N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Administrative Provisions / TITLE Nb / ARTICLE Terrorism
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 490.00 (2026)

Legislative findings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 490.00 Legislative findings.
  The devastating consequences of the recent barbaric attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the compelling need for
legislation that is specifically designed to combat the evils of
terrorism. Indeed, the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, Pan Am
Flight number 103 in Lockerbie in 1988, the 1997 shooting atop the
Empire State Building, the 1994 murder of Ari Halberstam on the Brooklyn
Bridge and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, will forever
serve to remind us that terrorism is a serious and deadly problem that
disrupts public order and threatens individual safety both at home and
around the world. Terrorism is inconsistent with civilized society and
cannot be tolerated.
  Although certain federal laws seek to curb the incidence of terrorism,
there are no corresponding state laws that facilitate the prosecution
and punishment of terrorists in state courts. Inexplicably, there is
also no criminal penalty in this state for a person who solicits or
raises funds for, or provides other material support or resources to,
those who commit or encourage the commission of horrific and cowardly
acts of terrorism. Nor do our criminal laws proscribe the making of
terrorist threats or punish with appropriate severity those who hinder
the prosecution of terrorists. Finally, our death penalty statute must
be strengthened so that the cold-blooded execution of an individual for
terrorist purposes is a capital offense.
  A comprehensive state law is urgently needed to complement federal
laws in the fight against terrorism and to better protect all citizens
against terrorist acts. Accordingly, the legislature finds that our laws
must be strengthened to ensure that terrorists, as well as those who
solicit or provide financial and other support to terrorists, are
prosecuted and punished in state courts with appropriate severity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: People v. Morales, 982 N.E.2d 580 (N.Y. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Morales, 982 N.E.2d 580 (N.Y. 2012). “embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; (3) the destruction of the Oklahoma City federal office building in 1995; (4) the mid-air bombing of Pan Am Flight number 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988; (5) the 1997 shooting from atop the Empire State Building; (6) the 1994 murder…”
State of West Virginia v. James Scott Yocum, 759 S.E.2d 182 (W. Va. 2014). · cites it 2× “14 In the legislative findings of its anti-terrorism act, New York lists the following examples of terrorism: (1) the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; (2) the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; (3) the destruction…”
State of West Virginia v. Zachary Allen Knotts, Jr., 760 S.E.2d 479 (W. Va. 2014). · cites it 2× “Because the legislature was aware of the difficulty in defining or categorizing specific acts of terrorism, it incorporated a general definition of the crime and referenced seven notorious acts of terrorism13 that serve as 13 See N.Y. Penal Law § 490.00 (McKinney 2001) (“The…”
People v. Adams, 54 Misc. 3d 234 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016). “are prosecuted and punished in state courts with appropriate severity” (Penal Law § 490.00). The article included a new crime, “Making a terroristic threat” (Penal Law § 490.”
People v. Richardson, 2018 NY Slip Op 8368 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018). · cites it 3× “The Legislature was cognizant that there were no state laws to "facilitate the prosecution and punishment of terrorists in state court" and that the attacks of September 11, 2001 "underscore[d] the compelling need for legislation .”
People v. Morales, 86 A.D.3d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “The direct legislative history of the Anti-Terrorism Act does not focus on the meaning of the term “a civilian population” in article 490 (see Senate Mem in Support of Senate Bill S70002, 2001 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 1492-1494), but it is clear from the legislative…”
People v. Morales, 81 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “The direct legislative history of the Anti-Terrorism Act does not focus on the meaning of the term “a civilian population” in article 490 (see Senate Mem in Support of Senate Bill S70002, 2001 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 1492-1494), but it is clear from the legislative…”
People v. DeBlasio, 2021 NY Slip Op 00376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “; see also Penal Law § 490.00). In light of the foregoing, we do not reach defendant's remaining contentions.”
People v. Van Patten, 8 Misc. 3d 224 (2005). “” (Penal Law § 490.00 [“Legislative findings”].”
People v. Parker, 2025 NY Slip Op 02108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025). · cites it 6× “998; (3) the destruction of the Oklahoma City federal office building in 1995; (4) the mid-air bombing of Pan Am Flight number 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988; (5) the 1997 shooting from atop the Empire State Building; (6) the 1994 murder of Ari Halberstam on the Brooklyn…”
People v. DeBlasio, 2021 NY Slip Op 00376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “; see also Penal Law § 490.00). In light of the foregoing, we do not reach defendant's remaining contentions.”
Tokko v. Consol. Edison Co., 62 A.D.3d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “To the extent plaintiff predicates his claim on the fact that he was reported to the authorities by defendant’s instructor, it does not avail him because that report is protected by the Freedom to Report Terrorism Act (Penal Law § 490.00 et seq.). Plaintiff pleads no facts…”
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.