AI Disclosure in New York Courts: Filers Have No Statewide Duty, So the Part Rule Controls

The short version: filers in New York have no statewide duty to disclose AI use. Under 22 NYCRR 161.3, effective June 1, 2026, attorneys “should not be required” to disclose it, but 161.4 allows each part to adopt its own AI rule, and federal judges in New York write their own.

New York has had a statewide AI rule since June 1, and it leans against disclosure. The rule sets a default, invites individual parts to depart from it, and doesn’t touch federal judges’ individual practices. For California, see our AI disclosure orders tracker for California and New York.

Does New York require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings?

Not as a default. Administrative Order AO/75/2026, signed March 25, 2026, adopted Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator “effective June 1, 2026.” As of today, Part 161 has been in force for 148 days. Section 161.1 states that “[t]he policy set forth in this Part shall apply to all courts of the Unified Court System, in both civil and criminal cases.” Section 161.3 states that “attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court” that AI was used to prepare them.

Two points matter when you draft. The first is that section 161.2(b) leaves evidence out: a paper “does not include materials constituting or proffered as evidence in the case.” So exhibits fall outside Part 161, while briefs and affidavits fall inside it. The second is that, in parts that adopt it, the Appendix A model rule replaces disclosure with review. It states that “[b]y signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted,” and that an attorney or party who doesn’t comply “may be subject to sanction or other remedial action.” In other words, under the model your signature serves as the certification.

What is the UCS interim AI policy, and does it bind filers?

It doesn’t bind filers. The Unified Court System’s Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, effective October 2025, governs court personnel: “This interim policy is applicable to all judges and nonjudicial employees of the UCS.” Its limits on uploading apply to the court staff who handle your papers, not to you.

Can a New York judge still require an AI certification after Part 161?

Yes, and the rule spells that out. Section 161.4 begins: “A court may, in its discretion, implement a part rule governing the use by attorneys and parties” of AI tools when preparing papers. The NYSBA’s June 2, 2026 report reads it the same way: a judge can adopt an AI rule of their own, adopt the model, or adopt nothing.

An example from before Part 161 shows how these rules get enforced. In Augustin v Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc. (Sup Ct, Kings County, Maslow, J.), IAS Part 2 Rules section 15 required that “[a]ll submissions with respect to a motion must include a certification by an attorney” that no generative AI was used “in the drafting of any affidavit, affirmation, or memorandum of law,” or that it was used and all generated text “was reviewed for accuracy,” in which case “the program must be identified.” On July 16, 2025 (2025 NY Slip Op 51113[U]), the court found “at least five AI inaccuracies or ‘hallucinations'” in a pro se memorandum and scheduled a 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) hearing. On October 23, 2025 (2025 NY Slip Op 25229), it held that the later certification fell short because it covered just one document, “exercised leniency and did not impose sanctions” on the self-represented parties, and stated that it “intends to enforce its Rules provisions concerning AI.”

We did not verify today whether section 15 still reads the same after June 1, 2026. Check the current part rules before you file.

Is a statewide AI rule for filers still pending?

Nothing is in force. Proposed Commercial Division Rule 6(e) was released for comment on June 11, 2025, and the court system shows no adoption. Senate Bill S2698 would add a CPLR 2107 requiring “a separate affidavit disclosing such use” for papers drafted with generative AI, and it has been in the Senate Rules Committee since June 13, 2025.

Rule table: New York AI obligations by layer

Layer	Operative language	Source
NY state courts, default	“attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court”	22 NYCRR 161.3 (AO/75/2026)
NY state courts, part-rule authority	“A court may, in its discretion, implement a part rule governing the use by attorneys and parties”	22 NYCRR 161.4
NY model part rule	“By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted”	Part 161, Appendix A
NY sanctions backstop	Frivolous conduct includes conduct that “asserts material factual statements that are false”	22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(3)
S.D.N.Y., Judge Cronan	Signing attorney “must attach to the filing a signed certification”	Individual Civil Rule 2.E, updated Oct. 23, 2025
S.D.N.Y., Judge Broderick	Any party using generative AI “must disclose that AI has been used”	Individual Civil Rule 4.J, rev. Oct. 29, 2025
E.D.N.Y., Magistrate Judge Lindsay	Filer “must disclose that AI has been used and must further certify in the document”	Individual Practices 2.C.3, marked 4/2026

How do federal courts in New York handle AI disclosure?

Part 161 doesn’t apply to them. The three rules we verified today can’t be swapped for one another.

• Judge Cronan (S.D.N.Y.) requires a certification rather than disclosure as such. It has to say whether the filing was personally reviewed and, if it was, describe “in detail the steps taken to verify the accuracy.” The court “may impose sanctions on counsel and/or strike the filing.”
• Judge Broderick (S.D.N.Y.) requires both disclosure and certification, but exempts “information gathered using AI embedded in legal search engines, such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, etc.” Failing to comply “may result in sanctions, the document being stricken, or other remedies.”
• Magistrate Judge Lindsay (E.D.N.Y.) requires disclosure and certification “in the document,” covering “all citations and legal authority,” with no exemption for search engines.

