Eliminates certain court surcharges and fees and probation and parole surcharges and fees; eliminates the requirement that a parolee or releasee receiving a merit termination of sentence be financially able to comply with an order of restitution; eliminates the requirement that a person receiving a discharge of sentence be financially able to comply with an order of restitution and the payment of certain surcharges or fees (Part A); mandates that courts engage in an individualized assessment of a person's financial ability to pay a fine prior to imposing a fine (Part B); eliminates the availability of incarceration as a remedy for a failure to pay a fine, surcharge, or fee, lifts and vacates existing warrants issued solely on a person's failure to timely pay a fine, surcharge or fee and ends existing sentences of incarceration based on such failure (Part C); vacates existing unsatisfied civil judgments based on a person's failure to timely pay a surcharge, or fee (Part D); prohibits the collection of a fine, restitution or reparation from the funds of an incarcerated person; prohibits the payment of court fines, mandatory surcharges, certain fees, restitution, reparation or forfeitures from the earnings of prisoners (Part E); vacates existing unpaid surcharges, DNA databank fees, crime victim assistance fees, sexual offender registration fees, supplemental sex offender victim fees, or probation or parole supervision fees; repeals certain provisions of law relating to restrictions on remitting such fees (Part F).
A08672 is a broad criminal justice and court-fees reform bill that would eliminate or reduce a wide range of mandatory surcharges, fees, and certain fines tied to criminal, traffic, probation, parole, and related proceedings. It is organized into six parts. Part A repeals several existing surcharge and fee provisions and removes language tying parole or merit termination decisions to a person’s ability to pay restitution-related financial obligations. Part B requires courts to conduct an individualized assessment of a defendant’s financial circumstances before imposing statutorily mandated fines, with waiver or reduction required for indigent people in specified circumstances. Part C ends incarceration as a remedy for nonpayment of fines, surcharges, or fees, voids warrants and incarceration sentences issued solely for nonpayment, and revises resentencing rules for people unable to pay. Part D vacates certain unsatisfied civil judgments based solely on nonpayment of surcharges or fees. Part E prohibits collection of court debt from incarcerated people’s accounts or earnings, and Part F vacates existing unpaid surcharges and several related fees, including probation and parole supervision fees.
The bill would significantly amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Executive Law, Correction Law, Criminal Procedure Law, Penal Law, Vehicle and Traffic Law, Village Law, Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, Environmental Conservation Law, and State Finance Law. It would repeal or revise provisions that currently authorize collection of mandatory surcharges, DNA databank fees, crime victim assistance fees, sex offender registration fees, probation fees, parole supervision fees, and certain traffic-related fees. It also changes how courts assess fines, how parole and discharge decisions may consider financial obligations, and how court debt is collected from incarcerated individuals and from prison earnings. In practical terms, the bill would reduce the use of court-imposed financial penalties as a revenue source and limit downstream enforcement mechanisms such as warrants, incarceration, and account levies.
The stated legislative intent is strongly reform-oriented and explicitly focused on ending what the bill describes as inequitable financial burdens on poor defendants and people of color. The bill text says these fees and fines have had a disparate impact on low-income people and have contributed to mass incarceration in New York. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill itself is therefore highly supportive of fee elimination, debt relief, and a more individualized, ability-to-pay approach to criminal fines.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, there is no direct evidence here of opposition or debate from legislators. The main points of contention apparent from the bill text are structural: it would remove long-standing funding mechanisms for courts, probation departments, and related state or local programs, and it would eliminate collection tools that currently apply to unpaid court debt. The bill also narrows the role of financial compliance in parole and discharge decisions, which may be viewed as a significant policy shift by those who favor maintaining monetary accountability conditions in supervision settings.
The bill would substantially rewrite New York law governing criminal and traffic-related monetary penalties by repealing several surcharge and fee statutes, limiting the imposition of mandatory fines on indigent people, and prohibiting incarceration or civil enforcement based solely on nonpayment. It would also bar collection of court debt from incarcerated people’s funds and earnings, vacate certain existing warrants, incarceration sentences, and unsatisfied civil judgments, and eliminate probation and parole supervision fees and other specified charges. These changes would affect defendants, incarcerated people, probationers, parolees, local governments, courts, and state agencies responsible for collecting or distributing court-related revenue.
The bill’s tone is strongly reformist and anti-fee, with an explicit focus on fairness, poverty, racial disparity, and reducing incarceration tied to court debt. The caption and text frame the measure as a corrective to regressive revenue practices and as a way to end inequitable burdens on people least able to pay. No vote or transcript data is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or formal sentiment from committee proceedings in the supplied materials.
The most notable policy tensions are between debt relief and the loss of monetary sanctions and revenue streams. The bill would eliminate mandatory surcharges and several fees that currently support state and local systems, and it would prevent courts from using nonpayment as a basis for jail, warrants, or continued supervision conditions. It also removes financial-ability requirements from some parole and discharge decisions, which could be controversial for those who view restitution compliance as an important accountability measure. Supporters are likely to emphasize poverty relief and racial equity, while opponents may focus on fiscal impacts, enforcement concerns, and the reduction of leverage for collecting restitution and related obligations.