Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Assembly expands court admonition on deportation risks to include some misdemeanors

New York State Assembly · May 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A bill requiring judges to use uniform language advising defendants about possible immigration consequences of pleas passed after extended floor questioning about scope, remedies and duplication of defense‑counsel duties.

The Assembly on May 17 passed a bill (calendar 34, sponsor Miss Cruz) to amend the criminal procedure law so courts must use uniform admonitory language advising defendants that a plea or conviction can make a noncitizen deportable or ineligible for naturalization. The sponsor said the change clarifies the message for defendants and extends the admonition to certain misdemeanors.

During extended questioning, members asked whether the bill duplicates defense counsel's existing duty and whether it would require judges to inquire into a defendant’s immigration status. Sponsor Cruz answered that the bill creates a uniform statement and does not authorize further inquiry; once the admonition is given, judges should not make additional statements about immigration status.

Members also raised the governor’s prior veto objections (that the bill’s rigid language could overturn otherwise lawful convictions) and whether appellate remedies (vacatur) would follow if the statement was omitted; the sponsor and supporters said case law already allows vacatur in appropriate circumstances and that uniform language would protect constitutional rights.

The Assembly recorded Ayes 94, Nays 52 and approved the measure; the reading indicated it takes effect in 90 days. Proponents said it helps noncitizen defendants and DACA recipients understand consequences; opponents urged caution about unintended appellate consequences and jury of the law.