Skip to content
S318Senate2025-2026 SessionSame asA8672

End Court Surcharges and Fees

Official title

“Eliminates court surcharges and fees; repealer”

Sponsor Julia SalazarSD-18+24 co-sponsorsAffects Legal
Status
In Senate Committee
Codes
Impact
8/10
Significant
Passage
35%

Bill progress

Step 2 of 7

In committee · Codes

What's happening

This bill eliminates mandatory court surcharges, fees, and certain fines, prohibits incarceration for failure to pay, and vacates related outstanding warrants and civil judgments in New York.

Why it matters

  1. Reduces the criminalization of poverty. By removing mandatory surcharges, fees, and fines—and prohibiting jail time for nonpayment—the bill aims to prevent low-income individuals from being trapped in cycles of debt, court involvement, and incarceration simply because they cannot afford to pay.

  2. Addresses racial and economic disparities. The legislative intent specifically acknowledges that court-imposed financial penalties have disproportionately harmed poor people and people of color, contributing to systemic inequalities and mass incarceration.

  3. Retroactively relieves financial burdens. The bill vacates and nullifies existing warrants, civil judgments, and orders related to unpaid surcharges and certain fees, immediately erasing outstanding court debt for thousands of New Yorkers and removing barriers to employment, housing, and reentry.

  4. Shifts court focus toward ability to pay. Courts will be required to conduct individualized assessments of a person's financial situation before imposing fines, and must waive or reduce fines for indigent defendants—making the justice system more responsive to people's actual circumstances rather than enforcing blanket penalties.

The daily · weekday mornings

Albany, before your first meeting.

Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.

Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.

Who cares

  • Low-income criminal and traffic defendants

    The bill would eliminate specified surcharges and fees and require waiver of mandatory fines for indigent defendants represented by assigned counsel.

  • People incarcerated for nonpayment

    The bill would require immediate release of people serving sentences based solely on covered payment failures and protect incarcerated people's accounts from collection of court fees and sentence-related debts.

  • Office of Court Administration and trial courts

    They would have to rescind covered nonpayment warrants and vacate covered unpaid surcharge and fee judgments without requiring defendants to apply for relief.

  • Watching

    County and city probation departments

    The bill would prohibit them from charging probationers supervision, monitoring, testing, screening or other fees while preserving restitution collection.

Headline styles

End Court Surcharges and Fees

Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.

Sponsors

History

  1. Print number 318a
  2. Amend (t) and recommit to codes
  3. Referred to codes
  4. Referred to codes

Companion bill

The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.

A8672Assembly

Abolish Court Fees and Surcharges

In Assembly Committee · Codes · Sponsor Karines Reyes

Impact 8 · Significant35% to pass

Full text

12 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗

STATE OF NEW YORK

318--A

2025-2026 Regular Sessions

IN SENATE (Prefiled)

January 8, 2025

Introduced by Sens. SALAZAR, BRISPORT, BROUK, CLEARE, COMRIE, COONEY, FERNANDEZ, GIANARIS, GONZALEZ, GOUNARDES, JACKSON, KAVANAGH, KRUEGER, MAY, MYRIE, PARKER, PERSAUD, RAMOS, RIVERA, SANDERS, SEPULVEDA, SERRA- NO, STAVISKY, WEBB -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes -- recommitted to the Committee on Codes in accordance with Senate Rule 6, sec. 8 -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee

AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, the executive law, the correction law, the vehicle and traffic law, the village law and the state finance law, in relation to eliminating certain court surcharges and fees; and to repeal certain provisions of… Show all

AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, the executive law, the correction law, the vehicle and traffic law, the village law and the state finance law, in relation to eliminating certain court surcharges and fees; and to repeal certain provisions of the penal law, the vehicle and traffic law, the correction law, the parks, recreation and historic preservation law, the executive law and the environmental conservation law relating thereto (Part A); to amend the penal law and the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to mandating that courts engage in an individualized assessment of a person's financial ability to pay a fine prior to imposing a fine (Part B); to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to eliminating the availability of incarceration as a remedy for a failure to pay a fine, surcharge or fee, lifting and vacating all existing warrants issued solely based on a person's failure to timely pay a fine, surcharge or fee and ending all existing sentences of incarceration based on such failure; and to repeal certain provisions of the criminal procedure law relating thereto (Part C); in relation to vacating all existing unsatisfied civil judgments entered solely based on a person's failure to timely pay a surcharge or fee and to repeal certain provisions of the criminal procedure law relating thereto (Part D); to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to prohibiting the collection of a fine, restitution or reparation from the funds of an incarcerated person; and to amend the correction law, in relation to prohibiting the payment of court fines, mandatory surcharges, certain fees, restitution, reparation or forfeitures from the earnings of prisoners (Part E); and in [ ] is old law to be omitted. relation to vacating all existing unpaid surcharges, DNA databank fees, crime victim assistance fees, sexual offender registration fees, or supplemental sex offender victim fees (Part F)

