WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 4206

Requires courts to consider whether an individual poses a risk or threat of physical danger to the safety of any person or the community when imposing a securing order

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Joe Angelino and 10 co-sponsors

New York A 4206 requires courts to assess if someone in a securing order poses a risk of physical danger to any person or the community before issuing the order.

HELD FOR CONSIDERATION IN CODES
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 4206

Summary of New York Bill A 4206

Overview

Bill A 4206 would require courts to consider whether an individual poses a risk or threat of physical danger to the safety of any person or the community when imposing a securing order. The bill is currently in the Codes committee and is not yet enacted into law. It was introduced on January 31, 2025, and has progressed through standard committee referral with the latest action listing as “HELD FOR CONSIDERATION IN CODES.”

  • Status: HELD FOR CONSIDERATION IN CODES
  • Introduced: January 31, 2025
  • Current committee: Codes
  • Related bill: A 9708 (prior-session)

What the bill would do (key provisions)

  • Core requirement: Courts would be obligated to assess and consider whether the individual named in a securing order poses a risk or threat of physical danger to the safety of any person or the community prior to or when imposing a securing order.
  • Scope of consideration: The bill specifies that risk/physical danger to “any person or the community” must be taken into account, signaling an emphasis on both individual and broader public safety.
  • Implementation details: The version provided does not include explicit factors, tools, or procedures for how risk must be assessed. The bill would likely rely on existing court processes unless further provisions specify methods or standards (not specified in the available summary).

Who/what is affected

  • Affected parties: Individuals subject to securing orders, as well as potential victims or community members who rely on securing orders for protection.
  • Judicial/administrative bodies: Courts issuing securing orders would need to incorporate risk assessment into their decision-making process.
  • Related legal frameworks: The bill interacts with existing mechanisms for securing orders (e.g., protective orders) and may influence related procedures in the Codes.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduced: January 31, 2025
  • Referral: Referred to Codes (January 31, 2025)
  • Status update: Held for consideration in Codes (April 2, 2025; listed twice in the actions)
  • Next possible steps: If advanced, the bill would be heard and potentially amended in the Codes committee, then proceed to passage by the full chamber(s) and onward to the other house as applicable.

Sponsorship

  • Primary sponsor: Mike Reilly
  • Cosponsors: Michael Novakhov, Joseph Sempolinski, Chris Tague, Joe DeStefano, Andrea Bailey, Joe Angelino, Philip Palmesano, Matthew Slater, Stephen Hawley, Patrick Chludzinski

Related legislation

  • A 9708 (prior-session): Indicates a precedent or related approach to incorporating risk considerations into securing orders.

Potential impact and considerations

  • Public safety: By mandating risk assessment, the bill aims to align securing orders with the assessed danger posed by individuals, potentially enhancing protection for at-risk persons and communities.
  • Due process and specificity: The absence of defined risk factors or assessment standards in the provided summary could raise questions about how courts would implement the requirement and what criteria would guide decisions.
  • Administrative workload: Courts may experience increased consideration requirements, which could affect processing times for securing orders.

This summary reflects the information available from the bill’s public actions and sponsor list. For a fuller understanding, the bill’s full text would clarify the exact standards, definitions, and any delegated rulemaking or guidelines.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.