Stipulated Fine Program and Commercial Abatement Fine Program Rules

Online comments: 5

• Daniel Bersohn

  While I support the revenue and enforcement cost mitigation goals of this program and the automatic enforcement of unmitigated fines for stipulated violations in the event of a business’ failure to timely pay the stipulated fine, I have serious fairness concerns when comparing the fine collection practice for businesses as opposed to individuals. The availablility of the stipulated fine program for businesses without a corresponding program for individuals is inconsistent with my understanding of notions of fairness and economic justice embraced by the Mayor.

  A parallel stipulated fine program should be established for individuals who are NYC tax residents perhaps with sliding scale fines based on prior tax year income (simple SSN/TIN lookup and formula based on NYC taxes paid so all records required to enforce are City owned). Fines for some violations (like red light and speed cameras) are probably not deterrent for higher income individuals while parking fines may be disastrous for lower income individuals.

  Alternatively, other jurisdictions (for example London, UK; Toronto, ON) include video and/or photo evidence in parking violations to limit the ability of violators to challenge tickets. Parking agents already carry smartphones, so it should be simple enough to include photo, video and GPS capture in writing violations and use that data to automate filling out the violation based on things like GIS data about parking restrictions and image recognition for number plates, vehicle make/model/color, etc. In this connection, City issued parking permits should be electronically associated with number plates rather than physical. In this case if a traffic agent attempts to write a violation that is covered by the permit attached to the time and location of the number plate, the ticket issuing system would simply throw an error. If the permit doesn’t apply to the violation observed, the vehicle would get the appropriate ticket. This would ensure fair enforcement against all violators (commerical, City employee, and individuals).

  Comment added January 7, 2026 3:12pm

• Zach Miller

  Full comments submitted in the attached PDF

  Comment attachment
  TANY_Testimony_Department-of-Finance_Stipulated-Fine_Commercial-Abatement_022026.pdf

  Comment added January 28, 2026 10:23am

• Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz

  January 29, 2026

  Jeffrey Shear
  Acting Commissioner, New York City Department of Finance
  NYC Department of Finance
  Legal Affairs Division
  375 Pearl Street Room/Floor: 30th Floor
  New York, New York 10038

  Dearing Acting Commissioner Shear:

  I write to request that DOF suspend proposed rule-making for the below:

  Proposed Rule:
  The New York City Department of Finance (“DOF”) is proposing amendments to rules to
  allow stipulations under the Stipulated Fine Program and the Commercial Abatement
  Program for time periods preceding the date of the agreement and to clarify polices relating
  to late payments under such programs.

  I ask DOF to suspend its rule making because neither my office, nor our community boards, were
  advised of these proposed changes which will no doubt increase double parking and slow down
  the buses our citizens need in are community – which already lacks sufficient mass transportation
  options. This proposed rule expands illegally double parking of large vehicles, creating obstacles
  to all vehicles, and will not help produce Free and Fast Buses that I support along with the
  administration.

  I do request that DOF remove all discounts for alleged double parking infractions until such time
  the state, or the council approves such changes, as discounting fines for blocking traffic while
  double parking, for hours on end, causes many problems, not the least of which is to block access
  to Access-A-Ride Vehicles, preventing our citizens with vision and other impairments yet another
  obstacle to transportation they depend upon to see their doctors and get to work. The program
  represents a double-standard, where the largest offenders receive millions in discounts, while
  public housing needs, and funding for victims of domestic violence do not appear satisfied under
  NYS VTL 1809-a. The program is in contrast to what we as New Yorkers hold dear to their hearts:
  fairness and accountability.

  I also request that DOF allow businesses who are eligible for live, in-person virtual video hearings,
  to be able to switch them to live, in-person hearings, and in the alternative, especially when there is inclement weather – like we had this week. Failing to do so appears an unnecessary burden to
  the public and business community that DOF can and should easily relieve.

  I am happy to work with DOF to facilitate the necessary hearings, and discussions. Please confirm
  that all rule-making concerning any discount program be held in abeyance.

  Thank you for your cooperation in this important matter, and please let me know when we can
  meet.

  Sincerely,
  Jeffrey Dinowitz
  Member of New York State Assembly

  Comment attachment
  2026-01-29-Letter-to-DOF.pdf

  Comment added January 31, 2026 8:22pm

• Glen Bolofsky

  Opposed.

  DOF policy concerning discounts for illegal behavior, where vehicles double park all day, and receive discounts for doing so under the stipulated fine program and/or commercial abatement program is contrary to good government. Nobody needs to have a higher level education to know that a double-parked vehicle that doesn’t move for hours on end creates obstacles to safe public streets, and disturbs transportation policy, which as the Mayor explains, is to move our buses faster. We ask DOF how this program will move our buses faster – and to address that in its rule-making.

  DOF wants a quick and steady cash flow, which we appreciate but, it doesn’t weigh the cost. The costs are significant.

  (1) Public Safety: the programs create physical obstacles to everyone using our streets and curbs; including individuals with disabilities. The program causes these problems – which are indeed life and death safety issues – by allowing vehicles to double park all day, blocking pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver views as to what’s around them. It impedes traffic, and blocks Access-A-Ride vehicles access to the curb. Safety ALWAYS comes first but, not here.

  (2) NYC Council: DOF is aware that the NYC Council rejected Intro 0637-2017 where it sought Council approval for these programs. That decision stands. We refer DOF to the transcripts of the final hearings on the matter as shown on the NYC Council website.

  (3) Robbing the Poor & Needy: The program(s) rob money from victims of domestic violence, as NYS VTL 1809-a requires a $15- mandatory surcharge to be collected for each ticket paid. and given to the crime victims assistance units. DOF is deficient in giving this money, earmarked, by law to victims of crime, who suffer needlessly. Their children, and extended families also suffer greatly. This is bad public policy and any agency that doesn’t see that is not managed well.

  (4) The program(s) lend themselves to abuse by creating a serious adjudication dilemma as DOF seeks to artificially keep the number of tickets it dismissed as low as possible, by blocking the presentation of documents at commercial hearings, and legally opposes a company’s use of an affirmation as opposed to requiring a notarized affidavit.

  Comment added February 2, 2026 12:16pm

• Glen Bolofsky

  Please note that my comment inadvertently references NYC Council Intro 0637-2017 however, the correct year is 2007.

  Thank you and please post.

  Comment added February 2, 2026 8:44pm