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. This act enacts into law major components of legislation relating to ending the unfair financial burdens imposed on defendants in criminal, vehicle and traffic, or other types of criminal or quasi-criminal matters by the existence of mandatory court surcharges and fees, mandatory minimum fines and mandatory probation or parole fees. This act further enacts into law procedures by which courts would be required to engage in an individualized assessment of a person's financial ability to pay a fine prior to imposing a fine, eliminates the availability of incarceration as a remedy for a failure to pay a fine, and vacates all existing warrants or unsatisfied civil judgments issued solely based on a person's failure to timely pay a fine, surcharge, or fee. Each component is wholly contained within a Part identified as Parts A through F. The effective date for each particular provision contained within such Part is set forth in the last section of such Part. Any provision in any section contained within a Part, including the effective date of the Part, which makes reference to a section "of this act", when used in connection with that particular component, shall be deemed to mean and refer to the corresponding section of the Part in which it is found. Section four of this act sets forth the general effective date of this act.

§ 2. Legislative intent. The legislative intent of this act is to end the inequitable financial burdens placed on defendants by the previously enacted statutory provisions which have authorized or mandated the imposition of surcharges, fees, and/or mandatory minimum fines, which have had a disparate impact on poor defendants, people of color, and those who lack access to the significant financial resources necessary in order to satisfy the imposition of surcharges, fees, and fines, and which have also contributed to mass incarceration in New York state. The legislative intent is also to end New York's regressive reliance on generating governmental revenue by imposing surcharges, fees, and fines on those least able to pay.

PART A

Section 1. Section 60.35 of the penal law is REPEALED.

§ 2. Section 1809 of the vehicle and traffic law is REPEALED.

§ 3. Section 1809-c of the vehicle and traffic law is REPEALED.

§ 4. Section 1809-d of the vehicle and traffic law is REPEALED.

§ 5. Section 1809-e of the vehicle and traffic law is REPEALED.

§ 6. Section 71-0213 of the environmental conservation law is REPEALED.

§ 7. The opening paragraph of paragraph 2 of subdivision (f) of section 1101 of the civil practice law and rules, as amended by chapter 322 of the laws of 2021, is amended to read as follows:

If the court determines that the incarcerated individual has insufficient means to pay the full filing fee, the court may permit the incarcerated individual to pay a reduced filing fee, the minimum of which shall not be less than fifteen dollars and the maximum of which shall not be more than fifty dollars. The court shall require an initial payment of such portion of the reduced filing fee as the incarcerated individual can reasonably afford or shall authorize no initial payment of the fee if exceptional circumstances render the incarcerated individual unable to pay any fee; provided however, that the difference between the amount of the reduced filing fee and the amount paid by the incarcerated individual in the initial partial payment shall be assessed against the incarcerated individual as an outstanding obligation to be collected either by the superintendent or the municipal official of the facility at which the incarcerated individual is confined, as the case may be[, in the same manner that mandatory surcharges are collected as provided for in subdivision five of section 60.35 of the penal law]. The court shall notify the superintendent or the municipal official of the facility where the incarcerated individual is housed of the amount of the reduced filing fee that was not directed to be paid by the incarcerated individual. Thereafter, the superintendent or the municipal official shall forward to the court any fee obligations that have been collected, provided however, that:

§ 8. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 259-i of the executive law, as amended by chapter 322 of the laws of 2021, subparagraph (i) as amended by chapter 486 of the laws of 2022, is amended to read as follows:

