Skip to content

Session Expired

Your session has expired. Please sign in again to continue where you left off.

Sign In Again

NY A01338: Sets rules and procedures for the admissibility of evidence created or processed by artificial intelligence.

In Committee New York · 2025–2026 session

Last verified Oct 15, 2026 · official bill text

A01338 · where it stands

1 of 5 steps complete
  1. Introduced In committee
  2. Passed first chamber
  3. Passed both chambers
  4. Enacted
  5. Effective
What do these statuses mean?
Introduced
Filed in the legislature; may be waiting for a committee hearing.
Passed a chamber
Approved by one or both chambers; awaiting further action.
Enacted
Signed into law, or became law without a signature or over a veto.
Effective date
The date the law says it takes effect. Once it has passed, the page shows "Effective" and the date. A court order can still block a law; if we know of one, the summary says so.
Dead / vetoed
Vetoed, failed, or the session ended without action.

In one paragraph

New York's A 1338 would add Criminal Procedure Law § 60.80 and CPLR § 4552 on evidence created or processed by artificial intelligence. AI-created evidence could not be received unless it is substantially supported by independent, admissible evidence and the proponent shows the reliability and accuracy of the specific AI use through a qualified expert; AI-processed evidence needs the reliability showing. Courts may issue protective measures for trade secrets. Referred to Codes January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.

What it means for business

None yet: the bill is pending. If enacted, parties offering AI-generated or AI-analyzed evidence in New York courts would need independent corroboration and expert proof of the AI's reliability.

Key provisions

  1. AI-created evidence (AI produces new information not reasonably deducible from existing information) is inadmissible unless substantially supported by independent, admissible evidence and the proponent proves reliability and accuracy
  2. AI-processed evidence (a conclusion not reasonably deducible from the existing information) is inadmissible unless the proponent proves reliability and accuracy; no independent-support requirement
  3. Reliability requires a qualified expert showing rigorous validation, testing in similar environments, and no variables with a "substantial probability" of materially inaccurate results
  4. Court may impose protective measures where expert testimony would disclose trade secrets, privileged government information or law enforcement techniques
  5. Parallel rules for criminal proceedings (CPL § 60.80) and civil proceedings (CPLR § 4552)
  6. Would take effect on January 1 next succeeding the date it becomes law

Latest legislative action

Jan 7, 2026. referred to codes

Sponsors (showing 5 of 34)

NameRole
D Primary
Primary
D Primary
Primary
Primary

Related and companion bills

Topics and industries

Related topics

AI in Law Enforcement

Affected industries

Technology

This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error

Related AI laws in New York

All New York bills →
A09654 Enacts the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act establishing protec A01447 Prohibits the use of facial recognition and biometric information as the sole fa S10425 Requires policing agencies to conduct an inventory of, and develop a publicly-av S01096 Establishes the "protect our privacy (POP) act" to impose limitations on the use A09185 Includes communications generated using artificial intelligence in the definitio A7172 Relation to the regulation of the use of artificial intelligence and facial reco

Same topic in other states

Idaho H0118 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Adds to existing law to provide certain requirements and re Montana SB397 Generally revise laws related to privacy and facial recognition technology Arizona HB2482 sexual assault kits; victim notification Virginia HB1496 Law-enforcement agencies; surveillance technology reporting. Utah SB231 Public Surveillance Prohibition Amendments California SB36 Pretrial release: risk assessment tools.