NY A10625: Division of Criminal Justice Services: AI and facial recognition

Operative sections

• Crim. Proc. Law §60.77(1): AI-generated outputs, including facial-recognition results, would be inadmissible in criminal or civil court proceedings.
• Crim. Proc. Law §60.77(3): AI-generated outputs could not form the basis for any legal decision or judgment.
• Crim. Proc. Law §60.77(4)-(5): defendants would have expert-witness access and prosecutorial disclosure of AI/FRT systems used in investigations.

Text

Artificial intelligence-generated outputs, including facial recognition results, shall not be admissible as evidence in any criminal or civil court proceeding. No party in a criminal or civil case shall reference or introduce artificial intelligence-generated outputs, including facial recognition results, during questioning of witnesses, suspects, or defendants. Artificial intelligence-generated outputs shall not form the basis for any legal decision or judgment. Defendants shall have the right to expert witnesses who can testify about the reliability and limitations of artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology systems used in the investigation of their cases.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in New York

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• 22 NYCRR Part 161 — Use of Artificial Intelligence TechnologyNY Unified Court System · 2026-06-01

  Part 161 applies to all New York Unified Court System courts in civil and criminal cases. Using an AI tool to prepare a paper is permitted and need not be disclosed, but the attorney or party must independently ensure it contains no fabricated cases, statutes or other material; signing certifies that review, and failure may draw sanctions.

• Ethical Considerations and Recommendations for the Use of AI by Judges and Judicial Staff (2025 Annual Report)NY UCS AI Advisory Committee · 2025-12-01

  The December 2025 annual report of the New York court system's Advisory Committee on AI and the Courts, containing principles-based ethical considerations and recommendations for judges and judicial staff using AI. It supplements the October 2025 interim policy, addressing impartiality, confidentiality, competence and the need for human judgment in every judicial decision.

• Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial IntelligenceNY Unified Court System · 2025-10-10

  An interim policy adopted by the New York State Unified Court System on 10 October 2025 for judges and non-judicial employees. It permits only approved generative AI tools, requires training, forbids entering confidential or non-public information into public tools, and requires that all output be reviewed and verified by the human user, who remains accountable for the result.

• New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6: Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with ClientsNYC Bar

  Formal Opinion 2025-6 addresses AI note-takers and transcription tools used in client communications. Clients must be notified and consent obtained whenever an AI-empowered system records their calls; lawyers must independently review AI transcripts and summaries, understand the tools' technical limits under Rule 1.1, and manage privilege and discovery risks in stored records.

Decisions on the record

• Brown v. Real Estate Capital of America, LLCSupreme Court of New York, New York County · 2026-08-07

  The New York Supreme Court decides a broker-dispute dismissal motion and denies sanctions requested on reply. The court says plaintiffs attributed a quotation to a case where it did not appear, but even treating it as an AI fabrication did not warrant a monetary sanction.

• Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.United States District Court for the Northern District of New York · 2026-08-05

  The Northern District of New York grants Waste Management’s dismissal motion, allows limited amendment, and warns self-represented plaintiff Mary-Rose Calenzo. The court identifies at least four nonexistent opinions in her opposition and directs her to stop using hallucinated or fabricated case law.

• Santana v. Shook Hardy & BaconUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2026-07-31

  The Southern District of New York compels arbitration and stays a pro se employment case. The opinion separately addresses defendants’ concern that Santana’s opposition used nonexistent case authority attributed to AI, declines sanctions for now, and warns that future inaccurate citations may be sanctioned.

• In re Firestar Diamond, Inc.United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2026-07-30

  The Southern District of New York denies Nirav Modi’s motion for leave to appeal a bankruptcy order. The court notes Modi used an outside person and AI tool to format the motion, identifies a false Cohen quotation and unsupported AI-generated citations, and dismisses the action.

• People v. WrightNew York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department · 2026-07-24

  The New York appellate court affirms a suppression ruling where officers heard a gunshot and then received a ShotSpotter activation. The opinion treats the activation as corroboration supporting reasonable suspicion for the ensuing pursuit and firearm recovery.