New York Assembly Bill A08907

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/16/25
• Refer: 7/16/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Prohibits the naming of state buildings after a public officer during the period in which that person is a public officer or after a public officer who has been convicted of a felony.

Summary

This bill, titled the “Prohibiting Elevation of Notorious Names (PENN) Act,” would amend the Executive Law to restrict when state and local public facilities may be named after public officers. It defines a “public facility” broadly as a building or other real property owned by the state or a political subdivision, and defines “public officer” to include elected officials as well as people appointed or employed by the state or a local government. Under the bill, a public facility could not be named for someone while that person is currently serving as a public officer. It would also prohibit naming a facility for any public officer who has been convicted of a felony, and would require the state to remove that person’s name from a facility immediately upon conviction. The bill preserves existing names in most cases: facilities already named for public officers before the bill’s effective date could keep those names, and a facility named for someone before they became a public officer could also retain that name if the person later enters public service.

Impact

The bill would create a new Article 50 in the Executive Law and renumber existing Article 50 provisions to Article 60, thereby reorganizing the statute governing naming of public facilities. It would impose a new statewide restriction on naming public buildings and other government-owned property after current public officers, and it would require immediate renaming or name removal if a named public officer is later convicted of a felony. The measure would affect state agencies and political subdivisions that name or rename public property, while largely grandfathering existing names except in the felony-conviction scenario.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as an ethics- and accountability-focused reform, suggesting an intent to prevent premature honorific naming and to disassociate public facilities from officials convicted of serious crimes. Because no debate or votes are available, the overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s apparent policy rationale.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the breadth and timing of the naming ban, especially the prohibition on honoring sitting public officers and the mandatory removal of names upon felony conviction. Critics might view the felony-triggered removal requirement as automatic and potentially disruptive, while supporters would likely argue it protects the integrity of public honors. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad definition of “public officer,” which reaches not only elected officials but also appointed and employed government personnel, potentially affecting a wide range of naming decisions by state and local governments.