It has been held that remission of forfeiture of a bail bond is considered an "Act of Grace" which the legislature may take away if it no longer deems it serves its continued purpose. People v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co. , 43 A.D.2d 963, 352 N.Y.S.2d 209 (2nd Dept. 1974). Remission is purely statutory and its provisions must be strictly construed. People v. Santiago , 175 Misc.2d 268, 668 N.Y.S.2d 878 (1998).
The moving papers do not contain proof that "a remission is justified by exceptional circumstances and that there is no loss of rights or prejudice to the People." People v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., 43 A.D.2d 963, 352 N.Y.2d 209, 211 [NYAS (2nd Dep't 1974] aff'd by 37 N.Y.2d 606, 376 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1975]). Absent such proof, the application must be denied.
There is, however, no such right to remission. Remission is, "but an act of grace which the Legislature may take away if it so declares its purpose * * * It is purely statutory and the provisions thereof must be strictly construed" ( People v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 43 A.D.2d 963 [2d Dept. 1974], affd 37 N.Y.2d 606). The possibility of remission provides an incentive for a defaulting surety to purge itself, and thereby avoid the effects of the "over-all punitive goal" ( People v. Schonfeld, supra, at 329) of the bail statutes, by belatedly satisfying the obligation which it had originally undertaken but failed to fulfill.
As a corollary rule, the surety has the burden of proof with respect to both bases for a requested remission." (Emphasis supplied; see, also, People v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. [ Santiago], 43 A.D.2d 963, affd 37 N.Y.2d 606.) To grant remission applications routinely would effectively destroy the purpose of bail.