Assembly extends Black Car Benefit Fund through 2028 amid debate over scope and oversight

The Assembly on the floor advanced legislation to extend the New York Black Car Benefit Fund for three more years, keeping in place a small passenger surcharge that pays for workerscompensation coverage and supplemental health services for black car, livery and ride-hail drivers.

The bill, Assembly No. 7928 (Rules Report 174), sponsored by Miss Cruz, passed in a near-party-line vote, with the clerk announcing "Ayes, 142; Nos, 2." The law continues authorizing the fundand the existing passenger surcharge that supports it.

The bill matters because the fund fills a gap for drivers who are often classified as independent contractors and therefore may lack employer-provided benefits. Sponsor Miss Cruz summarized the programhistory on the floor: "The Black Car Fund was created by New York State statute in 1999 to provide workers' compensation coverage to over a hundred thousand independent contractors drivers affiliated with over 500 member bases, including Uber and Lyft. Funded by passenger surcharge, it ensures drivers injured on the job receive benefit without taxpayer costs." She also described later why she supported the extension: "The New York State Black Car Benefit Fund was created with a clear and meaningful purpose to provide workers' compensation coverage for black car drivers who are often classified as independent contractors and therefore not entitled to traditional employee benefits. This fund filled a critical gap, ensuring that drivers injured on the job had access to the care and support they needed. Over time, the fund has expanded to include additional benefits such as vision care and eyeglasses." (Miss Cruz, sponsor)

Debate focused on several recurring questions: what benefits the fund can pay for, who pays the surcharge, how eligibility is defined, and whether the legislature has sufficient oversight of the fund's finances. Opponents said expanded benefits go beyond the programoriginal workers' compensation purpose and that the surcharge should be reexamined if surplus funds exist. Miss Giglio, explaining her negative vote, said she had sought but not received the fund's May 1 report and urged greater transparency: "If that report is not available to the legislature, and I would feel much better if it was because we don't know what the surplus is in the account." (Miss Giglio)

Supporters argued the program is low-cost to riders and fills real gaps for drivers, citing mobile vision clinics and telemedicine services the fund has provided. Miss People Stokes framed the vote in terms of access to care: "Access to health care is not free. It's not. And so until we get to a place in this country ... we will be paying for the employer's and employee's health care. That's the way it is." (Miss People Stokes)

Key details recorded on the floor and in questions from members: - The fund was created by statute in 1999 primarily to secure payment of workers' compensation to black car operators under Article 6-F of the Executive Law. The sponsor noted that the program expanded in 2018and 2019 to add no-cost vision exams, a pair of eyeglasses per year when needed, telemedicine, and later additional benefits. The current extension would move the program's sunset to 2028. - Passenger surcharge rates were discussed: the 1999 statutory surcharge was 2 percent; the current surcharge in practice was described on the floor as "2% plus half a point" (2.5%). Members disputed whether the board had changed rates in recent years and noted the fund's bylaws govern adjustments. - Eligibility questions included how many hours a driver must work to qualify. One member asked whether drivers needed to work 40 hours per month to qualify; sponsor and other remarks made clear eligibility mechanics were part of the fund's rules and not changed by this extender bill. - Annual reporting to the legislature and to the Department of State was discussed. A May 1 annual report is statutorily required; some members said they had difficulty obtaining the report and pressed for greater public transparency.

The Assembly recorded the final vote as: Ayes, 142; Nos, 2. The bill was passed and will remain in effect for the additional period specified in the text.

Proponents emphasized the fundpaid from rider surcharges rather than general taxpayer revenueand defended modest, safety-related benefits such as vision care and telemedicine as directly connected to driver and public safety. Opponents warned of mission creep if broader medical benefits were funded through the surcharge without clearer legislative oversight or review of financial surpluses.

The extension is effective immediately under the bill's language. The legislation does not alter the statutory cap language for the surcharge; procedural questions about board authority to set rates and the content of the annual report were left as matters for oversight and future legislative hearings.

Votes and next steps: The extension passed on the floor and will proceed per the normal enrollment and finalization process. Lawmakers who asked for additional transparency said they would pursue copies of the fund's annual submission and consider follow-up oversight.

Ending: The debate underscored a longstanding policy tension: how to provide basic protections to drivers who are not treated as employees while keeping surcharges and fares affordable for riders. Members on both sides signaled willingness to revisit oversight and reporting requirements in future sessions.