A little over 72 hours away from the state budget deadline, lawmakers made it clear that New York state’s spending plan will not get done on time, and  negotiations continue at a trickle.

“Nothing’s moving at this point,” Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie told reporters Thursday as lawmakers headed for the exits for a long weekend.

Heastie said talks had stalled. He continued to blame it on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s injection of four significant policy debates into the budget process.

“Governors like to use the leverage of Silver v. Pataki to throw all kinds of policy in the budget,” he said of the case which affirmed the governor’s supreme power over the state budget, fueled by a fight between then-Gov. George Pataki and then-Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver during the 1998 state budget battle.

Also injecting some perspective from the past, state Sen. Liz Krueger pointed to the chronically late budgets of the early 2000’s as a reminder that maybe things aren’t so bleak in 2025 Albany.

“I was here in years where we were still here in August fighting over the budget,” she said. “That’s not fun.”

Krueger said mid-April isn’t bad, and the real world ramifications are minimal when debt service is handled and extenders are used in the short term.

“People ‘say you have to make April 1st,’ and I always say ‘I’d rather have a better budget than an exactly on time budget,’” she said.

While debates persist on a potential mask restriction and changes to involuntary commitment standards, tweaks to the state’s discovery laws, or the way in which prosecutors hand over evidence to the defense, appear to be a primary source of the holdup.

Legislative leaders say they were forced to send members home for the holiday weekend with little to consider during their time away from Albany because leadership has yet to receive budget language from the governor’s office on discovery.

“On Monday, I thought we were at a good conceptual place on discovery, and we have gotten no language from the second floor,” Heastie said, noting that certain things, like the governor’s attempt to change the standard of evidence that needs to be turned over from “related” to “relevant,” require more specifics than just a conceptual understanding.

Krueger backed Heastie in his frustration.

“I think that is a legitimate point,” she said.

She said members of the state Senate are still not sold on the governor’s pitch, as Heastie indicated was the case in the Assembly.

“There is some real disagreement in my conference on how far the governor is asking us to move on discovery,” she said.

Those in the governor’s corner, like Jane Manning, director of Women’s Equal Justice, say the reforms are simply common sense, a way to close loopholes that lead to cases being dismissed on technicalities when prosecutors can’t meet the rigorous standards set by New York’s 2019 discovery reforms. She and the governor, along with a coalition of district attorneys, victim advocates and faith leaders argue that victims, and victims of domestic violence in particular, face devastating consequences as a result of those dismissals.

Manning said a switch from related to relevant would be a significant step in the right direction in perfecting the intent of the 2019 law.

“Relevant evidence is evidence that helps prove or disprove that a crime was committed,” she said. “One case was dismissed because the prosecution didn’t turn over in time a report about an unrelated case where the arresting officer had let someone escape from custody and was disciplined for that. That is an example of a case being dismissed on a technicality that really had nothing to do with the merits of the case.”

She said the governor’s proposal would also target the penalties that prosecutors could face if they fail to turn things over on time in an effort to reduce the number of cases that are dismissed. She said alternative penalties include giving the defense more time to prepare once a document is turned over, or not allowing the prosecution to use it.

It would also give judges more leeway in making those decisions.

“Judges would be able to take into account why wasn’t this material turned over in time, was it the prosecutors fault or were they genuinely not able to obtain it? Did it legitimately prejudice the defendant, and how can you fix that prejudice?” she said.

Some lawmakers remain unmoved by Hochul’s reasoning.

Assemblywoman Latrice Walker, who was an architect of the initial reforms and one of the chief skeptics of governor’s proposal, pointed out that People V. Bay established that under current standards, cases shouldn’t be dismissed if prosecutors are able to prove that they made a good faith effort to turn over evidence.

“District attorneys have to give over any evidence that is within their purview, within their possession, as well as evidence that will be pertinent to the trial,” Walker said. “A prosecutor is able to show, ‘look, I’ve been trying to get this information, I’ve sent whatever letters are necessary, it has not been turned over to me at this point.’ The worst thing that could happen in that situation is a delay.”

Lawmakers are pushing alternative methods behind the scenes.

In addition to a proposal from State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, which would open up access to police evidence for prosecutors to make their job more efficient, Walker is seeking an alternative remedy, which would simply codify the People V. Bay decision into state law.

“I believe that the line that we can get to is the codification of the People V. Bay standard,” she said “As long as a prosecutor can show the process they are going through, there is no ill intent or ill will with respect to not being forthcoming with evidence or information, that a case is adjourned and not summarily dismissed is a soft landing.”

Those in favor of the governor’s proposal gave countered that some documents that fall under ‘related’ are things that prosecutors are unaware of or have no access to, and that defense attorneys can intentionally use that to weaponize a dismissal as their strategy.