(a) (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, at least one month prior to the date on which an incarcerated individual may be paroled pursuant to subdivision one of section 70.40 of the penal law, a member or members as determined by the rules of the board shall personally interview such incarcerated individual and determine whether [he or she] such individual should be paroled in accordance with the guidelines adopted pursuant to subdivision four of section two hundred fifty-nine-c of this article. If parole is not granted upon such review, the incarcerated individual shall be informed in writing within two weeks of such appearance of the factors and reasons for such denial of parole. Such reasons shall be given in detail and not in conclusory terms. The board shall specify a date not more than twenty-four months from such determination for reconsideration, and the procedures to be followed upon reconsideration shall be the same. If the incarcerated individual is released, [he or she] such individual shall be given a copy of the conditions of parole. Such conditions shall where appropriate, include a requirement that the parolee comply with any restitution order, [mandatory surcharge, sex offender registration fee and DNA databank fee] previously imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction that applies to the parolee. The conditions shall indicate which restitution collection agency established under subdivision eight of section 420.10 of the criminal procedure law, shall be responsible for collection of restitution[, mandatory surcharge, sex offender registration fees and DNA databank fees as provided for in section 60.35 of the penal law and section eighteen hundred nine of the vehicle and traffic law]. If the incarcerated individual is released, [he or she] such individual shall also be notified in writing that [his or her] such individual's voting rights will be restored upon release.

(ii) Any incarcerated individual who is scheduled for presumptive release pursuant to section eight hundred six of the correction law shall not appear before the board as provided in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph unless such incarcerated individual's scheduled presumptive release is forfeited, canceled, or rescinded subsequently as provided in such law. In such event, the incarcerated individual shall appear before the board for release consideration as provided in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph as soon thereafter as is practicable.

§ 9. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 259-i of the executive law, as amended by chapter 486 of the laws of 2022, is amended to read as follows:

(a) At least one month prior to the expiration of the minimum period or periods of imprisonment fixed by the court or board, a member or members as determined by the rules of the board shall personally interview an incarcerated individual serving an indeterminate sentence and determine whether [he or she] such individual should be paroled at the expiration of the minimum period or periods in accordance with the procedures adopted pursuant to subdivision four of section two hundred fifty-nine-c of this article. If parole is not granted upon such review, the incarcerated individual shall be informed in writing within two weeks of such appearance of the factors and reasons for such denial of parole. Such reasons shall be given in detail and not in conclusory terms. The board shall specify a date not more than twenty-four months from such determination for reconsideration, and the procedures to be followed upon reconsideration shall be the same. If the incarcerated individual is released, [he or she] such individual shall be given a copy of the conditions of parole. Such conditions shall where appropriate, include a requirement that the parolee comply with any restitution order [and mandatory surcharge] previously imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction that applies to the parolee. The conditions shall indicate which restitution collection agency established under subdivision eight of section 420.10 of the criminal procedure law, shall be responsible for collection of restitution [and mandatory surcharge as provided for in section 60.35 of the penal law and section eighteen hundred nine of the vehicle and traffic law]. If the incarcerated individual is released, [he or she] such individual shall also be notified in writing that [his or her] such individual's voting rights will be restored upon release.

§ 10. Section 257-c of the executive law is REPEALED and a new section 257-c is added to read as follows:

§ 257-c. Probation fees prohibited. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no county or city may require individuals currently serving or who shall be sentenced to a period of probation upon conviction of any crime to pay any fee, including but not limited to an administrative fee, supervision fee, monitoring fee, testing fee, or screening fee, to the local probation department with the responsibility of supervising the probationer. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the collection of restitution payments pursuant to sections 65.10 and 60.27 of the penal law and subdivision eight of section 420.10 of the criminal procedure law.

§ 11. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 205 of the correction law, as amended by chapter 491 of the laws of 2021, is amended to read as follows:

(a) A merit termination granted by the department under this section shall constitute a termination of the sentence with respect to which it was granted. No such merit termination shall be granted unless the department is satisfied that termination of sentence from presumptive release, parole, conditional release or post-release supervision is in the best interest of society[, and that the parolee or releasee, otherwise financially able to comply with an order of restitution and the payment of any mandatory surcharge previously imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction, has made a good faith effort to comply therewith].

§ 12. Subdivisions 1 and 3 of section 259-j of the executive law, as amended by section 38-g of subpart A of part C of chapter 62 of the laws of 2011, are amended to read as follows:

1. Except where a determinate sentence was imposed for a felony other than a felony defined in article two hundred twenty [or article two hundred twenty-one] of the penal law, if the board of parole is satisfied that an absolute discharge from presumptive release, parole, conditional release or release to a period of post-release supervision is in the best interests of society, the board may grant such a discharge prior to the expiration of the full term or maximum term to any person who has been on unrevoked community supervision for at least three consecutive years. A discharge granted under this section shall constitute a termination of the sentence with respect to which it was granted. [No such discharge shall be granted unless the board is satisfied that the parolee or releasee, otherwise financially able to comply with an order of restitution and the payment of any mandatory surcharge, sex offender registration fee or DNA databank fee previously imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction, has made a good faith effort to comply therewith.]

