New York Assembly Bill A05636

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/18/25
• Refer: 2/18/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Relates to reports of substantial risk or threat of harm by mental health professionals.

Summary

This bill would repeal and replace section 9.46 of the Mental Hygiene Law to revise when and how certain mental health professionals may disclose information about a patient who presents a serious and imminent danger to self or others. The bill applies to physicians, psychologists, nurse practitioners, and licensed clinical social workers who are currently providing treatment. If such a professional makes the required determination, the bill authorizes disclosure to identifiable endangered individuals, to law enforcement, and to the director of community services or the director’s designee, with the disclosure and reasons for it documented in the treatment record. The bill also requires the director of community services or designee to report to the Division of Criminal Justice Services when they agree the person presents a serious and imminent danger. The information sent to DCJS is limited to the person’s name and other non-clinical identifying information, and may be used only to determine whether a firearms license should be suspended or revoked, whether the person is ineligible for a firearms license, or whether the person is otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The act would take effect immediately.

Impact

The bill would amend the Mental Hygiene Law by replacing the existing reporting framework for mental health professionals and clarifying the scope of permissible disclosures when a patient poses a serious and imminent danger. It would also create a more explicit pathway for information sharing with law enforcement, community services officials, and DCJS, while limiting the use of transmitted information to firearm licensing and possession determinations under Penal Law section 400.00 and related state or federal restrictions. The bill also provides liability protection for professionals acting without malice or intentional misconduct and preserves professional discretion where disclosure would increase danger.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a public safety and risk-management bill rather than a partisan policy fight. Its structure suggests support for stronger intervention when a person poses an imminent threat, while also preserving clinical judgment and limiting liability for good-faith decisions. No formal voting history or transcript is available here to show broader legislative sentiment.

Contention

The main points of contention likely center on balancing public safety against patient confidentiality and clinical discretion. Supporters would likely emphasize the bill’s focus on preventing harm and improving coordination with law enforcement and firearms authorities, while critics may worry about expanded disclosure of mental health information, possible chilling effects on treatment, and the risk of overreporting. The bill tries to address some of those concerns by limiting disclosures to non-clinical identifying information, allowing professionals to withhold action if it would increase danger, and shielding good-faith decisions from liability.