Asm. Andrew Molitor

Opposed the bill citing constitutional violations, arguing that policy legislation including the convertible pistol ban and immigration omnibus provisions should not be in the budget and should have gone through committee process, violating Article 7, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution.

Expressed concerns that MCO tax restructuring could increase costs for counties, large group insurance purchasers, and individuals on the Exchange, potentially worsening affordability crisis. Noted New York already has highest health insurance premiums in nation and questioned whether calculations were accurate.

Opposed the bill citing constitutional violations, arguing that policy legislation including the convertible pistol ban and immigration omnibus provisions should not be in the budget and should have gone through committee process, violating Article 7, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution.

Molitor argued the bill would invalidate negotiated plea agreements containing appeal waivers and waste judicial resources. He contended that well-funded defense attorneys already have adequate tools to bring meritorious suppression claims and that the Legislature should instead demand better performance from the defense bar.

Molitor argued the bill would invalidate negotiated plea agreements and waste judicial resources, contending that well-funded defense attorneys already have adequate discovery and tools to raise meritorious suppression claims without an automatic appellate right.

Argued that expungement wipes away history unnecessarily and that existing sealing provisions would be sufficient to prevent prior convictions from being used against individuals, expressing concern about implementation mechanics and noting his experience with incomplete marijuana expungements.

Argued that expungement wipes away history and is unnecessary, noting that existing sealing provisions already prevent prior convictions from being used against individuals. Stated that when possession was illegal, people were prosecuted for good reason.

Contended that parolees already have fee waivers available for employment, education, and public assistance purposes, and that extending a blanket waiver unfairly privileges formerly incarcerated individuals over law-abiding citizens who must pay for replacement birth certificates themselves.

Argued New York already has stringent electronic communications protections and that the bill creates unintended consequences: making warrant applications public records tips off suspects; prohibiting use of voluntarily-provided evidence hampers investigations; requiring notice to targets (e.g., in child pornography cases) could lead to evidence destruction; and the cumulative obligations will essentially eliminate electronic search warrants in the state.

Allocution is a procedural right, not absolute. Defendants already have multiple opportunities to be heard through counsel, presentence investigations, and plea allocutions. The bill inappropriately creates an exception to waived appeal rights, potentially allowing resentencing in cases with agreed-upon sentences.

Argued that discovery laws passed by the Chamber have made it harder for domestic violence victims to remain confidential, as information is automatically disclosed to crime suspects. He stated police already know to keep addresses confidential.

Criticized the bill for lacking clear definitions of "interpreter" and for potential confusion regarding application to indictments. Argued the bill creates confusing requirements that will be difficult to implement and may result in cases being dismissed on technical grounds rather than merit.

The bill grants excessive discretionary power to judges and agencies, creating inconsistent enforcement standards across districts. Electronic ticketing technology is already solving illegibility issues, making the legislation unnecessary and potentially allowing tickets to be dismissed without proper legal process.

Argued the bill protects 'deadbeat landlords' by allowing them to rely on insurance coverage rather than renovating properties, removing incentives for proactive lead remediation and raising costs for all rental insurance market participants.

Argued the bill protects "deadbeat landlords" by removing incentives to renovate properties and will increase costs for all rental insurance market participants.

Opposed the bill as adding unnecessary regulation and expense to an already over-regulated state. Suggested municipalities could resolve the issue locally through online portals rather than requiring certified or registered mail notification by code enforcement officers.

Molitor objected to delegating legislative authority to federal statute and evolving federal case law, arguing that New York courts would face uncertainty in interpreting which federal decisions to follow, creating unpredictability in how the statute is applied.

The bill lacks specificity on what constitutes a written summary, potentially allowing different District Attorney offices to apply it inconsistently and permitting minimal information (even text messages) to satisfy requirements.

Opposed the statute of limitations extension, arguing it creates two classes under law and will result in meritless claims filed years after incidents when video evidence has been destroyed, increasing state expenses.

The bill violates Article III, § 16 of the New York State Constitution by referencing Federal case law without containing the full text. This creates legal uncertainty and will require future chapter amendments, as case law can change and potentially modify New York law through Federal litigation.

Reported that a majority of the Dunkirk City Council and Bob Bankowski, a Democratic Chautauqua County legislator representing the city, both opposed the legislation, indicating bipartisan local opposition.

Opposed the bill as providing taxpayer funds without stringent financial controls or accountability. Argued it fails to fix underlying structural problems and will likely result in further tax increases that harm the already-depressed local economy.

Expressed concern that the law forces New Yorkers to make unpredictable judgment calls between securing firearms and maintaining accessibility for self-defense, and argued the bill violates the Second Amendment.

Raised practical concerns about the five-business-day hearing requirement in rural courts that meet infrequently, potential cost burdens, and risk that defendants will request hearings strategically to revictimize domestic violence survivors. Argued the bill is problematic as written and unnecessary, and suggested civil court remedies would be preferable.

Argued the bill exposes businesses to unlimited jurisdiction for conduct unrelated to New York operations, violates the Commerce Clause, and would discourage out-of-state companies from registering. Warned it could drive business opportunities to neighboring states with more predictable rules.

Argued no other major state has such expansive jurisdiction; warned the bill could drive businesses to neighboring states, raise insurance premiums, and violate the Commerce Clause; called it a 'trapdoor disguised as a forum.'

Argued no other major state has such expansive jurisdiction, warned it could drive businesses to neighboring states, raised potential Commerce Clause violations, and called it a 'trapdoor disguised as a forum.'

Raised concerns about provisions requiring police to provide copies of obtained electronic materials to suspects, particularly in cases involving child pornography, and questioned whether Attorney General publication requirements could compromise ongoing investigations.

Argued the bill creates unintended consequences that will frustrate criminal investigations by allowing suspects to quash warrants mid-investigation, citing a hypothetical serial killer case where warrant challenges could delay critical public safety operations. Stated electronic information should be protected the same way as other evidence.