Cuomo Signs Bills Aimed at Domestic Violence Prosecution

, New York Law Journal


Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law Wednesday bills that he said would aid efforts to combat domestic violence by refining New York's stalking and aggravated harassment laws.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • Senator O‘Brien

    This new law is still too vague. My wife was harassed via her phone by a
    man who she barely knows and is now one of 7,500 cases that had to be "discharged" because the Aggravated Harassment 2nd degree was overturned.
    Just left alone and kept the way it is in the new law the definition of "harassment" itself entails all the vagueness that the court already rejected: to annoy, to trouble, distress, to plague, to torment, ect....and stays within the lines of the physical and omits the use of verbal, implied and actual vocalized threats. So if one says on your message machine that ...." I‘m gonna up. I will get you...ect..." and freely admits to his intention it‘s still falls under "freedom of speech" and is protected as such. Wow! What a libertarian fantasy! No. The new law should lay-out the definition and terms of harassment and should then include that Aggravated Harassment is committed when the harassing party(s) has gender specific intention e.g., he harassed her because she was a woman. Also, Aggravated Harassment is committed if the victim was harassed by a person(s) of obvious authority e.g., your building supervisor, building management, landlord where the victim resides (our case) and or by any government authorities, police included and the power is used as a tool to threaten and harass. My wife‘s evidence was recorded on her personal voice mail and was left for her to hear by the defendant, and there are witness(s), and the two day search and stand-off to arrest the defendant was all duly noted. Now, sadly the tormentor or so-called defendant was "let-off" still lives in our building and is back to threatening us and all our neighbors.... again. In short, this new law is all fluff and will get challenged again and over-turned and the D.A. will again be choking on another 7,500 cases and all the tormentors, bullies, thugs will be back on the streets and in our homes aggravating and harassing women and their families.

  • Edmond Dantes

    Error*, not Effort.

  • Edmond Dantes

    Article makes a slight effort. It says the new statute for 240.30 makes it a crime when "an offender "knows or reasonably should know" that a communication will cause another person to "reasonably fear harm to such person‘s physical safety or property, or to the physical safety or property of a member of such person‘s same family or household."

    The statute says not just "a communication" but actually "a physical threat."

    Overall, this is a decent statute -- specific, clear, and necessary. It‘s much better than the nonsense statute they had before.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202664335184

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.