Did Son of Sam Law Bar Convict from Spending Workers’ Comp Settlement?

What Do You Think?

New York, NY (WorkersCompensation.com) -- Generally, individuals and entities seeking to collect a debt cannot access an employee’s workers’ compensation benefits. But does that apply to crime victims seek monetary compensation from convicted criminals?

Consider the case of a man convicted of murder in 2022 and sentenced to prison. Prior to that conviction, he obtained a $41,000 workers’ compensation settlement. He was later resentenced and transferred to another facility, along with his remaining settlement funds – $28,000.

The New York State Office of Victim Services, on the victim’s behalf, filed an injunction asking the court to bar the convict from spending all but $1,000 of the funds. The office brought its action under Executive Law § 632-a, commonly called the Son of Sam Law.

The court explained that the Son of Sam Law, which is intended to help crime victims obtain compensation, allows victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source and protect those funds while litigation is pending. The law, however, allows the convict to keep the first $1,000.

Could Victim Services stop the convict from using the funds?

A. No. The funds did not represent profit, such as money made of a book deal.

B. Yes. The law pertains to funds from virtually any source.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Matter of the New York State Office of Victim Services v. Johnson, No. CV-23-1131 (N.Y. App. Div. 11/07/24), which held that the petitioner had access to the settlement funds.

The court pointed out that the law was originally directed solely at profits from a crime. In 2001, however, the Legislature amended the law to allow a crime victim to seek recovery from “funds of a convicted person,” which includes “all funds and property received from any source by a person convicted of a specified crime." 

“Given this background, [the convict’s] settlement funds are subject to restraint and recovery under the Son of Sam Law even though he acquired them before his conviction,” the court wrote.

The court rejected the convict’s argument that the workers’ compensation law shields the settlement funds from restraint and recovery. 

The court acknowledged that workers' compensation benefits, including the settlement funds, are exempt from creditors’ claims pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 33.

“However, the later-enacted Son of Sam Law, as amended in 2001, does not include workers' compensation benefits in its list of carve-outs,” the court wrote. Concluding that the omission was intentional, the court stated that the Son of Sam Law supersedes Workers' Compensation Law § 33.

Share This Article: