Includes nonconsensual use of bodily fluids and matter in harassment in the first degree and aggravated harassment in the first degree; includes strikes, shoves and kicks in aggravated harassment in the first degree.
This bill amends the Penal Law to expand New York’s harassment offenses. It adds a new form of harassment in the first degree for knowingly throwing, spitting, wiping, expelling, or transferring human or animal bodily fluids or matter onto another person without consent, including substances such as urine, blood, saliva, phlegm, seminal fluid, feces, or toilet bowl contents. The bill also revises aggravated harassment in the first degree to include, in addition to existing hate-crime and property-damage conduct, intentional physical assaults such as striking, shoving, or kicking certain protected public servants and essential workers, as well as nonconsensual transfer of bodily fluids or matter onto them.
The measure also updates the Executive Law’s victim definitions and crime-victim compensation provisions so that people harmed by the newly referenced harassment offenses are treated as eligible victims under those programs. In particular, it aligns the victim-compensation statutes with the amended harassment and aggravated harassment provisions, which can affect access to counseling, relocation, security devices, lost earnings, and related reimbursement benefits. The bill takes effect on November 1 following enactment, with immediate authorization for implementing regulations.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available legislative history is supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced in the Assembly Codes Committee on a 16-6 vote and was held for consideration, indicating meaningful backing but also some reservations among committee members. No transcript excerpts are available, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee debate.
The main point of contention appears to be the scope of the expanded criminal penalties and whether the bill appropriately broadens felony-level liability for conduct involving bodily fluids and minor physical assaults. Supporters likely view the bill as a public-safety and workplace-protection measure for frontline workers and others who may be targeted in confrontational settings, while opponents may be concerned about overcriminalization, proportionality of punishment, or the breadth of the protected categories and conduct covered. The bill also continues existing hate-symbol and religious-property provisions, but the new assault and bodily-fluid provisions are the most notable expansion.
The bill amends sections 240.25 and 240.31 of the Penal Law to create and broaden harassment offenses, and it amends sections 621 and 631 of the Executive Law to ensure victims of the newly covered conduct remain eligible for crime-victim compensation and related benefits. It would increase the range of conduct punishable as harassment in the first degree and aggravated harassment in the first degree, including nonconsensual bodily-fluid exposure and physical contact against specified public safety, health, sanitation, and utility-related workers. It also affects agencies administering victim services by expanding the set of qualifying offenses and associated reimbursement categories.
Available legislative history suggests the bill has generally favorable support, but with some opposition or hesitation. The Assembly Codes Committee vote of 16-6 to hold for consideration indicates the proposal has traction but is not broadly unanimous. Because no discussion transcript is provided, there is no detailed record of specific arguments, but the vote pattern suggests the bill is viewed positively by a majority while still raising concerns for a minority of members.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s expansion of first-degree harassment to include bodily-fluid conduct and its addition of strikes, shoves, and kicks to aggravated harassment when directed at a wide list of protected workers. Critics may question whether these acts should be elevated to misdemeanor or felony harassment in all cases, while supporters may argue that the conduct is dangerous, degrading, and especially harmful to public-facing workers and vulnerable victims. Another possible point of debate is the breadth of the protected categories, which includes police, prosecutors, nurses, sanitarians, firefighters, EMS personnel, school crossing guards, traffic enforcement personnel, and utility workers.