New York Senate Bill S07525

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/21/25
• Refer: 4/21/25
• Engrossed: 5/27/25
• Refer: 5/27/25
• Engrossed: 6/5/25
• Refer: 6/5/25
• Engrossed: 6/13/25
• Enrolled: 8/4/25
• Chaptered: 8/7/25
• Passed: 8/7/25

Caption

Extends the authorization to impose a county recording tax on obligations secured by a mortgage on real property in Albany County.

Summary

This bill extends Albany County’s existing authorization to impose a county recording tax on obligations secured by a mortgage on real property. The measure does not create a new tax; rather, it continues the county’s authority under a 2005 law, as previously amended, by moving the sunset date from December 1, 2025 to December 1, 2027. In practical terms, the bill preserves a local revenue source tied to mortgage recordings in Albany County. Because the underlying authority would otherwise expire, the bill prevents a lapse in the county’s ability to collect this recording tax on covered mortgage transactions during the extended period.

Impact

The bill amends chapter 405 of the laws of 2005, as amended, solely to extend the expiration date of Albany County’s authorization to levy a county recording tax on mortgages. It affects local tax administration and mortgage recording transactions in Albany County, while leaving the structure and scope of the tax unchanged. The bill takes effect immediately upon enactment.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It passed the Senate committee unanimously and later cleared both chambers by substantial margins, indicating general agreement that extending the county’s existing tax authority was routine and noncontroversial. No committee transcript is available, but the recorded votes show little organized opposition overall.

Contention

The main point of contention, to the extent any exists, is the continued extension of a local mortgage recording tax rather than a policy change to the tax itself. Opposition appears limited, as reflected by the relatively small number of negative votes in floor action. Any concerns would likely center on the burden of local transaction taxes on borrowers and real estate activity, while supporters appear focused on preserving Albany County revenue.