By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

NYS is on the verge of passing unprecedented legislation, that would give state officials the power to supersede federal vaccine guidance from the Advisory Committee On Immunization Practices (ACIP).  The ACIP is a panel comprised of health and vaccine experts that recommend and shape the nationwide vaccine schedule.  States historically follow the ACIP science based guidance because it ensures consistency, safety and access.  If NYS embraces radical overreach by usurping this power under the guise of "protecting New Yorkers," the ramifications will have far reaching effects that the proposed legislation does not provide for in any meaningful way.

Federal funding for programs such as Medicaid and the Vaccines For Children Program depends on ACIP recommendations.  If NYS passes legislation that disregards ACIP recommendations and replaces them with its own, a dangerous consequence may well be the loss of such federal funding to the state.  Federal funding in NYS covers the cost of vaccinations for almost half of its children.  Without federal funding, this huge unbudgeted expense would fall completely on the state and its taxpaying citizens.

Another consequence that is not sufficiently protected against in the proposed legislation, is the likely loss of vaccine provider liability protection provided by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).  If NYS detaches itself from the ACIP, lawmakers are potentially opening the door to increased legal exposure for providers.  Doctors and Pharmacists who administer vaccines would be subjected to increased lawsuits and higher malpractice insurance premiums.   As a result, such providers would likely hesitate to even offer vaccinations.  Notwithstanding, this legislation would imprudently increase that risk without a robust safety net provision.

In addition, all of this will provide fertile ground for mixed messaging and confusion.  NYS would effectively be telling its people and the nation, that it will no longer follow federal vaccine guidance and that NYS will instead just make up its own rules when it disagrees with Washington.  Coverage and liability will differ from other states, creating a recipe for confusion and loss of public trust.

New York's proposed legislation isn't a visionary leap forward, but rather a reckless reshaping of vaccine policy that abandons national standards, risks federal funding, threatens legal protections for clinicians and invites chaos into a system that should be grounded in science and not politics.  By ignoring these consequences, NYS lawmakers risk trading real public health safeguards for political posturing with New Yorkers footing the bill. 

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

​St. John's University has denied students the opportunity to form a chapter of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) on its Queens campus for the third time since 2018.  What may have initially appeared to be a routine administrative decision has now, after repeated rejections, generated questions about hypocrisy, consistency and identity at the Catholic institution.

St. John’s defines itself as a Catholic and Vincentian university grounded in faith, human dignity and open intellectual inquiry.  It promotes inclusion and dialogue as core values of its campus culture.  In fact, the university formally recognizes and supports a wide range of student organizations, including Muslim student associations and Arab cultural groups.  These organizations are free to host events, reserve campus space and participate fully in student life. Their presence is often highlighted as evidence of the university’s commitment to diversity.

Notwithstanding, the Christian Right aligned conservative organization TPUSA has now been denied recognition three separate times at the Catholic university.  That pattern raises reasonable concerns about whether standards are being applied evenly.  If there are neutral and policy based reasons for the denials, the university owes its students a clear and transparent explanation.  In the absence of such clarity, the repeated rejection of TPUSA appears less like a procedural matter and more like bias ideological gatekeeping.  When a Catholic institution appears more comfortable recognizing non-Christian faith based groups than a Christian Right aligned organization, it creates animosity, derision and confusion about what its religious identity truly means in practice.

Inclusion cannot mean welcoming every perspective except one that in some circles may be politically unpopular.  If St. John’s believes in dialogue and intellectual diversity, it should trust students to engage with differing viewpoints rather than prevent them from organizing.  After three denials, students are left wondering whether or not inclusion at a Catholic university applies to all faith based perspectives, or only to some.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

​In a landmark medical malpractice case, a New York jury awarded a $2 million verdict in favor of a detransitioner, marking the first successful medical malpractice claim against physicians for providing “gender-affirming” care.  The jury found that a psychologist and a surgeon were liable for urging and performing a double mastectomy on a 16-year-old girl.