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, where a term of post-release supervision in excess of five years has been imposed on a person convicted of a crime defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law, including a sexually motivated felony, the board of parole may grant a discharge from post-release supervision prior to the expiration of the maximum term of post-release supervision. Such a discharge may be granted only after the person has served at least five years of post-release supervision, and only to a person who has been on unrevoked post-release supervision for at least three consecutive years. No such discharge shall be granted unless the board of parole or the department acting pursuant to its responsibility under subdivision one of section two hundred one of the correction law consults with any licensed psychologist, qualified psychiatrist, or other mental health professional who is providing care or treatment to the supervisee; and the board[: (a)] determines that a discharge from post-release supervision is in the best interests of society[; and (b) is satisfied that the supervisee, otherwise financially able to comply with an order of restitution and the payment of any mandatory surcharge, sex offender registration fee, or DNA data bank fee previously imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction, has made a good faith effort to comply therewith]. Before making a determination to discharge a person from a period of post-release supervision, the board of parole may request that the commissioner of the office of mental health arrange a psychiatric evaluation of the supervisee. A discharge granted under this section shall constitute a termination of the sentence with respect to which it was granted.

§ 13. Subdivision 5 of section 27.12 of the parks, recreation and historic preservation law is REPEALED and subdivision 6 is renumbered subdivision 5.

Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.

Sponsor's memo

Title of bill

An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, the executive law, the correction law, the vehicle and traffic law, the village law and the state finance law, in relation to eliminating certain court surcharges and fees; and to repeal certain provisions of the penal law, the vehicle and traffic law, the correction law, the parks, recreation and historic preservation law, the executive law and the environmental conservation law relating thereto (Part A); to amend the penal law and the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to mandating that courts engage in an indi- vidualized assessment of a person's financial ability to pay a fine prior to imposing a fine (Part B); to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to eliminating the availability of incarceration as a remedy for a failure to pay a fine, surcharge or fee, lifting and vacating all existing warrants issued solely based on a person's failure to timely pay a fine, surcharge or fee and ending all existing sentences of incar- ceration based on such failure; and to repeal certain provisions of the criminal procedure law relating thereto (Part C); in relation to vacat- ing all existing unsatisfied civil judgments entered solely based on a person's failure to timely pay a surcharge or fee and to repeal certain provisions of the criminal procedure law relating thereto (Part D); to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to prohibiting the collection of a fine, restitution or reparation from the funds of an incarcerated person; and to amend the correction law, in relation to prohibiting the payment of court fines, mandatory surcharges, certain fees, restitution, reparation or forfeitures from the earnings of pris- oners (Part E); and in relation to vacating all existing unpaid surcharges, DNA databank fees, crime victim assistance fees, sexual offender registration fees, or supplemental sex offender victim fees (Part F)

Summary of provisions

Section one states the purpose of this legislation, to end the unfair financial burdens imposed on defendants in criminal, vehicle and traf- fic, or other criminal or quasi-criminal matters by mandatory surcharge and fees and mandatory minimum fines.

Section two sets forth the legislative intent, noting that the existing system of surcharges, fees, and minimum fines has had a disparate impact on poor defendants, people of color, and those who lack financial resources, and affirmatively states the intent of the legislation, which is to end New York's regressive reliance on generating governmental revenue by imposing surcharges, fees, and fines on those least able to pay. This section then contains parts A-G.

Read the full memo (2,365 words)

PART A repeals each provision of the penal law, executive law and envi- ronmental conservation law, and parts of the vehicle and traffic law, that create a mandatory surcharge or fee to be paid by those convicted of offenses under these laws. These fees and surcharges imposed include mandatory court surcharges, DNA databank fees, crime victim assistance fees, probation fees and sex offender registration fees. This Part also eliminates the possibility of a driver's license suspension due to fail- ure to pay a mandatory surcharge or fee. This Part further makes conforming changes to other sections of law that are required due to the repeal of the sections relating to mandatory surcharges or fees. PART C requires, in regard to fines under the penal law or the vehicle and traffic law, courts to engage in an individualized assessment to waive or reduce any statutorily mandated fine imposed upon an indigent person, pursuant to such person's conviction. The provisions set forth factors courts must consider in making an individualized assessment of a defendant's financial situation to be used when determining the amount of any fine imposed. This Part further requires courts to gather and report data relating to fines.

