Policy Tracker

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

NY · Legislation · 2025 · A01338

Legislation
Introduced

Record updated Jan 7, 2026

Summary

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

Timeline

2026-01-07

A

referred to codes

2025-01-09

A

referred to codes

Bill Text

Rendered HTML Filing

Official document markup is preserved and restyled to match the active site theme.


                STATE OF NEW YORK
        ________________________________________________________________________

                                          1338

                               2025-2026 Regular Sessions

                   IN ASSEMBLY

                                     January 9, 2025
                                       ___________

        Introduced by M. of A. VANEL, BLUMENCRANZ, HYNDMAN, GLICK -- Multi-Spon-
          sored  by  --  M.    of  A. LEVENBERG -- read once and referred to the
          Committee on Codes

        AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law and the  civil  practice  law
          and  rules,  in  relation  to the admissibility of evidence created or
          processed by artificial intelligence

          The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and  Assem-
        bly, do enact as follows:

     1    Section  1.  The  criminal  procedure  law  is amended by adding a new
     2  section 60.80 to read as follows:
     3  § 60.80 Rules of evidence; admissibility of evidence  created  or  proc-
     4            essed by artificial intelligence.
     5    1.  Evidence  created, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence
     6  shall not be received into evidence in a criminal proceeding unless  the
     7  evidence  is  substantially  supported  by  independent  and  admissible
     8  evidence and the proponent of the evidence establishes  the  reliability
     9  and  accuracy  of  the  specific  use  of the artificial intelligence in
    10  creating the evidence.
    11    2. Evidence processed, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence
    12  shall not be received into evidence in a criminal proceeding unless  the
    13  proponent  of  the  evidence establishes the reliability and accuracy of
    14  the specific use  of  the  artificial  intelligence  in  processing  the
    15  evidence.
    16    3.  Evidence  is  created, in whole or in part, by artificial intelli-
    17  gence where the artificial intelligence produces  new  information  from
    18  existing  information  not  present  in or reasonably deducible from the
    19  existing information.
    20    4. Evidence is processed, in whole or in part, by artificial  intelli-
    21  gence  where the artificial intelligence produces a conclusion based off
    22  of its analysis, interpretation, or transformation of existing  informa-

         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                   LBD04106-01-5

        A. 1338                             2

     1  tion where such conclusion is not reasonably deducible from the existing
     2  information.
     3    5.  Evidence is not reasonably deducible from the existing information
     4  where the reliability or accuracy of the information created or  conclu-
     5  sion  drawn from the existing information would be substantially compro-
     6  mised without the use of artificial intelligence  as  a  result  of  the
     7  complexity, uncertainty, or subtlety of the information.
     8    6.  Evidence  is substantially supported by independent and admissible
     9  evidence where:
    10    (a) The independent evidence is separate from, and not  derived  from,
    11  the  artificial  intelligence  that  generated  the artificially created
    12  evidence;
    13    (b) The independent evidence is admissible under the existing rules of
    14  evidence;
    15    (c) The independent evidence bears a close and  significant  relation-
    16  ship to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that it rein-
    17  forces  or  corroborates  the  information created from the artificially
    18  created evidence.
    19    7. The reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the  artificial
    20  intelligence  in creating or processing the evidence is sufficient where
    21  the proponent of the evidence has a qualified expert  testify  and  such
    22  testimony is sufficient to prove that:
    23    (a) The specific use of the artificial intelligence has been validated
    24  through  rigorous scientific or technical testing, demonstrating that it
    25  consistently produces accurate and reliable results in  varied  environ-
    26  ments;
    27    (b)  The  artificial  intelligence  has  been  subjected to testing or
    28  application in environments that are similar or analogous to the specif-
    29  ic context in which it is being used in the proceeding and such  testing
    30  or application produced accurate and reliable results;
    31    (c)  The  artificial  intelligence has not been subjected to any vari-
    32  ables that, based on scientific or technical testing of the system, have
    33  a substantial probability of causing a materially inaccurate or  unreli-
    34  able  result. In assessing the probability, the court shall consider the
    35  weight of the artificially created evidence relative to  other  admitted
    36  evidence.
    37    8.  Where  expert  testimony  would  include trade secrets, privileged
    38  government information, or information about law enforcement  techniques
    39  that, if disclosed, would unduly compromise their ability to effectively
    40  use  their  systems  for  their  intended  purpose,  the  court,  in its
    41  discretion, may impose appropriate measures to protect such information.
    42    § 2. The civil practice law and rules  is  amended  by  adding  a  new
    43  section 4552 to read as follows:
    44    §  4552. Rules of evidence; admissibility of evidence created or proc-
    45  essed by artificial intelligence.  (a) Evidence created, in whole or  in
    46  part,  by artificial intelligence may not be received into evidence in a
    47  civil proceeding unless the evidence is substantially supported by inde-
    48  pendent and admissible evidence and the proponent of the evidence estab-
    49  lishes the reliability and accuracy of the specific use of  the  artifi-
    50  cial intelligence in creating the evidence.
    51    (b)  Evidence  processed,  in whole or in part, by artificial intelli-
    52  gence may not be received into evidence in a civil proceeding unless the
    53  proponent of the evidence establishes the reliability  and  accuracy  of
    54  the  specific  use  of  the  artificial  intelligence  in processing the
    55  evidence.

