New York Senate Bill S00329

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Engrossed: 5/28/25
• Refer: 5/28/25
• Refer: 1/7/26
• Report Pass: 1/28/26
• Engrossed: 4/22/26
• Refer: 4/22/26

Caption

Relates to facilitating appellate review of rulings that implicate issues of public concern.

Summary

S00329 amends New York’s Criminal Procedure Law to make certain suppression rulings reviewable on appeal even when a defendant has pleaded guilty and even when there is an otherwise enforceable waiver of the right to appeal. Specifically, it changes CPL 710.70(2) so that an order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence must be reviewable when raised by the defendant from the resulting conviction. The bill is framed as a measure to facilitate appellate review of rulings that implicate issues of public concern. In practical terms, the bill preserves appellate access to challenge suppression decisions after a guilty plea, which can be important in cases involving searches, seizures, confessions, or other evidence-gathering issues. It would limit the ability of plea agreements and appeal waivers to foreclose review of those suppression determinations, thereby affecting criminal defendants, prosecutors, trial courts, and appellate courts in New York.

Impact

The bill would amend the Criminal Procedure Law by narrowing the effect of guilty pleas and appeal waivers on appellate review of suppression rulings. It would require appellate courts to consider a defendant’s challenge to a final order denying suppression, even after a plea and notwithstanding an otherwise valid waiver of appeal rights. This would likely increase the number of suppression issues reaching appellate review and could affect plea bargaining practices, trial-level suppression litigation, and the finality of convictions in criminal cases.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received meaningful but not unanimous support. It passed the Senate Codes Committee by 9-4 and later passed the Senate floor by 39-21, indicating a clear majority in favor but with a substantial minority opposed. The available context suggests the measure was treated as a criminal justice and appellate procedure reform, with supporters likely emphasizing review of important constitutional or public-interest issues and opponents likely concerned about weakening plea waivers and finality.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether defendants should be able to appeal suppression rulings after pleading guilty and waiving appeal rights. Supporters appear to favor preserving appellate review for issues of public concern, especially where evidence suppression may involve constitutional search-and-seizure questions. Opponents likely object that the bill undermines the certainty of plea agreements, reduces the effectiveness of appeal waivers, and may increase litigation and appellate caseloads. The split committee and floor votes reflect that tension.