PART D ends the practice of incarcerating individuals due to nonpayment of a surcharge, fee, fine or restitution and establishes a procedure by which defendants may apply for re-sentencing if they are unable to pay a financial obligation imposed by the court. This Part further renders null and void any existing warrants or sentences of incarceration imposed solely due to the alleged failure of a defendant to pay a fine, restitution, reparation, surcharge, DNA databank fee, crime victim assistance fee, sexual offender registration fee, or supplemental sex offender victim fee.

PART E vacates all existing civil judgements based solely on failure to timely pay and/or failure to appear at a court date set solely for the purpose of payment of a surcharge or fee.

PART F ends the existing practice of taking money from the funds of an incarcerated person or funds deposited into an incarcerated person's commissary or canteen accounts in order to pay a fine, restitution, or reparation requirement imposed by a court.

PART G provides for the vacatur of all existing unpaid surcharges, DNA databank fees, crime victim assistance fees, sex offender registration fees, and supplemental sex offender victim fees. Section 3 contains a severability clause. Section 4 provides that the provisions of this act shall take effect immediately.

Justification

In New York State numerous fees and surcharges are imposed on individ- uals convicted of offenses under the penal law, vehicle and traffic law, and environmental conservation law. These fees and surcharges are sepa- rate from any fine imposed, often cause significant financial hardship, and serve no valid penological purpose. The existing system of imposing such fees and surcharges is unfair, harms individuals, families, and communities, and has a racially disparate impact, with Black and Brown New Yorkers hurt disproportionately by these regressive revenue enhance- ment provisions.

It is time to change these outdated, counterproductive, and harmful policies. Generally, these fees and surcharges are mandatory and are imposed regardless of ability to pay or any other factor. The sole exception is contained in the Laws of 2020, chapter 144, which provides Courts with authority to waive fees and surcharges for defendants under the age of 21 under certain circumstances.

Fines, while not standard, are currently determined by the court. Some offenses have mandatory minimum fines; others have a range of permissi- ble fines. There is no requirement in current law that a Courts inquire into or consider a defendant's ability to pay, financial resources, other financial obligations, or any other factor. While some defendants may be able to pay these costs without difficulty, the consequences for those in poverty can be devastating. Working class and poor defendants are routinely driven into debt as a result of these costs and face greater barriers to providing food and shelter for their families. There is currently no mechanism by which fees and surcharges may be waived by the sentencing court - other than the limited exception enacted in the Laws of 2020, chapter 144 for persons under 21 - even in cases where the costs would exacerbate or cause financial hardship. Courts may defer payment, but with that deferral comes a civil judgment against the defendant. These judgements can appear on credit reports and prevent defendants from getting loans, buying homes, or, in some cases, securing employment. In cases where initial crimes were motivated by economic instability, a defendant's inability to find a job will often lead to further contact with the criminal justice system.

If a defendant is sentenced to incarceration as a penalty for the under- lying conviction, funds will be withheld from their inmate funds account and the wages for any work they do will be garnished. This creates significant hardships for many incarcerated individuals and their fami- lies. Additional penalties faced for nonpayment can include suspension of the defendant's driver's license and even incarceration. There is widespread recognition of the detrimental, racially disparate, and coun- terproductive nature of the current system of mandatory fees and surcharges. The New York City Bar, for example, issued a report noting the inappropriate use of fees and fines to raise government revenue and the burdens this causes to many defendants and families and calling on the legislature to eliminate surcharges and fees: New York should be a leader in justice and fairness. Tying convictions to revenue raising is inherently problematic, conflating the purpose of the system, justice, with revenue raising. Fines imposed by criminal courts should be imposed only when they are tied directly to the criminal act, such as for resti- tution or to defer future crimes. Thus, the New York City Bar Associ- ation recommends simply eliminating mandatory surcharges and fees. (1) Similarly, a 2019 study issued by the Brennan Center for Justice concluded: A wealth of evidence has already shown that this system of fees and fines works against the goal of rehabilitation and creates a major barrier to people reentering society after a conviction. They are often unable to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in accumulated court debt. When debt leads to incarceration or license suspension, it becomes even harder to find a job or housing or pay child support. There's also little evidence that imposing onerous fees and fines improves public safety. 2 These issues were also one focus of the inves- tigation by the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division into law enforcement practices in Ferguson, Missouri after Michael Brown was killed by a Ferguson police officer in 2014. In the comprehensive report issued in 2015 by the Justice Department, they noted, with findings specific to Ferguson, but not significantly different from what is found in cities and states across the country, including New York: "Ferguson's law enforcement practices are shaped by the City's focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compro- mised the institutional character of Ferguson's police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson commu- nity. Further, Ferguson's police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stere- otypes. Ferguson's own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discrimina- tory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson's police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular." 3

