New York Senate Bill S00142

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Enacts "Lorraine's Law"; increases from twenty-four to sixty months, the time for which reconsideration for parole for a violent felony offense shall be determined.

Summary

S00142, titled “Lorraine’s Law,” would change New York’s parole reconsideration timeline for a narrow set of the most serious homicide offenses. Under current law, when parole is denied the Parole Board generally must set a reconsideration date within 24 months. This bill would allow the board, in cases involving an “eligible class A felony” — first-degree murder, aggravated murder, and second-degree murder when the sentence is something other than death or life without parole — to set the next parole reconsideration date as far out as 60 months after the denial. The bill is framed as a response to repeated parole hearings in especially serious murder cases and the impact those hearings have on victims’ families. The findings section says the measure is intended to give the Parole Board another option when it appears unlikely that anything will change within five years that would alter the parole decision, thereby reducing how often families must return to testify and relive the crime. The bill applies immediately and would cover both future and currently incarcerated individuals sentenced for an eligible class A felony.

Impact

The bill would amend section 259-i of the Executive Law to create a special parole reconsideration rule for eligible class A felonies, while leaving the general 24-month reconsideration period in place for other cases. It would authorize the Parole Board to schedule reconsideration anywhere up to 60 months after denial for covered murder convictions, and it would apply to both current and future incarcerated individuals in those categories. The bill also preserves existing requirements that parole denials be explained in writing and that parole conditions include restitution-related obligations and notice of voting-rights restoration upon release.

Sentiment

The bill’s stated purpose and framing suggest strong sympathy for victims’ families and support for reducing repeated parole appearances in the most serious homicide cases. The measure is presented as a compassionate response to the emotional burden on survivors, especially in the named case of Lorraine Miranda’s family. No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history in the supplied materials to indicate broader support or opposition.

Contention

The main point of contention is the tradeoff between reducing trauma for victims’ families and preserving more frequent parole review opportunities for incarcerated people serving long sentences for serious offenses. Supporters are likely to emphasize the burden on families and the limited likelihood of a different outcome within two years, while critics may argue that extending reconsideration to five years could reduce oversight and delay meaningful review for people who remain parole-eligible. The bill also narrows the board’s discretion only for a defined set of violent homicide offenses, which may raise questions about consistency and whether similar treatment should apply to other serious offenses.