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).
S00318 is a broad criminal justice and court-fees reform bill that would eliminate or sharply limit a wide range of mandatory surcharges, fees, and related collection practices in New York. In Part A, it repeals several statutory provisions authorizing mandatory surcharges and related fees in criminal, traffic, environmental, and local court matters, and it removes certain parole and merit-termination conditions tied to payment of restitution or fees. It also prohibits counties and cities from charging probation supervision and related fees, and it revises vehicle and traffic law provisions affecting license suspensions and parking-ticket administration.
Part B requires courts, before imposing a statutorily mandated fine, to make an individualized assessment of a defendant’s ability to pay and to waive or reduce fines for indigent defendants in specified circumstances. It also adds data-reporting requirements for courts and administrative tribunals, including information on the amount imposed, the legal basis for the charge, the outcome of waiver or reduction requests, and demographic data such as race, ethnicity, age, and sex. Part C eliminates incarceration as a remedy for nonpayment of fines, restitution, or fees, voids existing warrants and jail sentences based solely on nonpayment, and bars courts from using certain prison earnings or inmate account funds to satisfy those obligations. Part D vacates unsatisfied civil judgments entered solely for nonpayment of certain surcharges and fees, and Part F voids existing unpaid surcharge and supervision-fee orders and lifts related encumbrances on commissary or similar accounts.
The bill would significantly change New York’s criminal procedure, correction, executive, vehicle and traffic, village, parks, environmental conservation, and state finance laws. It repeals or amends provisions that currently allow collection of mandatory surcharges, DNA databank fees, crime victim assistance fees, sex offender registration fees, probation fees, and parole-related fees, and it removes payment-based barriers from parole, discharge, and merit-termination decisions. It also changes how fines are imposed and collected, including limiting the use of incarceration, warrants, civil judgments, and prisoner funds as enforcement tools.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of debt relief and anti-poverty reform. The findings and intent sections state that the current system disproportionately burdens poor defendants and people of color, contributes to mass incarceration, and relies on regressive revenue generation from those least able to pay. The bill’s structure suggests a comprehensive effort to reduce court debt and its collateral consequences rather than a narrow technical adjustment.
The main points of contention are likely to be fiscal and public-safety related. Supporters would emphasize fairness, reduced incarceration for poverty-related nonpayment, and relief from burdensome court debt, while opponents may object to the loss of revenue for courts, local governments, probation departments, and related funds, as well as the removal of payment-based enforcement mechanisms. Another likely issue is the bill’s retroactive relief—voiding existing warrants, civil judgments, and unpaid fee orders—which would have immediate operational and administrative consequences for courts and correctional agencies.
The bill would substantially revise New York law by repealing or narrowing numerous mandatory surcharges, fees, and collection provisions across the Penal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, Executive Law, Vehicle and Traffic Law, Correction Law, Village Law, Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, Environmental Conservation Law, and State Finance Law. It would also prohibit probation and parole supervision fees, require individualized ability-to-pay determinations before imposing fines, bar incarceration and certain account seizures for nonpayment, and void many existing warrants, judgments, and unpaid fee orders tied solely to court debt. These changes would affect defendants, incarcerated people, parolees, probationers, local governments, courts, and state agencies responsible for collection and enforcement.
The bill’s tone and stated legislative intent are strongly reform-oriented and sympathetic to defendants facing court debt. It frames mandatory surcharges and fees as inequitable, regressive, and disproportionately harmful to poor people and people of color, and it seeks to reduce the role of monetary penalties in the criminal justice system. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no additional recorded debate or roll-call sentiment beyond the bill’s text and sponsor framing.
The likely areas of contention are the elimination of revenue streams and enforcement tools, and the retroactive invalidation of existing obligations. Local governments, courts, and agencies that rely on surcharges, probation fees, parole fees, and related collections may oppose the bill because it would reduce funding and administrative leverage. Prosecutorial, judicial, or public-safety stakeholders may also object to the removal of incarceration and warrant-based remedies for nonpayment, while advocates for criminal justice reform would support those provisions as necessary to prevent punishment based on poverty.