The verdict concluded that the doctors departed from accepted medical standards of care in multiple respects.  Specifically, the jury found that they failed to complete necessary steps in the assessment process, did not adequately evaluate underlying mental health conditions and engaged in negligent communication between the psychologist and the surgeon prior to the surgery.

This case adds significant legal scrutiny to the practice of performing irreversible and body-altering procedures on minors and reinforces the argument that children cannot meaningfully provide informed consent for such interventions.  Many observers believe this verdict may open the floodgates to further litigation in the “gender-affirming” care arena, particularly as it relates to medical treatment of minor children.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The two groups of drivers that present the highest risk on the road and consequently have the highest insurance premiums are the young and the elderly.  Young drivers presumably will develop improved driving skills with age and more experience, but unfortunately the same isn't necessarily true for seniors.  As seniors age, it is common for reflexes and reaction time to slow resulting in a higher accident rate and unsafe driving in general.  Despite such deterioration of driving skills, it is often difficult to convince a senior that it is time to stop driving.  The reason for such reluctance in forfeiting driving privileges, is that seniors understandably equate their independence with their ability to drive.  

Fortunately, a promising solution is emerging through the rapid development of autonomous vehicle technology.  A number of vehicles now offer a feature known as Full Self Driving (FSD), and Tesla is widely considered the leader in this space. Using advanced sensors and machine-learning technology, Tesla has created a sophisticated and continually improving version of FSD.  While the technology has yet to be perfected and still requires driver attentiveness as a safeguard, one driving experience in a Tesla with FSD will convince even a skeptic that they are getting very close to mastering the technology.  In addition, Tesla has begun rolling out its first Robo-Taxis, making significant progress toward fully autonomous transportation.

Although widespread use of autonomous vehicles is not expected to exist before 2040, when it arrives it will allow seniors to be transported in a safe and efficient manner while maintaining their independence indefinitely.  In the interim, a current day Tesla with FSD could at the very least extend the driving age of seniors along with their independence, helping them live their best life. 

Wishing all of you this Holiday Season seamless and safe travels, so that you all may live your best life. 

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​
In New Jersey, the landscape of homeschooling is facing a tumultuous shift with the introduction of two proposed bills that many parents view as an alarming overreach into their rights to educate their children. These bills aim to impose annual safety and wellness inspections on homeschool families and mandate specific curriculum elements concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as well as discussions of gender identity.  This legislative effort raises significant constitutional concerns that threaten the long established principles of parental rights and the autonomy of homeschooling. 

The notion behind the proposed safety and wellness inspections seems rooted in a desire to ensure children’s well-being.  However, the efficacy and necessity of such measures for homeschooling families warrant scrutiny.  Homeschooling offers a unique educational approach, one that allows parents to tailor learning experiences to their children's individual needs and values.  These inspections could intrusively interfere with the privacy and educational decisions that families make, fundamentally questioning the trust that underlies the parent-child relationship in a homeschooling context. 

Moreover, the call for mandatory curriculum components related to DEI and gender discussions is particularly contentious.  While addressing these topics can be valuable in a diverse classroom setting, it places an undue burden on homeschool families who may choose to opt-out of these issues for a variety of reasons, including personal beliefs and values.  Parents choose to homeschool in part to provide an education that is reflective of their family's principles, hopes, and aspirations for their children.  Forcing a curriculum upon them that they explicitly wish to avoid contradicts the very reasons many families choose to educate at home. 

The crux of the issue rests on parental rights, which are constitutionally protected.  The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.  By encroaching on this right, New Jersey's proposed legislation would not only violate constitutional principles, but it would also set a dangerous precedent for further legislative actions that could undermine parental authority across the state and potentially the country. 

