Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Expand Protections in NY's 'Raise the Age' Law
“Expanding eligibility for conviction sealing will give people who committed crimes in their youth the chance to become full members of society in adulthood,” Simotas said.
January 31, 2019 at 06:00 AM
6 minute read
As New York phases in a new law to raise the age at which someone is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system, a state lawmaker is planning legislation that would build on that program by expanding who would be eligible to have their records sealed under the statute.
The bill, set to be introduced by Assemblywoman Aravella Simotas, D-Queens, would broaden a provision of the so-called “Raise the Age” law by allowing people to apply for their records to be sealed if they were eligible to be treated as a youthful offender in the past, but were denied that status.
“Expanding eligibility for conviction sealing will give people who committed crimes in their youth the chance to become full members of society in adulthood,” Simotas said. “If someone has stayed out of trouble for ten years, I think they should be granted the chance to move beyond the burden of a criminal record.”
Youthful offender status has been available to defendants as young as 16 years old but younger than 19 years old in New York since 1971, when the Legislature passed a bill creating the classification. Certain violent or serious crimes may prevent that person from being classified as a youthful offender.
That status is determined at sentencing and carries certain benefits. If someone is classified as a youthful offender, their records are automatically sealed and the action isn't included on their criminal record—meaning it isn't considered a conviction and won't show up on a background check.
But being classified as a youthful offender is not guaranteed and is largely left up to the judge presiding over the case. A defendant could request to be treated as such and be denied based on the court's discretion.
That was the case for an unnamed defendant whose story inspired Simotas to introduce the legislation.
Jane Doe, as she's called, was arrested and indicted on a robbery charge in 1984 when she was 16 years old. She pleaded guilty to a lesser robbery charge, but the court denied her youthful offender treatment at sentencing. She was sentenced to five years probation.
Now, more than thirty years later, Doe moved the court to have her records sealed after she applied for a job thinking her criminal record was clean. She has not been convicted of any crimes since the robbery charge, which was considered a violent felony.
The request to have those records sealed was rejected by state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Zayas, who said he was constrained by state law because Doe was not granted youthful offender status at her sentencing. There is no section of the state law that would have allowed him to grant her request, Zayas said in the decision.
“The Court, regrettably, is constrained to deny the motion because, as the People correctly contend, defendant's conviction of a violent felony offense makes her ineligible for sealing under the statute,” wrote Zayas, who is the administrative judge for the criminal term in Queens Supreme Court.
He called on the Legislature to amend the Raise the Age law to allow people who were eligible to receive youthful offender treatment in the past, but were denied that status, to apply to have their records sealed. That wouldn't mean their records would be sealed automatically, but they would at least have the chance to make their case to the court.
“If the statute were amended as proposed, the Court would grant defendant's motion without reservation,” Zayas wrote. “But, since the Court must, of course, decide the motion within the parameters of the current statute, it must, unfortunately, deny it.”
Doe did not qualify to have her record sealed because she had a violent felony conviction, which is not eligible to be sealed under the statute. If she had been adjudicated as a youthful offender at the time, that conviction would not exist on her record. That option was available to the judge, Zayas said.
He argued that the same option should be made available to her now, though through a different avenue. Raise the Age allows individuals convicted of nonviolent and misdemeanor crimes to have their records sealed after spending a decade crime-free. Sex offenders are not eligible.
That part of the law is intended to give individuals convicted of those crimes in their youth the chance to have a fresh start at some point in the future. While children convicted today will have to wait a decade to make that request, older offenders who meet the qualifications can ask for their records to be sealed now.
Some lawmakers in Albany have also discussed shortening that gap to give younger defendants more opportunities in the job market at an earlier age. Those discussions are ongoing.
The bill to be introduced by Simotas is intended for the same purpose. It would allow defendants who could have been eligible for youthful offender status at the time of their sentencing—regardless of when that was—to ask for the same treatment years later. They would have to follow the same rules as adolescent offenders to be eligible, including a clean criminal record for at least 10 years after their sentence was finished or imposed.
“Expanding eligibility for conviction sealing will give individuals like Jane Doe, who have made every effort to turn their lives around, the opportunities they deserve to move beyond the barrier of a criminal record,” Simotas is expected to write in a memo with the bill.
Simotas is expected to introduce the legislation this week.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew York Times Moves for $100K in Attorney Fees Against Dfinity Foundation
3 minute readFederal Judge Slaps Down the SEC’s Attempt to Regulate Crypto Liquidity Providers
10 minute readA Client Is Guilty; But Another Man Is Wrongfully Convicted
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Conference Declines Democratic Request to Refer Justice Thomas to DOJ
- 2People in the News—Jan. 2, 2025—Eastburn and Gray, Klehr Harrison
- 3Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 4Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
- 5Conn. Supreme Court: Workers' Comp Insurance Cancellations Must Be Unambiguous
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250