A 2019 study and report by the NYC Comptroller's Office, focused on NYC, but the findings have state-wide applicability. The report characterized fees and surcharges as an all-but-hidden, secondary form of punishment with impacts that often last years beyond a formal prison term. And, as noted in a 2020 report by the Fees & Fines Justice Center: State and local jurisdictions are relying on fines and fees to balance their budg- ets effectively turning police into revenue generators and tax collec- tors. And because of over-policing in low-income communities of color, those budgets are being balanced on the backs of the people who can least afford it. When policymakers rely on mass criminalization to balance their budgets, it corrupts local governments, perverts law enforcement incentives and undermines police-community relations. 4

This bill is supported by a wide range of organizations in New York, including: Appellate Advocates, Brennan Center, Bronx Defenders, Brook- lyn Defenders, Center for Community Alternatives, Children's Defense Fund, Citizen Action, Fines and Fees Justice Center, Legal Action Center, Legal Aid Society, National Alliance on Mental Health NYS, National Association of Social Workers - NYS, Neighborhood Defenders Service, New Hour, NYCLU, NY Communities for Change, NYS Office of Indi- gent Legal Services, NYS Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Newburgh LGBTQ+ Center, Partnership for the Public Good, Strong Economy for All, Vera Institute of Justice, Vocal NY, Women's Community Justice Associ- ation, Worth Rises, Youth Represent.

RACIAL JUSTICE IMPACT

Excessive fines and fees only further racial disparities and punish low-income communities, as these fines and fees disproportionately impact communities of color. Traffic stops, arrests, convictions, and sentencing are major contributors to collecting fines and fees, all of which are unequivocally disparately impacting communities of color. This is exhibited in traffic stop data from 2017- in four of the seven New York counties that were surveyed, the percentage of traffic stops involving Black drivers was double the percentage of Black drivers in the county. Additionally, in 2018, despite representing 14% of the popu- lation, Black people made up 38% of arrests and 48% of prison sentenc- es.5

Amended bill

The "A" print removes the repeal of the parts of the Vehicle and Traffic Law that impose parking-related surcharges, allows courts to reduce or waive certain fees imposed upon an indigent person, and amends the provision that prohibits the collection of court fees, surcharges, or money owed from an incarcerated individuals funds, to include funds deposited into commissary or canteen accounts.

Senate

2025: S318 (Salazar)- Referred to Codes 2023-2024: S313 (Salazar) - Referred to Codes

2021-2022: S3979 (Salazar)- Referred to Codes

Assembly

2025: A8672 (Reyes)- Referred to Codes

2023-2024: No Same As

2021-2022: A2348 (Niou)- Referred to Codes

2020: A11083 (Niou)- Referred to Codes

Fiscal implications

This bill will reduce certain revenue to the state, however, these loss- es are likely to be more than made up by reduced costs as individuals will no longer be incarcerated for failure to pay fees or surcharges, the significant administrative and financial burden stemming from proc- essing civil judgments, license suspensions, and other collateral impacts of fees and surcharges will be eliminated. And, more individ- uals will have an open path towards meaningful employment, which, in turn, brings economic benefits to the state.

Effective date

This act shall take effect immediately. 1 NYC Bar, "New York Should Re-Examine Mandatory Court Fees Imposed on Individuals Convicted of Criminal Offenses and Violations", May 2019. https://www.nycbar.org/reports/ new-york-should-re-examine- mandatorycourtfees/ 2 Brennan Center for Justice, "The Steep Cost of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines", 2019. https://www.brennancenter.org/ourwork/researchreports /steep-costs- criminal-justice-fees-and-fines 3 US DOJ Civil Rights Division, Investigation of Ferguson Police Depart- ment, full report may be accessed via https://www.lustice.gov/opa/pr /justice-department-announces- findingstwo-civil-rights-investigations- ferguson-missouri 4 https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/ 2020/06/16/the-other-america-howfines-and-fees- perpetuate-injustice/ 5 New York's Ferguson Problem- How the state's racist fee system punishes poverty, lacks transparency, and is overdue for reform. Fines and Fees Justice Center, 2020. Retrieved from https://nopriceonjustice.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/New York Fergu- son Problem NPJ Report.pdf

Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.