Advocates for homeschooling emphasize the importance of choice in education. Homeschooling allows parents to develop educational plans that align with their children’s learning styles and family values, creating an enriching environment that is often unmatched by traditional schooling.  The proposed bills ignore the unique circumstances and capabilities of homeschooling families by forcing them to conform to a one-size-fits-all educational model that stifles creativity and autonomy. 

In today's educational climate, where parents are increasingly seeking options that align with their philosophies and beliefs, imposing such regulations is seen as overly restrictive and unnecessary.  It's crucial for lawmakers to recognize the contributions of homeschooling to the educational landscape and to respect the rights of families to make choices that best serve their children's needs. 

As parents across New Jersey rally against these proposed homeschool requirements, it is imperative to continue advocating for the preservation of parental rights.  Seeking an educational environment that reflects family values should not be seen as a radical choice, but a fundamental right of every family. The actions of the state should facilitate, not hinder, the profound responsibility that comes with raising and educating children.  For the well-being of families and their rights, New Jersey must reconsider the ramifications of these proposed bills.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

A federal jury in Miami has awarded 242 million dollars in a 2019 Tesla Model S auto pilot related crash in the Florida Keys near Key Largo.  The accident occurred when driver George McGee was said to have been driving 62 mph in a 45 mph speed zone and took his hands off the wheel and eyes off the road to look for his dropped cell phone.  McGee is further said to have ignored and passed a stop sign and flashing red light at a T- intersection, when he struck a parked vehicle and the two pedestrians beside it.  As a result, one person died and the other was said to have sustained catastrophic injuries.

Plaintiffs' attorney argued that Tesla was liable because it misled consumers by promoting Autopilot as if it could perform autonomously and failed to prevent distracted drivers from relying on the system.  Tesla's attorneys argued that the company had explicit warnings that drivers must keep both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road at all times, in that their (2019) technology was in fact not autonomous, but rather was a driver assistance program.  Further, that the liability rested entirely with McGee, who ignored all these warnings in addition to driving in a reckless and careless manner.

The jury found McGee to be 67% at fault and Tesla to be 33% at fault.  In that McGee wasn't even named as a defendant in the case, Tesla was held responsible to pay 200 million in punitive damages and 42.6 million in compensatory damages.  It appears that a truly objective application of the law would determine that it was 100% McGee's negligence that was the direct and proximate cause of the accident.  Needless to say, Tesla is contesting the decision and is confident they will win on appeal.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The cold blooded murderer who snuck up on a marked police car and pumped 5 bullets into a rookie police officer's head, is up for parole this month.  If released, this murderer will reportedly be the 44th cop killer released in New York State in only the last 8 years.

There once was a time in society, when civility all but dictated that anyone who killed a police officer would never be released from prison.  Sadly, today the opposite appears to be true in New York State.  A radical shift in criminal justice policies, spearheaded by a parole board handpicked by disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo and supported by current Governor Hochul, has led to the release of some of the state's most dangerous criminals.  Now,  Cuomo has the audacity to run for NYC Mayor on a platform that promises to hire more police officers.  The blatant contradiction is hard to ignore.

The rapid decline and deterioration of New York State is now on full display for all to see.  Lifelong New Yorkers are moving out of state in rapidly increasing numbers and for very good reason.  When officers are killed execution style and murderers are set free, the people of New York understandably no longer feel safe.  The unthinkable has become true in New York, which many believe is now a Big Apple that is rotten to the core. 

​To voice your opposition to the release of David McClary, who is up for parole this month for the murder of rookie officer Eddie Byrne, call the NYS Parole Board at 315-428-4093.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Governor Gavin Newsom has implemented a speed camera program in California, even though many residents believe it is in large part a cash grab scheme.  The controversial cameras are present in 19 states and prohibited in 9 states.  Proponents argue these camera programs are a speeding deterrent, however in San Francisco there is a new "equitable" element incorporated into the program that is antithetical to the very purpose of the law.

