Sen. Andrew J. Lanza

Conducted extensive questioning revealing the fund would cover investigations by federal agencies (FBI, U.S. Attorney, Treasury, SEC, etc.), could cover crimes like bribery if deemed politically motivated, and lacks clear safeguards preventing payment even after conviction. Argued this represents an unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars to defend officials against personal crimes unrelated to their positions.

Voted no, arguing that passing extenders enables the Governor to delay finalizing the budget and that the Legislature should not preemptively grant unilateral power to address hypothetical future deficits.

Stated the bill will cause more harm than good and blamed the legislation for threatening reliable energy access, noting constituents should be grateful for the ability to heat their homes in winter.

Voted against the bill.

Voted against the bill.

Argued Staten Island was unfairly excluded despite having 500,000+ residents and high caseloads, with no new Civil Court seat since 1968. Suggested the exclusion was politically motivated to avoid Republican electoral opportunities and called for investigation into Governor Hochul's office involvement. Criticized the allocation as a 'quid pro quo' and expressed broader frustrations about Staten Island's historical neglect.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

Voted in opposition to the bill.

Contended good-cause eviction effectively invalidates leases by preventing landlords from non-renewing at lease end, eliminating property owners' ability to set lease terms and converting all tenancies to indefinite arrangements.

Lanza questioned when the map was actually drawn and by whom, establishing through questioning that the map did not exist in any form before Monday night and was drawn after the IRC map was rejected. He sought to determine who specifically made decisions about district lines and whether the map was drawn to benefit specific incumbents.

Argued the bill violates due process and constitutional rights by restricting access to courts in citizens' home communities. Questioned why only four counties—all Democratic-leaning—were selected and whether judges in other counties lack expertise. Contended the bill is unconstitutional forum shopping that contradicts the principle of 13 judicial districts designed so citizens appear before locally-elected judges.

Argued the opposition is about process and local control, not climate denial. Stated that a company should not be allowed to disrupt a community without proper consultation with the affected senator and residents, regardless of the project's larger purpose.

Voted in the negative on the measure.

Moved twice to lay the bill aside, first during the initial roll call and again after the roll call was completed.

Stated that fewer safety drills is not a good idea given the existing danger, and that allowing opt-outs means some schools could have zero drills. Expressed concern that lack of preparedness would cause greater trauma than the drills themselves.

Found it ironic that the sponsor refused to answer questions about prior hearings and the underlying bill while accusing opponents of not watching those hearings. Voted against the bill on the merits.

Voted in opposition to the bill.

Argued that bail reform changes are cosmetic and don't address public safety. Cited 417,975 crimes in NY last year and questioned whether the changes constitute meaningful reform or just political theater. Expressed frustration that dangerousness standard was rejected.

Cited rising crime, unaffordability, high tax burden, and historic drug overdose deaths as evidence the budget will not improve New York's trajectory. Argued the state is less safe and less affordable than ever, questioning what residents get for being the most taxed in America.

Argued voting no would not cause financial apocalypse, but rather the Senate should return with a bill paying only past debts without creating a new line of credit for unknown future spending. Stated the bill goes beyond paying past obligations and puts the state further in debt, with taxpayers ultimately receiving the bill.

Argued the bill would eliminate representation for at least three of five NYC boroughs on the Board of Elections, concentrating power in two individuals who may not adequately represent all counties. Contended that more representation, not less, ensures better oversight and that each NYC borough, if independent, would be among the largest cities in the state and deserves representation.