Skipping the certification breaks the judge’s rule even when every citation is accurate. That’s a separate risk from Rule 11, which we cover in Rule 11 and the AI-generated brief.

Drafting-ready text: AI certification for a New York filing

This follows the section 15 format and Cronan’s requirement to describe verification steps. If the judge posts a form, use that instead.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

[COUNSEL], an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, certifies as follows with respect to the papers submitted on [DATE] in support of [MOTION], Motion Sequence No. [__]:

1. [No generative artificial intelligence program was used in drafting any affidavit, affirmation, or memorandum of law in this submission.] [OR] [A generative artificial intelligence program, [PROGRAM NAME], was used in drafting the following documents and portions: [DOCUMENT, SECTION OR PAGES].]

2. All generated text, including citations, quotations, and legal analysis, was reviewed for accuracy and approved by me.

3. To verify accuracy I (a) retrieved the full text of every cited authority from [SOURCE]; (b) confirmed each citation, court, year, and pinpoint; (c) confirmed each authority supports the proposition cited; and (d) confirmed every quotation appears verbatim in the source.

4. This certification covers every document in this submission.

Dated: [DATE] ______________________ [COUNSEL]

Paragraph 4 is the answer to Augustin: a certification that covers only one document leaves everything else uncovered.

Worked example: one memorandum, four New York courtrooms, Monday, November 2, 2026

Take one AI-assisted memorandum and reuse it in four motions, all filed on the same day.

• Supreme Court, a part with no AI rule. Section 161.3 governs, 154 days into Part 161. Nothing has to be disclosed, though the existing signing duties and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 still apply.
• Supreme Court, a part with a rule like section 15. Every motion submission needs a certification that names the program and the portions AI drafted.
• S.D.N.Y., Judge Broderick. If the only AI involved was a Westlaw or Lexis search feature, the rule doesn’t apply. If the tool drafted text, disclose it and certify.
• E.D.N.Y., Magistrate Judge Lindsay. Disclose and certify within the document itself. There’s no carve-out for search engines.

That’s three different obligations and one courtroom with none. What you comply with depends on the assigned judge.

California and federal contrast

California. Rule of Court 10.430, effective September 1, 2025, faces inward toward the courts, much like New York’s interim policy: courts had to “adopt a generative AI use policy by December 15, 2025” covering “the use of generative AI by court staff for any purpose and by judicial officers for any task outside their adjudicative role.” None of it applies to filers. Federal. We verified no district-wide rule today; the obligation sits in individual practices. Bankruptcy. We verified no bankruptcy AI provision against a primary source today, so we state none.

Pre-filing checklist

• State court: get the current part rules and check for an AI provision adopted under 22 NYCRR 161.4. If there isn’t one, 161.3 means no disclosure is owed.
• Federal court: get the judge’s current individual practices and check the revision date posted on them.
• Work out whether the rule asks for disclosure, certification or both, and whether it exempts AI built into research platforms.
• Where the rule requires it, name the program and the portions AI drafted.
• Make sure the certification covers every document in the submission.
• Whatever the rule requires, run every citation through a pre-filing citation verification protocol.

Frequently asked questions

Do exhibits count as papers under Part 161?

No. Section 161.2(b) leaves out “materials constituting or proffered as evidence in the case.”

Does using AI inside Westlaw or Lexis trigger disclosure?

In front of Judge Broderick, no, because his rule exempts it. In front of Magistrate Judge Lindsay, yes, because her rule has no such exemption.

Certification-compliant drafting

A certification is only as strong as the record behind it. LegalBriefsUSA drafts New York motion papers along with a citation log that lists every authority, where it was pulled from and when, so the signing attorney can fill in a section 15 style certification or a Cronan verification narrative from documented facts. Send us the motion and the assigned part. To see how the engagement works, read about white-label legal drafting for law firms, and for what happens when the check gets skipped, see our AI citation sanctions roundup.

Authorities cited

Part 161 (161.1 to 161.4, Appendix A): read in the AO/75/2026 copy posted by the Erie County Bar Association, the nycourts.gov rule page being unreachable today; adoption and effective date confirmed on the nycourts.gov public comment page (also the Rule 6(e) status) and by NYSBA. UCS Interim Policy: copy posted by the Supreme Court of Ohio (nycourts.gov PDF unreachable). 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (law.cornell.edu). S2698 (nysenate.gov). Augustin, 2025 NY Slip Op 51113(U), read on the nycourts.gov Reporter and Justia; 2025 NY Slip Op 25229, read on the nycourts.gov Reporter, outcome corroborated on CourtListener. Cronan and Broderick rules (nysd.uscourts.gov); Lindsay practices (nyed.uscourts.gov); CRC 10.430 (courts.ca.gov). Left out, not verified from primary sources today: part rules reported for Justices Bannon, Weinmann, Hanlon, and Norris; whether section 15 remains in its 2025 form; bankruptcy court AI rules.

This article is for informational purposes only and is NOT legal advice. LegalBriefsUSA.com provides drafting and research support to licensed attorneys and law firms. This article is written for attorneys and does not create an attorney-client relationship.