How Is This Bill Enforced
Verbatim statutory text on the left; plain-language analysis and a per-section checklist on the right. Numbered markers cross-link to the matching checklist row.
(1) 1 Evidence created, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence shall not be received into evidence in a criminal proceeding unless the evidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidenceSubstantially supported by independent and admissible evidenceEvidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidence where: (a) The independent evidence is separate from, and not derived from, the artificial intelligence that generated the artificially created evidence; (b) The independent evidence is admissible under the existing rules of evidence; (c) The independent evidence bears a close and significant relationship to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that it reinforces or corroborates the information created from the artificially created evidence.CPL § 60.80(6); CPLR § 4551(f) and the proponent of the evidence establishes the reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the artificial intelligence in creating the evidence.
(2) 2 Evidence processed, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence shall not be received into evidence in a criminal proceeding unless the proponent of the evidence establishes the reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the artificial intelligence in processing the evidence.
(3) Evidence is created, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence where the artificial intelligence produces new information from existing information not present in or reasonably deducible from the existing information.
(4) Evidence is processed, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence where the artificial intelligence produces a conclusion based off of its analysis, interpretation, or transformation of existing information where such conclusion is not reasonably deducibleNot reasonably deducibleEvidence is not reasonably deducible from the existing information where the reliability or accuracy of the information created or conclusion drawn from the existing information would be substantially compromised without the use of artificial intelligence as a result of the complexity, uncertainty, or subtlety of the information.CPL § 60.80(5); CPLR § 4551(e) from the existing information.
(5) Evidence is not reasonably deducibleNot reasonably deducibleEvidence is not reasonably deducible from the existing information where the reliability or accuracy of the information created or conclusion drawn from the existing information would be substantially compromised without the use of artificial intelligence as a result of the complexity, uncertainty, or subtlety of the information.CPL § 60.80(5); CPLR § 4551(e) from the existing information where the reliability or accuracy of the information created or conclusion drawn from the existing information would be substantially compromised without the use of artificial intelligence as a result of the complexity, uncertainty, or subtlety of the information.
(6)(a)–(c) Evidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidenceSubstantially supported by independent and admissible evidenceEvidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidence where: (a) The independent evidence is separate from, and not derived from, the artificial intelligence that generated the artificially created evidence; (b) The independent evidence is admissible under the existing rules of evidence; (c) The independent evidence bears a close and significant relationship to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that it reinforces or corroborates the information created from the artificially created evidence.CPL § 60.80(6); CPLR § 4551(f) where: (a) The independent evidence is separate from, and not derived from, the artificial intelligence that generated the artificially created evidence; (b) The independent evidence is admissible under the existing rules of evidence; (c) The independent evidence bears a close and significant relationship to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that it reinforces or corroborates the information created from the artificially created evidence.
(7)(a)–(c) 3 The reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the artificial intelligence in creating or processing the evidence is sufficient where the proponent of the evidence has a qualified expert testify and such testimony is sufficient to prove that: (a) The specific use of the artificial intelligence has been validated through rigorous scientific or technical testing, demonstrating that it consistently produces accurate and reliable results in varied environments; (b) The artificial intelligence has been subjected to testing or application in environments that are similar or analogous to the specific context in which it is being used in the proceeding and such testing or application produced accurate and reliable results; (c) The artificial intelligence has not been subjected to any variables that, based on scientific or technical testing of the system, have a substantial probability of causing a materially inaccurate or unreliable result. In assessing the probability, the court shall consider the weight of the artificially created evidence relative to other admitted evidence.
(8) Where expert testimony would include trade secrets, privileged government information, or information about law enforcement techniques that, if disclosed, would unduly compromise their ability to effectively use their systems for their intended purpose, the court, in its discretion, may impose appropriate measures to protect such information.
This section establishes foundational admissibility requirements for AI-derived evidence in criminal proceedings. It draws a critical distinction between evidence created by AI (new information generated from existing data) and evidence processed by AI (conclusions drawn from analysis of existing data). AI-created evidence faces a higher bar: it must be both independently corroborated by admissible evidence and shown to be reliable and accurate through qualified expert testimony. AI-processed evidence requires only the reliability and accuracy showing.
The reliability standard is rigorous, requiring qualified expert testimony demonstrating scientific or technical validation, testing in analogous contexts, and the absence of variables likely to produce materially inaccurate results. The section also provides judicial discretion to protect trade secrets, privileged government information, and law enforcement techniques during expert testimony.
