Asm. Angelo J. Morinello

Questioned whether landlords had legitimate reasons to refuse ERAP, including the one-year rent freeze that prevented them from raising rents despite increased property taxes and utilities. Argued the bill unfairly restricts landlords' property rights and characterized New York's approach as overly generous.

Argued the bill games the system by allowing party bosses to refuse Wilson-Pakula authorization. Criticized the bill as part of a broader pattern of changes to the election system that he characterized as unconscionable, including recent redistricting and election challenge procedures.

Raised concerns about large out-of-state producers like Jim Beam using subsidiaries to circumvent the 75,000-gallon cap, potential youth access to high-proof spirits (40% alcohol vs. 18% for wine and 3.5-7% for beer), delivery company failures to verify age (citing an 80% failure rate from a Washington Post 2020 study), and impacts on the three-tiered system that employs thousands of workers and Teamsters.

Expressed concerns about Jim Beam hiring lobbyists to support the bill, questioned whether out-of-state distillers could create subsidiaries to compete with local producers, cited MADD and alcohol counselor concerns about youth access to high-proof spirits (40% alcohol vs. 18% wine), and referenced a Washington Post study showing 80% failure rate in age verification at delivery points.

Raised concerns about large out-of-state producers like Jim Beam using subsidiaries to circumvent the 75,000-gallon cap, potential youth access to high-proof spirits (40% alcohol vs. 18% for wine and 3.5-7% for beer), delivery company failures to verify age (citing an 80% failure rate from a Washington Post 2020 study), and the impact on the three-tiered system that employs thousands of workers and Teamsters.

Questioned the necessity of the requirement given that certified interpreters are already mandated by OCA from arraignment forward, and expressed concern that the cost to smaller departments could delay justice for victims.

Questioned whether New York handgun manufacturers were contacted and expressed concern the technology has not been perfected to the point of reliability, calling the bill premature and a waste of Division of Criminal Justice resources.

Questioned the necessity of the requirement at the initial complaint stage, noting that certified interpreters are already mandated by OCA from arraignment forward, and expressed concern about costs and delays to smaller departments that could compromise victim justice.

Opposed the bill as premature, arguing personalized handgun technology has not been perfected to the point of reliability and the Division of Criminal Justice Services should not waste resources on this task given their other duties.

Raised concerns about unintended consequences, particularly regarding the availability of certified interpreters for obscure languages in rural areas and the practical difficulty of obtaining written affidavits from remote interpreters during time-sensitive investigations. Questioned how chain of custody would be maintained.

Argued that existing CPL provisions already address all categories of wrongful convictions (DNA exonerations, coerced pleas, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective counsel, retroactive law changes, immigration consequences) and that the bill is unnecessary, will overburden the system, eliminates finality for victims, and allows trial courts to review appellate decisions.

Argued the bill removes individual responsibility and agency by providing automatic relief rather than making existing processes easier; contended that requiring people to take action themselves gives them personal stake in their future and self-awareness; expressed concern about government providing 'handouts' rather than 'hand-ups.'

Argued the bill is unnecessary because the Municipal Police Training Council produced a model policy in March 2021 and all police agencies are already utilizing that policy in their training. Questioned why the Legislature should pass legislation addressing issues already covered by existing policies.

Argued existing Criminal Procedure Law already provides vehicles for review and that judges conduct colloquies before accepting pleas. Contended the bill removes procedural safeguards and sends the message that people can break laws without consequences, undermining personal responsibility.