        A. 1338                             3

     1    (c) Evidence is created, in whole or in part, by  artificial  intelli-
     2  gence  where  the  artificial intelligence produces new information from
     3  existing information not present in or  reasonably  deducible  from  the
     4  existing information.
     5    (d) Evidence is processed, in whole or in part, by artificial intelli-
     6  gence  where the artificial intelligence produces a conclusion based off
     7  of its analysis, interpretation, or transformation of existing  informa-
     8  tion where such conclusion is not reasonably deducible from the existing
     9  information.
    10    (e) Evidence is not reasonably deducible from the existing information
    11  where  the reliability or accuracy of the information created or conclu-
    12  sion drawn from the existing information would be substantially  compro-
    13  mised  without  the  use  of  artificial intelligence as a result of the
    14  complexity, uncertainty, or subtlety of the information.
    15    (f) Evidence is substantially supported by independent and  admissible
    16  evidence where:
    17    1.  The  independent  evidence is separate from, and not derived from,
    18  the artificial intelligence  that  generated  the  artificially  created
    19  evidence;
    20    2.  The independent evidence is admissible under the existing rules of
    21  evidence;
    22    3. The independent evidence bears a close and significant relationship
    23  to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that it reinforces
    24  or corroborates the information created from  the  artificially  created
    25  evidence.
    26    (g) The reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the artificial
    27  intelligence  in creating or processing the evidence is sufficient where
    28  the proponent of the evidence has a qualified expert  testify  and  such
    29  testimony is sufficient to prove that:
    30    1.  The specific use of the artificial intelligence has been validated
    31  through rigorous scientific or technical testing, demonstrating that  it
    32  consistently  produces  accurate and reliable results in varied environ-
    33  ments;
    34    2. The artificial intelligence has been subjected to testing or appli-
    35  cation in environments that are similar or  analogous  to  the  specific
    36  context  in which it is being used in the proceeding and such testing or
    37  application produced accurate and reliable results;
    38    3. The artificial intelligence has not been subjected to any variables
    39  that, based on scientific or technical testing of  the  system,  have  a
    40  substantial probability of causing a materially inaccurate or unreliable
    41  result.  In  assessing  the  probability,  the  court shall consider the
    42  weight of the artificially created evidence relative to  other  admitted
    43  evidence.
    44    (h)  Where  expert  testimony  would include trade secrets, privileged
    45  government information, or information about law enforcement  techniques
    46  that, if disclosed, would unduly compromise their ability to effectively
    47  use  their  systems  for  their  intended  purpose,  the  court,  in its
    48  discretion, may impose appropriate measures to protect such information.
    49    § 3. This act shall take effect on the first of January next  succeed-
    50  ing the date on which it shall have become a law.
Back to Tracker