Asm. Andrew Molitor

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.