New York Senate Bill S08312

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/2/25
• Refer: 6/2/25

Caption

Allows the removal of criminal actions to a mental health court in an adjoining county.

Summary

This bill amends section 230.21 of the Criminal Procedure Law to expand the types of specialized courts in an adjoining county to which a criminal action may be removed. Under current law, removal is available to a human trafficking court or a veterans treatment court in an adjoining county, with the consent of the defendant and both district attorneys. The bill adds mental health court as another eligible destination for removal. The measure keeps the existing procedural safeguards in place. A removal order would still not take effect for five days unless the receiving court agrees to accept the case sooner, and the receiving court must notify the issuing court if it will or will not accept the action. The bill also preserves the existing restriction barring removal to a veterans treatment court for certain family offense charges involving members of the same household or family.

Impact

The bill would amend New York criminal procedure law to authorize transfer of eligible criminal cases to mental health courts in adjoining counties, alongside existing human trafficking and veterans treatment courts. It would affect defendants, prosecutors, and courts in counties outside New York City, expanding access to specialized problem-solving courts that may offer treatment-oriented case handling. The bill takes effect immediately and would require courts and district attorneys to follow the same notice and consent procedures already used for other removal options.

Sentiment

The available record suggests generally favorable or at least noncontroversial treatment of the bill, but there is no committee transcript or vote history provided to show debate or opposition. The bill’s caption and text indicate a targeted, treatment-focused expansion of an existing diversion mechanism, which typically draws support from advocates for mental health services and alternative court pathways. Because no votes or hearing remarks are included, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as apparently supportive but undocumented in the supplied materials.

Contention

The main policy issue is the expansion of removal authority to mental health court, which may raise questions about prosecutorial consent, court capacity, and whether the receiving county has an appropriate specialized court designated by the chief administrator. The bill also preserves existing limits, including the prohibition on removing certain family offense cases to veterans treatment court, but it does not add a similar express limitation for mental health court. No specific opposition or competing viewpoints are documented in the provided materials.