New York Assembly Bill A02399

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/16/25
• Refer: 1/16/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Makes a proclamation extending a local state of emergency issued by the chief executive subject to the approval of the local governing body of the applicable county, city, town or village; provides that all orders issued by a local board of health shall be effective for a period of five days; requires approval by the applicable local governing body for each extension thereof.

Summary

A02399 would change how certain local emergency powers are extended in New York. Under current law, a county, city, town, or village chief executive may declare a local state of emergency for up to 30 days and may issue additional 30-day extensions. This bill would require each extension of a local state of emergency to be approved by the applicable local governing body, such as a county legislature, board of supervisors, or city/town/village governing body. The bill also amends the Public Health Law to limit the duration of local board of health orders. Any order issued by a local board of health would expire after five days unless extended, and each five-day extension would likewise require approval from the relevant local governing body. The measure is effective immediately and would apply to local emergency and public health orders at the county and municipal level.

Impact

The bill would amend the Executive Law and Public Health Law to add a legislative check on local executive and health authority during emergencies. It would not eliminate the power to declare emergencies or issue health orders, but it would require ongoing approval from elected local governing bodies for continued extensions, thereby shifting some control from a single chief executive or board of health to the broader local legislature or governing board. This could affect counties, cities, towns, villages, and local boards of health across the state.

Sentiment

Based on the bill’s framing, the measure appears to reflect concern about concentrated emergency authority and a preference for greater local oversight and accountability. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the provided materials. The bill text itself suggests an intent to limit prolonged emergency powers rather than to restrict initial emergency responses.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the balance between rapid emergency response and democratic oversight. Supporters would likely favor requiring approval for extensions as a safeguard against prolonged unilateral emergency action, while opponents may argue that the added approval step could slow responses, create political bottlenecks, or interfere with public health and safety decisions. The most affected parties would be local chief executives, local boards of health, and county or municipal governing bodies responsible for approving extensions.