New York Assembly Bill A08546

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/20/25
• Refer: 5/20/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Requires certification of filings produced using generative artificial intelligence; requires the brief of an appellant to contain a disclosure of the use of generative artificial intelligence in the drafting of the brief and certification that the content therein was reviewed and verified by a human.

Summary

This bill would amend New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules to require disclosure when a filing or brief in a civil action was drafted with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence. Any paper or file served that used generative AI in drafting would need to include a separate affidavit stating that fact and certifying that a human reviewed the source material and verified the accuracy of the AI-generated content. The bill also defines “generative artificial intelligence” broadly to cover machine learning systems, automated software, algorithms, neural networks, intelligent agents, and similar technologies. The bill specifically adds a new disclosure requirement for appellate briefs. Under the amended appellate rules, if rule 2107 requires disclosure, an appellant’s brief must include notice of generative AI use and a human verification certification. The measure would take effect 90 days after becoming law and is aimed at ensuring transparency and human accountability in court filings.

Impact

The bill would create a new procedural disclosure rule in the CPLR for civil litigation, affecting attorneys, litigants, and any party submitting court papers drafted with generative AI. It would also amend appellate practice rules to require AI-use disclosure in appellant briefs when applicable. In practice, the bill would not ban AI use in legal drafting, but it would impose an affidavit and verification requirement that could affect filing practices, attorney review procedures, and compliance obligations in New York courts.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to reflect a generally cautious, oversight-oriented approach to AI in legal practice, emphasizing transparency and human review rather than prohibition. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials suggests the bill was introduced as a procedural safeguard rather than a controversial substantive policy change.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the scope of the disclosure requirement: the bill applies broadly to any filing or brief drafted with assistance from generative AI and requires a separate affidavit certifying human review and accuracy. Supporters would likely view this as a necessary safeguard against errors, hallucinations, and undisclosed automation in legal filings, while critics may argue it adds administrative burden, may be difficult to administer consistently, and could discourage efficient use of AI tools. Another possible issue is the breadth of the definition of generative artificial intelligence, which sweeps in a wide range of technologies and could raise questions about what level of AI assistance triggers disclosure.