People v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. In re EBIC Ins. Co.

    68 N.Y.S.3d 841 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

    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).

  2. People v. Isaac

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50487 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2004)

    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.

  3. People v. Santiago

    175 Misc. 2d 268 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    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.

  4. People v. Castro

    119 Misc. 2d 787 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that, for purposes of New York state law, third-party depositor of cash bail had standing to vacate a cash bail forfeiture

    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.