New York Assembly Bill A00673

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Report Pass: 6/9/25
• Refer: 6/9/25
• Report Pass: 6/11/25

Caption

Relates to facilitating appellate review of rulings that implicate issues of public concern.

Summary

A00673 would amend New York’s Criminal Procedure Law to make certain suppression rulings reviewable on appeal even when a defendant pleads guilty and even if the defendant has otherwise signed an enforceable waiver of the right to appeal. Specifically, it changes section 710.70 so that an order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence is not merely permissibly reviewable, but shall be reviewable when raised by the defendant from the resulting conviction. The bill is framed as facilitating appellate review of rulings that implicate issues of public concern. In practical terms, the bill would preserve appellate access to suppression issues after guilty pleas, limiting the ability of plea agreements and appeal waivers to foreclose review of those rulings. This would affect criminal defendants, prosecutors, courts, and cases involving search-and-seizure challenges, confessions, and other evidence suppression disputes. The measure would take effect 60 days after becoming law.

Impact

The bill would narrow the practical effect of guilty pleas and appeal waivers in New York criminal cases by ensuring that final denials of suppression motions remain reviewable on appeal when the defendant chooses to raise them. It would amend Criminal Procedure Law section 710.70, altering existing appellate procedure and potentially increasing appellate litigation over suppression rulings in criminal cases.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill in committee, with the Assembly Codes Committee advancing it 15-5 and the Assembly Rules Committee approving it 19-9. The bill’s stated purpose of preserving appellate review for issues of public concern appears to have broad support among its sponsors and committee majorities, though the recorded opposition indicates meaningful concern from some members.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether defendants should be able to appeal suppression rulings after pleading guilty and despite an otherwise enforceable appeal waiver. Supporters appear to view the bill as protecting review of important constitutional and public-interest issues, while opponents likely worry it weakens the finality of plea bargains, expands appeals, and limits the effect of negotiated waivers. The dispute centers on balancing appellate oversight against efficiency and certainty in criminal case resolution.