New York Assembly Bill A10653

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/19/26
• Report Pass: 4/22/26
• Refer: 4/22/26
• Engrossed: 4/28/26
• Refer: 4/28/26

Caption

Requires the council on arts to make recommendations on the renaming of the agency buildings located at the empire state plaza

Summary

A10653 would direct the New York State Council on the Arts, working with the Commissioner of the Office of General Services, to recommend new names for Agency Building One, Agency Building Two, Agency Building Three, and Agency Building Four at the Empire State Plaza. The bill sets out two naming principles: the buildings may not be named for any person, living or deceased, and the names should instead be based on geographic features and/or historical events that represent New York State. After the council makes its recommendation, the Governor would be required to choose the final names within 60 days, and only after a robust public engagement effort. The bill would take effect 100 days after becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend Section 3.05 of the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law by adding a new subdivision governing the naming of four state office buildings at the Empire State Plaza. It does not create a new program or funding stream, but it does change the process for naming these state-owned buildings by assigning a formal advisory role to the Council on the Arts and a final decision role to the Governor. The practical effect is limited to the Empire State Plaza buildings, but it would establish a statutory framework for public-facing naming decisions involving state property.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong support for the bill. It passed the Assembly Tourism, Arts and Sports Development Committee unanimously, 18-0, and later passed the Assembly floor unanimously, 135-0. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as noncontroversial and largely ceremonial in nature. The bill also later passed the Senate, indicating broad bipartisan acceptance.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The only potentially notable policy choice is the bill’s prohibition on naming the buildings for any person, which may reflect a preference for place-based or historically grounded names rather than commemorative naming. Another point of interest is the requirement for “robust public engagement,” which suggests an emphasis on transparency and public input, but no specific disagreement or competing viewpoints are documented in the provided materials.