New York County Defender Services

Testimony of

Natalie Fiorenzo

Senior Corrections Specialist

New York County Defender Services

Before the New York City Board of Correction

November 13, 2025

I am Natalie Fiorenzo, Senior Corrections Specialist at New York County Defender Services

(NYCDS). NYCDS is an indigent defense office that every year represents tens of thousands of

New Yorkers in Manhattan’s Criminal, Family, and Supreme Courts. The NYCDS Corrections

Specialist Team provides a direct channel of communication with and advocacy for our clients

who are incarcerated.

1. Packages

a. The list of prohibited items is arbitrary, constantly changing, too vague yet also

overly prescriptive.

It’s entirely unclear how the list of prohibited and permissible items is drafted, and the process

by which the Department identifies new items to include and exclude. We can find no

justification or rationale for the items that are enumerated, nor can we discern any organized

methodology for periodically reviewing the list. What we are told by mail room officers is

constantly changing and impossible for family, defense teams, and community members to

follow, because it does not comply with the publicly available permissible items list. Is there a

centralized and representative body within the Department tasked with considering changes or

additions to the list of prohibited items? If so, how often does this delegation meet and consider

objections to the catalog of banned items? What is the oversight of this body and how are we

ensuring that it is not subject to conflicted, profit-oriented interests?For years, our office and our clients’ families have experienced frustration with the restrictions

on items identified in this list. Yet there appears to be no mechanism to lodge our objections and

voice valid concerns to certain items. Our staff has reached out to the Department on numerous

occasions to inquire about specific restricted items - to get more clarity, to better understand the

reasoning behind the restrictions - to no avail.

For example, we have struggled to understand and comply with the following exclusions:

1. The categorical ban on photographs of people in custody. Due to this restriction, people

in custody are not able to receive family photos in which they appear. This is devastating

for parents, especially during the holidays, who look to family photos of themselves with

their children to find strength and resilience.

2. The restriction on items that are available for purchase through commissary. We can

discern no driving purpose for this restriction beyond the enrichment of nefarious, private

companies. By prohibiting family and community members from mailing toiletries and

food items, this rule forces people who are incarcerated to procure these essential items

through commissary, which stocks notoriously low-quality items at notoriously

price-gouging rates. There is no reason why a New York City agency should support and

openly facilitate this predatory and unconscionably corrupt enterprise.

3. Gender-affirming items. Despite public overtures by Department leadership proclaiming

to support gender-affirming personal items for the TGNCNBI population, attorneys and

families continue to face roadblocks in delivering binders to our clients that request them.

4. Shoes. Providing shoes to our clients is an inordinately complicated endeavor. We have

had sneakers rejected because they contain a combination of permissible colors, despite

that being explicitly outlined as “permissible” on DOC’s website.

5. Sweatpants and other “outside clothing.” Our office has struggled to deliver sweatpants to

our clients who are incarcerated, for reasons that are incomprehensible. We have been

told that sweatpants are “outside clothes” which apparently is impermissible, but “outside

clothing” is not actually listed anywhere on the website. Not to mention that deeming

sweatpants “outside clothing” is completely subjective, and incorrect. If this is actually a

Department policy, we fail to understand the reasoning for this restriction, especially

given the fact that our clients do go outside (or at least, are supposed to according to the

minimum standards) and thus need warm clothing.

b. Procedure for mailing packages is unclear and constantly shifting.

The procedures for mailing and receiving packages are unclear, inconsistent, and

constantly shifting, creating unnecessary delays in individuals receiving items, and in items

being lost or discarded. For example, certain officers have told our office not to use Amazon

Prime. Even though this has not been a problem for certain packages in certain facilities, others

have been lost or rejected when sent via Amazon Prime. Allowing packages sent throughservices like Amazon Prime helps ensure standardized shipping costs and faster, more reliable

delivery times. Without this option, senders, including counsel and families of those

incarcerated, face unpredictable expenses when mailing packages and long wait periods for

packages to arrive, sometimes up to a month, when using standard Amazon or other traditional

mail or third-party carriers.

This inconsistent practice is further exemplified by how officers use rejection of packages as

retribution. A mailing officer at the Rose M. Singer Center recently told a client that if we keep

calling and asking about the status of packages sent to our client, they will not give our client any

future packages. Officers cannot just make their own decisions about when an individual

receives a package; there need to be clear procedures put in place that the Department must

follow.

c. Procedure for rejecting prohibited items is in need of transparency and oversight.

The Department fails to provide a transparent system of evaluating packages and mail

and determining what items are impermissible. First, it’s not even clear what items are

impermissible. The NYC DOC Handbook for Incarcerated People provides a list of

prohibited/permissible items that is different from the list posted on the DOC website. And

sometimes, we hear about supposedly “impermissible items” or categories that are not publicly

listed anywhere. For example, we have heard that “outside clothing” is impermissible, yet,

neither the website nor the handbook itemize anything related to this category. In fact, the

website clearly states that people in custody are permitted to receive up to “One Coat

(Non-uniform, No Blue or Camouflage, No leather, "Carhart" "Dickies" or Bubble Coats, etc.),”

“One Pair of Gloves (For outdoor cold weather, October-April). No work or leather gloves, knit

type only.”, “One Hat/Cap (Non-uniform, no stocking type caps),” and “Four pairs of pants

(Non-uniform, no dark blue or camouflage),”. We have no idea where this prohibition derives

from. It is posted nowhere on the website or the handbook for people in custody. And the

distinction between “outside clothing” and “non-outside clothing” is completely vague and

impossible to discern.

Further, we believe Department staff lack clear guidelines and standard protocols when

making decisions about mailed items. Over the years, we have received wildly inconsistent

rulings on standard items, and have never received a clear explanation about the process by

which items were evaluated and judged. We cannot find any law or directive that outlines the

review process, and our own experiences lead us to believe there is no standard protocol in place.

If it does exist, staff are not following it. Without clear, standardized instruction, arbitrary

decisionmaking is rampant, all at the heartbreaking expense of those incarcerated, who

desperately await these packages, and their support systems, who are totally at a loss of what to

do.d. Procedure for notifying the individuals of rejected items is opaque and is not

consistently followed.

The procedures for notifying individuals of rejected items is opaque and not consistently

followed. Officers do not notify individuals when their packages are denied, and do not

consistently allow them to return packages to sender. There is supposed to be documentation of

when a package is impermissible, but no client I have ever worked with has mentioned this

paperwork, and they usually have no idea where their package is at all. The Department stated

that there is an electronic tracking system of these packages. If documentation exists, we

respectfully request that the board ask them what the data in that tracking system actually shows.

Additionally, The Department has a tendency to withhold packages if an individual already has a

certain item that needs to be replaced. For example, if an individual has one coat and they are

being mailed a replacement coat, officers will reject the new coat on the basis that the person in

custody “already has one”. This is especially problematic because of the inconsistent practices of

accepting packages. Someone incarcerated will not want to discard their old coat first to get their

new coat because they may be uncertain that the new coat will be a package accepted by the

facility. And, if they do preemptively discard their old coat, they may end up with no coat if the

new package is rejected. The Department needs a clear, standardized procedure for allowing

individuals who are incarcerated to discard old items in order to receive new items once the

packages are accepted by the facility. This example highlights the broader problem of not having

standardized procedures for when the facility rejects packages and items.

Thank you for holding this meeting and listening to our concerns. If you have questions about

this testimony, please contact me at nfiorenzo@nycds.org.