BILL NUMBER: S8682A
SPONSOR: GONZALEZ
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to repeal section 165.35 of the penal law relating to fortune
telling
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To protect New Yorkers from deceptive or coercive practices in the
provision of spiritual, metaphysical, or divinatory services while
ensuring full protection for First Amendment speech, religious
expression, culturally rooted traditions and good-faith spiritual guid-
ance; repeals the outdated "fortune telling" offense in Penal Law
165.35.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 repeals Penal Law 165.35, the offense of "fortune telling.
Section 2 immediately.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
New York's current fortune-telling statute, Penal Law 165.35, is a relic
of an earlier era; an era in which spiritual practices associated with
Romani families, immigrant communities, LGBTQ practitioners and women-
run microbusinesses were treated as suspect, immoral or inherently
deceptive. It was born from fear and stereotypes; not legitimate consum-
er-protection concerns. The legislative record surrounding the 1965
recodification of the Penal Law reflects these biases clearly. Fortune-
telling was deliberately retained as an offense, not because of
evidence-based consumer protection concerns, but because of longstanding
stereotypes about "occultists," "charlatans" and "gypsies." This law
stands as a remnant of 20th-century moral policing that New York has
otherwise rejected.
Although rarely enforced today, 165.35 remains on the books as a crimi-
nal ban that requires anyone offering spiritual or metaphysical services
to pre-label their speech as "entertainment only." This compelled
disclaimer treats entire belief systems as inherently fraudulent and
places unconventional spiritual expression outside the constitutional
protections afforded to other forms of speech. Courts across the coun-
try, including in New York, have already recognized this. In Nadel v.
Weber, 1994 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 19, 1994), a New York court held that
applying the statute to punish spiritual speech without proof of fraudu-
lent intent violates the First Amendment. Other states have repealed
similar laws altogether. Leaving this statute in place, despite its
acknowledged constitutional frailty, undermines public confidence in the
Penal Law and echoes the concerns that led the Legislature to repeal New
York's antiquated adultery statute.
A striking example of the statute's contradictions is Lily Dale, a
historic community in Western New York famous for mediumship, spiritual
readings, healing services and metaphysical teachings. Lily Dale has
operated openly for more than a century, draws thousands of visitors
annually and is celebrated as a cultural and spiritual hub. How can a
place like Lily Dale flourish, with events, workshops and readings at
the core of its identity, when the Penal. Law declares these very prac-
tices illegal unless labeled "entertainment"? The answer is simple: the
statute is unworkable, selectively enforced and fundamentally incompat-
ible with modem constitutional and cultural reality. Its continued
existence makes you question what and who the law was ever truly meant
to target. The statute has functioned as a vehicle for selective
enforcement. Enforcement was not aimed at stopping sophisticated finan-
cial schemes; it was most often deployed to displace marginalized people
or impose moral judgments on culturally rooted practices.
§ 165.35 is the wrong tool for addressing the very real problem of
deceptive or coercive schemes that sometimes occur under the guise of
spiritual services. Fraud is wrong and New York already has the appro-
priate laws to address it. Larceny, false pretenses, scheme to defraud
and robust civil consumer protection statutes provide strong and target-
ed enforcement mechanisms. Criminalizing an entire category of spiritual
or metaphysical speech goes far beyond addressing misconduct; it crimi-
nalizes belief itself. Meanwhile, the fraud provisions that do work
remain fully available and more effective than attempting to enforce a
constitutionally suspect speech based crime.
In 2025, Spiritual and metaphysical services such as tarot readings,
astrology, mediumship, energy work, and spiritual counseling are widely
accepted as forms of personal exploration and wellness. These practices
appear in mainstream bookstores, health and wellness platforms, cultural
institutions and even therapy-adjacent settings. New York City licenses
and taxes many of these businesses. Thousands of New Yorkers lawfully
provide such services every day, yet the Penal Law continues to treat
their work as criminal "fortune telling" unless explicitly labeled
"entertainment." This contradiction serves no public purpose. It creates
confusion for both practitioners and law enforcement, who are left to
guess which spiritual speech is criminal, which is protected, and which
might be treated as fraud.
The bill replaces this outdated, discriminatory and constitutionally
vulnerable criminal statute with a modern consumer protection model
administered by the Attorney General. This approach focuses on conduct
like coercive acts, deceptive schemes, material misrepresentations and
not on the content of someone's spiritual or metaphysical beliefs. It
preserves strong tools to intervene when vulnerable New Yorkers are
exploited, while removing a stigmatizing and unequal criminal provision
that has no place in a 21st-century penal code.
Repeal of § 165.35 is not an endorsement of fraudulent behavior. Rath-
er, it ensures that enforcement targets actual misconduct; not cultural
identity, not immigrant traditions, not women-run businesses and not
protected speech. This bill affirms New York's commitment to constitu-
tional rights, cultural inclusion and modernized consumer protection,
while retiring a provision that has long stood at odds with those
values.
 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill.
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Minimal. Any costs associated with enforcement will be absorbed within
existing resources of the Department of Law.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect 90 days after it becomes law.

Statutes affected:
S8682: 165.35 penal law
S8682A: 165.35 penal law