Speed camera program offenders in San Francisco will pay fines proportionate to their income.  Low income violators will receive up to a 50% percent discount in fines and homeless violators will receive up to an 80% discount.  The purpose of the law is to deter speeding and thereby decrease accidents and injuries.  By offering income based fine discounts, it effectively encourages speeding among certain people instead of discouraging speeding.  Not only is the income of the offender completely irrelevant to the violation itself, it is ostensibly inequitable and will likely result in an increase in accidents and injuries.  This is especially true in that statistics indicate that up to 80% of those incarcerated are from low income backgrounds.

In addition, such an inequitable program may well open up a criminal Pandora's Box that could lead us down a very dangerous slippery slope.  If reducing punishment for speeding is acceptable today, what will be acceptable tomorrow?  Perhaps such a future will include income based sentence reductions for those who steal, assault or even murder.  Will low income murderers, instead of being sentenced from 20 years to life, receive a sentence of 10 years or less with good behavior?  If you think that isn't possible, remember how for the last 4 years countless criminals were allowed to illegally enter our country despite our immigration laws prohibiting such entries.  Several years ago dumping water over the heads of our police became acceptable and that escalated to burning down a police station.

Laws are necessary to keep order and civility in society.  If these laws are ignored, unenforced or have punishments that are arbitrarily reduced by Governors with higher political aspirations, our society will degrade at an alarming rate.  Hopefully, this is something that both political parties can agree upon.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

A security consulting firm that helped evacuate people left behind in Afghanistan by the Biden Administration, brought suit against CNN for defamation aired on "The Lead With Jake Tapper" show.  Although the consulting firm was legitimately contracted by non-governmental organizations and corporations, CNN portrayed the firm with "black market" and "exorbitant fees" captions.  The suit asserted that CNN falsely depicted the consulting firm's Navy Veteran President as illegally profiting from his work, thereby causing untold damage to both business and reputation.  CNN denied any wrongdoing compelling litigation.

After a two week long jury trial, CNN was found liable and the jury awarded 5 Million Dollars.  As the case then proceeded with the punitive portion to determine any additional compensation to effectively punish CNN for egregious behavior, CNN quickly settled the case.

In today's cancel culture society where disregarding defamation laws has become commonplace, this modern day David versus Goliath case represents hope.  The hope is that we may return to civility and journalistic objectivity and integrity.  Perhaps our country will now be back on the road to having a society where we strive to lift people up, instead of tearing them down.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
www.liatorney.com

By Long island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

After 14 long years, the flawed Red Light Camera Program has officially ended in Suffolk County.  However, it still exists in Nassau County, NYC and just about everywhere else in New York State.  In fact as Suffolk County was coming to terms with the error of their ways in implementing the program, New York State Governor Hochul proudly announced that she was expanding the flawed program across the state.

Suffolk County decided to end the program after a court ruled that the extensive administrative fees being added to the fines were illegal.  The program in Suffolk County raised almost 300 Million Dollars over 14 years, leading many to complain that the program was nothing more than a "cash grab."  Even more complained that the program decreased safety on the roads instead of increasing safety as claimed, as the amount of accidents actually increased.  Reportedly, accidents increased at red light camera locations by almost 9% with an alarming amount of rear end accidents.

If accidents increased and people are not safer under the Red Light Program,  then why hasn't the rest of New York State discontinued this flawed program?  In part it is because, despite evidence to the contrary, Governor Hochul still makes the incredulous claim that the program makes people safer and she wants that to be part of her legacy.  Perhaps the other inescapable conclusion is money and greed, which has become pervasive in our politics. 

At least Suffolk County falls under the "better late than never" category on this issue, but unfortunately the Governor seems hell bent on "never."  It would appear that once again the legal residents of New York State are being punished and held to pay for budgetary incompetence, with an expected budget gap exceeding 14 Billion tax dollars by 2028.  Just one more reason why lifelong residents of New York State are moving out in record numbers.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com