Is New York a One-Party Consent State? Penal Law 250.05

New York is a one-party consent state. Under N.Y. Penal Law section 250.05, if you are a participant in a conversation you can record it without telling the other party. Recording a conversation you are not part of, without consent from any participant, is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison. The controlling New York Court of Appeals decision is People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48 (1979), which holds that a participating recorder satisfies section 250.00's "consent of at least one party" requirement.

This page is the New York recording-law hub on RecordingLaw.com. It covers the controlling Penal Law statutes, hidden-camera and voyeurism rules, the workplace electronic-monitoring overlay, the Right to Record Act for police, the new deepfake and digital-replica amendments, courtroom admissibility under CPLR 4506, federal overlays (ECPA, FCC, NLRB, the TAKE IT DOWN Act), and the pending S.5070 and S.5077 watch-list bills. For state-by-state context, see the full list of one-party consent states and the two-party consent states.

---

Is New York a one-party consent state?

Yes. New York is a one-party consent state for both audio recording and intercepting electronic communications. The textual hook is N.Y. Penal Law section 250.00, which defines "mechanical overhearing of a conversation" as recording a conversation "without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat." A participant who records a conversation they are part of is one of the parties whose consent satisfies the statute.

The New York Court of Appeals confirmed this reading in People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48 (1979). The court held that recordings made with the consent of one party to the conversation, including a participating government agent, are admissible and do not constitute eavesdropping under section 250.05, because section 250.00's definition of "mechanical overhearing" requires the recorder to be a person not present and the recording to occur without the consent of at least one party. A consenting participant satisfies both elements. McGee is still good law as of May 2026 and is routinely cited in subsequent New York appellate decisions.

Scenario	New York Rule
Recording a conversation you are part of	Lawful (one-party consent)
Recording a phone call you are part of	Lawful (one-party consent)
Recording a conversation between two other people, without any party's consent	Class E felony eavesdropping
Hidden video in a bathroom, bedroom, or fitting room	Class E felony, separate from the audio statute
Recording on-duty police in public	Lawful, with statutory civil remedy under section 79-p

Two common sources of confusion deserve to be cleared up at the start. First, General Business Law section 399-z(2) is a narrow disclosure obligation on telemarketers making business-to-consumer sales calls into New York. It is not a change to the Penal Law section 250.05 one-party rule. Second, S.5070 and S.5077 are two pending bills that would tighten New York's recording rules. They have not been enacted, and we walk through their current status below.

Penal Law section 250.05: four ways to commit eavesdropping

N.Y. Penal Law section 250.05 reads: "A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication. Eavesdropping is a class E felony."

The three predicate acts are defined in section 250.00:

• Wiretapping is the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver, without the consent of either the sender or receiver.
• Mechanical overhearing of a conversation is the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation, without the consent of at least one party, by a person not present, by means of any instrument, device, or equipment.
• Intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication is the intentional acquiring, receiving, collecting, overhearing, or recording of an electronic communication, without the consent of the sender or intended receiver.

The word unlawfully in section 250.05 means not specifically authorized by an eavesdropping warrant under Article 700 of the Criminal Procedure Law, or not falling within section 250.00's participant-consent carve-out. A class E felony carries up to four years in prison under section 70.00(2)(e) and a fine of up to $5,000 or double the amount of the defendant's gain under section 80.00.

Two related offenses round out Article 250 on the audio side. Section 250.10 makes possession of eavesdropping devices a class A misdemeanor where the possessor has the intent to use the device in violation of section 250.05. Section 250.20 makes it a class A misdemeanor to divulge the existence or contents of an eavesdropping warrant issued under Article 700 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The latter mostly targets law-enforcement misuse and does not bear on consumer recording.

Recording in-person conversations in New York

If you are part of a face-to-face conversation, you can record it without telling the other people in the room. Your own awareness that the recording is happening counts as the "consent of at least one party" that section 250.00 requires.

You cannot, by contrast, plant a device in a room and leave so that the device records other people you are not present with. That is the textbook fact pattern for mechanical overhearing under section 250.05, and the recording is a class E felony if no party in the room has consented.

Public spaces complicate the analysis only modestly. A person who speaks loudly in a restaurant, on a sidewalk, or in another open public place generally has no reasonable expectation that the conversation will not be overheard. Recording such conversations as a participant remains lawful, and recording them as a non-participating observer is usually outside section 250.05 because the statutory definitions focus on participant consent rather than expectation of privacy alone. The narrower offense of unlawful surveillance under section 250.45, discussed below, governs hidden cameras in places where the targeted person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Recording phone calls and electronic communications

Phone calls follow the same one-party rule. If you are on the call, you can record it. New York courts and prosecutors have applied section 250.05 to landlines, cellular calls, and modern voice-over-IP services such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet, all of which are "telephonic" or "electronic" communications under section 250.00.

There is an important interstate caveat. If the person on the other end of the call is in California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois, Montana, Washington, or another all-party-consent jurisdiction, the most-restrictive-state rule generally applies, and you should obtain the consent of every party. This is a choice-of-law question, not a New York Penal Law question, but the practical effect is the same: get consent before recording any cross-state call into one of those states.

