(United States Second Circuit) – In a criminal bail bond case appeal of the District Court’s conclusion that a bail bond agent could retain the premium paid to him by the defendants notwithstanding the fact that, following a bail sufficiency hearing conducted pursuant to section 520.30 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law (NYCPL), the state court declined to accept the bond and the criminal defendant was never released from custody, a question is certified to the New York Court of Appeals where whether a bail bond agent may retain a premium following the rejection of the bond raises an unresolved question of New York law.