New York Assembly Bill A04246

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/25
• Refer: 1/31/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Provides for the return of fines, restitution and reparation payments and any interest thereon where a defendant is subsequently pardoned upon the ground of innocence or the conviction is reversed or vacated.

Summary

This bill would amend the Criminal Procedure Law to require the վերադարձ of fines, restitution, and reparation payments, along with any interest earned on those amounts, when a defendant is later determined to have been wrongfully convicted. The refund obligation would apply if the person is pardoned on grounds of innocence, or if the conviction is reversed or vacated and the accusatory instrument is dismissed, or the person is acquitted after a new trial or not retried and the case is dismissed. The bill also specifies several categories of reversals or vacaturs that qualify, including certain post-conviction relief grounds and constitutional defects in the underlying statute or its application. The measure further requires that the returned money be paid within 90 days after notice of the pardon, reversal, or vacatur. If the money is not returned on time, a penalty would accrue at the same rate used for late payment of fines, restitution, or reparation, and the penalty would be paid by the state agency, court, prosecutor's office, or restitution agency holding the funds. The bill also allows the court to offset the refund against any outstanding fines or penalties owed by the same individual and requires an accounting of the returned funds and the agencies involved.

Impact

The bill would add a new subdivision to section 420.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law, creating a statutory right to recover monetary penalties paid under an unjust conviction. It would affect courts, prosecutors, restitution agencies, and other state entities that collect or hold criminal monetary sanctions by imposing a duty to identify, account for, and return those funds when a conviction is later undone under specified circumstances. It would also create a new enforcement mechanism through late-payment penalties and clarify that refunds may be reduced by other outstanding obligations owed by the same person.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is generally remedial and likely intended to address fairness concerns for people wrongfully convicted. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no documented opposition or support in the supplied materials, but the bill’s purpose indicates a pro-defendant, innocence-reform orientation. The absence of voting history means no formal legislative sentiment can be inferred beyond the bill’s text and caption.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the scope of qualifying reversals and vacaturs, the administrative burden on agencies that must locate and return funds, and the treatment of offsets for other outstanding fines or penalties. Another possible issue is whether the bill should apply only to cases involving explicit innocence pardons or more broadly to any overturned conviction meeting the listed procedural or constitutional grounds. Agencies responsible for collecting criminal monetary sanctions may also object to the requirement that they pay late penalties if refunds are not issued within 90 days.