New York Assembly Bill A10577

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/13/26
• Refer: 3/13/26

Caption

Requires the reporting of completed judicial training as mandated by part 17 of the rules of the chief judge of the New York state unified court system

Summary

This bill amends the Judiciary Law to require public reporting of judicial training completion for judges and justices covered by Part 17 of the Chief Judge’s rules of the New York State Unified Court System. Beginning January 10 of each year, the Chief Administrator would publish a report on the court system website and provide it to the Governor, Temporary President of the Senate, and Speaker of the Assembly. The initial report must identify judges and justices with overdue, incomplete mandatory training. Later annual reports must show the completion status of each required training for each covered judge or justice, along with the deadline by which each training was due. The bill takes effect immediately.

Impact

The bill would add a new reporting requirement to section 212 of the Judiciary Law, creating a public transparency mechanism around compliance with mandatory judicial education requirements. It does not change the underlying training obligations in Part 17 of the Chief Judge’s rules, but it would require the Unified Court System to track and disclose completion status and overdue trainings on an annual basis. The affected parties are judges and justices subject to those training rules, as well as the Chief Administrator and state leadership recipients of the report.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as an accountability and transparency bill rather than a controversial policy change. There are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts indicating opposition or support, and the bill was referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The overall tone suggests a neutral-to-positive intent focused on public disclosure of compliance with judicial training requirements.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is privacy and administrative burden versus transparency. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to ensure judges complete required training and to make noncompliance visible to the public and policymakers. Critics could argue that public reporting of individual judges’ overdue training may be unnecessary, could be used punitively, or could impose additional administrative work on the court system. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the available materials.