N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Civil Rights / ARTICLE Miscellaneous Rights and Immunities
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79 (2026)

Forfeiture of office and suspension of civil rights

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 79. Forfeiture of office and suspension of civil rights. 1. Except
as provided in subdivision two a sentence of imprisonment in a state
correctional institution for any term less than for life or a sentence
of imprisonment in a state correctional institution for an indeterminate
term, having a minimum of one day and a maximum of natural life,
forfeits all the public offices, and suspends, during the term of the
sentence, all the civil rights, and all private trusts, authority, or
powers of, or held by, the person sentenced.
  2. A sentence of imprisonment in a state correctional institution for
any term less than for life or a sentence of imprisonment in a state
correctional institution for an indeterminate term, having a minimum of
one day and a maximum of natural life shall not be deemed to suspend the
right or capacity of any person so sentenced to commence and prosecute
an action or proceeding in any court within this state or before a body
or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
functions within this state; provided, however, that where at the time
of the commencement and during the prosecution of such action or
proceeding such person is an incarcerated individual of a state
correctional institution, he or she shall not appear at any place other
than within the institution for any purpose related to such action or
proceeding unless upon a subpoena issued by the court before whom such
action or proceeding is pending or, where such action or proceeding is
pending before a body or officer, before a judge to whom a petition for
habeas corpus could be made under subdivision (b) of section seven
thousand two of the civil practice law and rules upon motion of any
party and upon a determination that such person's appearance is
essential to the proper and just disposition of the action or
proceeding. Unless the court orders otherwise, a motion for such
subpoena shall be made on at least two days' notice to the commissioner
of corrections and community supervision.
  3. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision, the
state shall not be liable for any expense of or related to any such
action or proceeding, including but not limited to the expense of or
related to transporting the incarcerated individual to, or lodging or
guarding him or her at any place other than in a state correctional
institution. The department of corrections and community supervision
shall not be required to perform any services related to such action or
proceeding, including but not limited to transporting the incarcerated
individual to or lodging or guarding him at any place other than a state
correctional institution unless and until the department has received
payment for such services.
  (b) Where the incarcerated individual is permitted in accordance with
any other law to proceed with the action or proceeding as a poor person
the expense of transporting the incarcerated individual to, or lodging
or guarding him or her at any place other than in a state correctional
institution or any other expense relating thereto shall be a state
charge; provided, however, that where an incarcerated individual has
been granted such permission and a recovery by judgment or by settlement
is had in his or her favor, the court may direct him or her to pay out
of the recovery all or part of any sum expended by the state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Caldero v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 562 P.2d 791 (Idaho 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Caldero v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 562 P.2d 791 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 4× “N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79 -H (McKinney's 1976); Ch.”
Cmty. Bd. 7 v. Schaffer, 639 N.E.2d 1 (NY 1994). “Additionally, the capacity question has often arisen in connection with controversies involving trustees (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 261 [2d ed]). Another category of capacity problems — the category at issue here — arises in the context of suits brought by artificial entities.”
Zapata v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 23 A.D.3d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff did not appear for his scheduled General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing because he was incarcerated at a correctional facility upstate. In response to the plaintiffs inquiry, the County of Suffolk advised him that he was responsible for taking the necessary steps to…”
Jerome Rosenberg v. Raymond v. Martin, 478 F.2d 520 (2d Cir. 1973). “We there rejected a contention by the State that, despite the literal applicability of the tolling provision to Ortiz, who was serving sentences for fixed terms, there should be no tolling since the provision was intended to alleviate the effect of the “civil death” statute, now…”
Brown v. State, 6 A.D.3d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 3× “In addition, the record contains no evidence that he tendered payment for the recording equipment that he requested from prison officials (see Civil Rights Law § 79 [3] [a]) or that they were obligated to provide such equipment because he was proceeding as a poor person in the…”
Lipinski v. Skinner, 781 F. Supp. 131 (N.D.N.Y. 1991). · cites it 3× “Binghamton Press asserts that editorial writer Jeff Davis is absolutely immune from being required to reveal confidential information or confidential sources of information under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79 -h(b) (McKinney’s Supp.”
Pennsylvania State Police v. Viall, 774 A.2d 1288 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). “See Section 79 of New York’s Civil Rights Law, Civil Rights Law § 79. Moreover, the exception to the exemption contained in Section 921(a)(20) of the Gun Control Act, i.”
Otrosinka v. Hageman, 144 A.D.3d 1609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “, a person has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a parental relationship with his [or her] children” (Cook, 881 F Supp at 175 ). As a result, “[d]ue process must thus be afforded to an individual who is having his [or her] parental rights challenged” (id .”
In re Washington, 216 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “Civil Rights Law § 79 (2) now provides that "[a] sentence of imprisonment in a state correctional institution * * * shall not be deemed to suspend the right or capacity of any person so sentenced to commence and prosecute an action or proceeding in any court within this state”.”
Pinaud v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 798 F. Supp. 913 (E.D.N.Y 1992). “See N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79 (2); Lee v. Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, 487 F.”
Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 97 F.R.D. 703 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “*707 As for defendants’ contention based on N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79 -h, protecting confidential information generated “in the course of gathering or obtaining news for publication,” the Sauter Memorandum was not the publication of news.”
Delores B. Cardinal McCloskey Child.'s & Fam. Servs. v. Willie B., 141 A.D.2d 100 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). “Civil Rights Law § 79 (1) states that a person who is serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of life "forfeits all the public offices”, and also "suspends, during the term of the sentence, all the civil rights * * * held by, the person sentenced.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79(2) — 1 case
Diaz v. Coughlin, 909 F. Supp. 146 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.