(a) 4 Evidence created, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence may not be received into evidence in a civil proceeding unless the evidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidenceSubstantially supported by independent and admissible evidenceEvidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidence where: (a) The independent evidence is separate from, and not derived from, the artificial intelligence that generated the artificially created evidence; (b) The independent evidence is admissible under the existing rules of evidence; (c) The independent evidence bears a close and significant relationship to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that it reinforces or corroborates the information created from the artificially created evidence.CPL § 60.80(6); CPLR § 4551(f) and the proponent of the evidence establishes the reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the artificial intelligence in creating the evidence.
(b) 5 Evidence processed, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence may not be received into evidence in a civil proceeding unless the proponent of the evidence establishes the reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the artificial intelligence in processing the evidence.
(c) Evidence is created, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence where the artificial intelligence produces new information from existing information not present in or reasonably deducible from the existing information.
(d) Evidence is processed, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence where the artificial intelligence produces a conclusion based off of its analysis, interpretation, or transformation of existing information where such conclusion is not reasonably deducibleNot reasonably deducibleEvidence is not reasonably deducible from the existing information where the reliability or accuracy of the information created or conclusion drawn from the existing information would be substantially compromised without the use of artificial intelligence as a result of the complexity, uncertainty, or subtlety of the information.CPL § 60.80(5); CPLR § 4551(e) from the existing information.
(e) Evidence is not reasonably deducibleNot reasonably deducibleEvidence is not reasonably deducible from the existing information where the reliability or accuracy of the information created or conclusion drawn from the existing information would be substantially compromised without the use of artificial intelligence as a result of the complexity, uncertainty, or subtlety of the information.CPL § 60.80(5); CPLR § 4551(e) from the existing information where the reliability or accuracy of the information created or conclusion drawn from the existing information would be substantially compromised without the use of artificial intelligence as a result of the complexity, uncertainty, or subtlety of the information.
(f)(1)–(3) Evidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidenceSubstantially supported by independent and admissible evidenceEvidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidence where: (a) The independent evidence is separate from, and not derived from, the artificial intelligence that generated the artificially created evidence; (b) The independent evidence is admissible under the existing rules of evidence; (c) The independent evidence bears a close and significant relationship to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that it reinforces or corroborates the information created from the artificially created evidence.CPL § 60.80(6); CPLR § 4551(f) where: 1. The independent evidence is separate from, and not derived from, the artificial intelligence that generated the artificially created evidence; 2. The independent evidence is admissible under the existing rules of evidence; 3. The independent evidence bears a close and significant relationship to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that it reinforces or corroborates the information created from the artificially created evidence.
(g)(1)–(3) 6 The reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the artificial intelligence in creating or processing the evidence is sufficient where the proponent of the evidence has a qualified expert testify and such testimony is sufficient to prove that: 1. The specific use of the artificial intelligence has been validated through rigorous scientific or technical testing, demonstrating that it consistently produces accurate and reliable results in varied environments; 2. The artificial intelligence has been subjected to testing or application in environments that are similar or analogous to the specific context in which it is being used in the proceeding and such testing or application produced accurate and reliable results; 3. The artificial intelligence has not been subjected to any variables that, based on scientific or technical testing of the system, have a substantial probability of causing a materially inaccurate or unreliable result. In assessing the probability, the court shall consider the weight of the artificially created evidence relative to other admitted evidence.
(h) Where expert testimony would include trade secrets, privileged government information, or information about law enforcement techniques that, if disclosed, would unduly compromise their ability to effectively use their systems for their intended purpose, the court, in its discretion, may impose appropriate measures to protect such information.
This section mirrors CPL § 60.80 but applies in civil proceedings. The substantive standards are identical: AI-created evidence requires both independent corroboration and a reliability and accuracy showing, while AI-processed evidence requires only the reliability and accuracy showing. The same three-part expert testimony requirement applies, and courts retain the same discretion to protect trade secrets and privileged information.
The parallel structure means that civil and criminal litigants face the same evidentiary burden when seeking to introduce AI-derived evidence, ensuring a uniform standard across New York's judicial system.
This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.
This section provides that the act takes effect on the first of January next succeeding the date on which it becomes law, establishing a delayed implementation period to allow the bar and judiciary to prepare for the new evidentiary standards.