You are here: / / MECHANISMS FOR SEEKING DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE EXPLAINED.

MECHANISMS FOR SEEKING DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE EXPLAINED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined, where a sentence of incarceration exceeds 60 days,  a sentencing judge does not have the power to waive the mandatory surcharge. The only mechanism available to such a defendant who seeks to demonstrate the inability to pay the surcharge is a motion for resentencing:

… [T]he relevant statutes prohibit judicial waiver of a mandatory surcharge, require collection of any unpaid amounts from an inmate’s funds as of the moment of confinement and throughout the period of incarceration, and provide for deferral under limited circumstances, namely an inability to pay that is not solely due to incarceration. A person subject to a mandatory surcharge may seek to defer payment at any time after sentencing, by way of a motion to resentence under CPL 420.10 (5). In addition, persons sentenced to confinement of 60 days or less, may avoid filing such motion, and instead present information in support of a request to defer on the appearance date set forth on a summons issued pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35 (8). Under either procedural mechanism, if the court grants a deferral it must place its reasons on the record … , and issue a written order, which shall be treated as a civil judgment in accordance with CPLR 5016 … . This statutory scheme is structured to further the legislative goals of raising revenue and ensuring payment of the mandatory surcharge by persons convicted of crimes. People v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 01208, CtApp 2-18-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE)/SENTENCING (DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY SURCHARGE)/MANDATORY SURCHARGE (DEFERRAL)

You might also like
Florida’s Law of Restrictive Covenants Re: Non-Solicitation of Customers by a Former Employee Violates New York Public Policy by Favoring Employers at the Expense of Employees
THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).
Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved Indifference
THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EVALUATE THE CLAIM DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO IMPEACH THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY WITH AN INCONSISTENT STATEMENT CONCERNING THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S “PRE-PEOPLE V BOONE” FAILURE TO REQUEST A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CT APP).
BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION.
Reversing Its Prior Decision in this Case, the Court of Appeals Determined the “Servidone” Rule Is to Be Followed in New York/An Insurer Which Has Breached Its Duty to Defend the Insured May Rely On Policy Exclusions to Escape Its Duty to Indemnify the Insured
FAILURE TO PRESERVE PHOTO ARRAY GIVES RISE TO A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS SUGGESTIVE; THE PRESUMPTION CAN BE REBUTTED BY DETAILING THE PROCEDURES USED TO SAFEGUARD AGAINST SUGGESTIVENESS.
A SENTENCING COURT MAY REQUIRE A DEFENDANT, AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION, TO PAY FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING, IF A DEFENDANT CLAIMS AN INABILITY TO PAY, A HEARING MUST BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION IS APPROPRIATE AND, IF NOT, THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SENTENCED TO PRISON (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DELEGATION CLAUSES, PLACING THE DETERMINATION OF ARBITRABILITY IN THE ARBITRATOR,... APPELLATE DIVISION PROPERLY DECIDED APPEAL ON GROUNDS WHICH WERE NOT EXPLICITLY...