry objections from the 2025 bill
Removed revenue-based penalty tiers that critics argued were disproportionate for small businesses
Retained authorization-first model — consumers must affirmatively consent before regulated health data is processed outside HIPAA
Covers consumer health information not protected by HIPAA — reproductive health data, mental health visits, location data that reveals healthcare patterns

The bill's fate may depend on whether it can clear the session before the Legislature's post-budget extender period. Health privacy advocates argue the December 2025 veto left millions of New Yorkers without protections against tech-company monetization of sensitive health data.

JDSupra — NYHIPA analysis
Looking Forward

The Week Ahead

The final ten-day sprint to April 1 defines New York law this week. Every major legal institution is in motion — courts, legislature, regulators, and federal judges all have pending matters.

Apr 1 Deadline

FY 2027 state budget deadline — $260B. If missed, Governor Hochul can seek a budget extender under Article VII. Negotiations in closed session this week between Hochul, Stewart-Cousins, and Heastie.

Mar 24–28 Court

Court of Appeals — final decisions of the March 2026 session expected. Granath v. Monroe County (No. 17) and additional criminal appeals (People v. Sabb, People v. Curry) issued or pending publication.

Mar 25–27 Legislature

Albany floor sessions — Senate and Assembly may take up additional legislation before entering budget lockdown. GenAI Warning Bill (A.3411/S.934) still awaiting Governor Hochul's signature or veto.

Pending Federal

DOT / DOJ must decide whether to appeal SDNY's congestion pricing ruling to the Second Circuit. A notice of appeal typically must be filed within 60 days of judgment.

Apr 18 CPLR

AVOID Act effective — CPLR § 1007 third-party deadline of 90 days applies to all cases commenced on or after this date. Defense counsel and risk managers should audit pending and incoming dockets now.

Ongoing Rikers

Remediation Manager Deml in his first month of operations — first 21-day confidential report to Judge Swain due. DOC Commissioner and federal manager must navigate shared oversight structure.

TBD AG James

AG's office deciding whether to appeal Third Department's Section 8 ruling to the Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal will signal whether the state intends to challenge the constitutional holding at NY's highest court.

Mar 22 Now

Tariff coalition lawsuit filed; court will likely grant expedited review given economic significance. AG James also targeting IEEPA replacement strategy while Section 122 challenge proceeds.

What is Legally Brief?