General Business Law section 399-z(2): narrow telemarketing carve-out

General Business Law section 399-z(2) imposes a disclosure obligation on telemarketers making business-to-consumer sales calls into New York. The telemarketer must disclose that the call is being recorded. This is a narrow B2C telemarketing carve-out. It is enforced separately from the Penal Law and does not change New York's general one-party rule. The pervasive misconception that "New York is two-party for phone calls" comes from law-firm marketing pages that read section 399-z(2) too broadly. For ordinary New Yorkers recording their own calls, section 250.05 controls and the answer is one-party.

Federal TCPA and FCC overlays

Federal law layers another set of consent-and-disclosure rules on top of New York's one-party baseline, especially for marketing and robocalls. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17, adopted February 2, 2024 and released February 8, 2024, treats AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, requiring prior express consent before initiation plus identification and opt-out disclosures. FCC 24-17 is in force as of May 2026 with no vacatur or stay.

By contrast, the FCC's 24-24 One-to-One Consent Rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), with the mandate issued April 30, 2025; the FCC formally eliminated the rule by Final Rule in September 2025. There is currently no active federal one-to-one consent obligation for robocalls or robotexts. Any reference to FCC 24-24 should note the vacatur. The former 47 C.F.R. section 64.501 common-carrier disclosure rule was removed by FCC Modernizing Common Carrier Rules, effective November 20, 2017, and should not be cited as live federal regulation.

Hidden cameras and video recording (Penal Law section 250.45)

Audio is governed by section 250.05. Surreptitious video is governed by N.Y. Penal Law section 250.45, unlawful surveillance in the second degree, which is also a class E felony. There is no participant-consent escape valve in section 250.45.

Section 250.45 reaches three core fact patterns: surreptitiously installing or using an imaging device to view, broadcast, or record a person dressing, undressing, or the sexual or other intimate parts of a person at a place where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy; using or installing an imaging device for sexual gratification; and, under subdivision (3), using or installing an imaging device with no legitimate purpose to surreptitiously view, broadcast, or record a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower, or any motel, hotel, or inn room assigned to a guest, without that person's knowledge or consent.

Aggravated unlawful surveillance, section 250.50, is a class D felony triggered by a prior unlawful-surveillance conviction within ten years. It carries up to seven years in prison and mandatory sex-offender registration. Section 250.55 separately criminalizes the dissemination of unlawful-surveillance images.

Two practical consequences follow. First, the one-party rule for audio does not save a hidden video camera in a bathroom or bedroom. The video offense is independent. Second, if you are recording someone's likeness for a commercial or quasi-commercial purpose where they would reasonably expect privacy, you should obtain a written release. See our photo and video consent form for a template, and our state-level guide on whether it is illegal to video-record someone without consent for the broader cross-jurisdictional picture.

Workplace recording in New York

New York layers a written-notice obligation on top of its one-party-consent baseline for employers conducting electronic monitoring. N.Y. Civil Rights Law section 52-c, enacted as Chapter 583 of the Laws of 2021 and effective May 7, 2022, requires any employer who monitors or intercepts employee telephone, email, or internet activity by electronic device or system to:

• Give prior written notice on hire to all employees subject to electronic monitoring.
• Obtain the employee's written or electronic acknowledgment of the notice.
• Post a conspicuous notice of electronic monitoring in a place readily available for viewing by employees subject to monitoring.

The penalty schedule is graduated: up to $500 for a first offense, up to $1,000 for a second offense, and up to $3,000 for the third and each subsequent offense. The New York Attorney General is the sole enforcer; section 52-c does not create a private right of action. There is a narrow exemption for processes that manage incoming or outgoing email, voicemail, or internet volume in a non-targeted way for system maintenance and protection.

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510 to 2522, establishes the federal one-party floor under section 2511(2)(d) and contains a "business extension" exception for monitoring telephone equipment used in the ordinary course of business. New York employers can rely on the business-extension exception under federal law and still be required to give written notice under section 52-c. The two regimes operate independently.

Employees recording their own workplace conversations

Employees retain their full one-party-consent right to record conversations they participate in. An employee who records a meeting with a manager or human-resources representative is not violating section 250.05 because the employee is a party to the conversation. See our state-of-the-art reference on whether your employer can record conversations without consent and the practical guide for recording your boss when you believe you are being harassed.

A separate question is whether an employer's no-recording policy is lawful. The National Labor Relations Board's controlling test is Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), which holds that a workplace rule is presumptively unlawful under section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act if it could be reasonably interpreted by an economically dependent employee to chill section 7 activity. The employer can rebut by showing a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. A blanket no-recording-in-the-workplace policy risks invalidation under Stericycle, especially when applied to recordings about wages, working conditions, harassment, or organizing.

The NLRB's enforcement direction has shifted under the current Acting General Counsel. GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) rescinded several Abruzzo-era guidance memoranda that aggressively applied Stericycle to handbook rules; the rescission reflects enforcement discretion only and does not overturn Stericycle, which remains binding Board precedent. GC 25-07 (June 26, 2025) directs Regional offices to issue complaint where a party surreptitiously records a collective-bargaining session, treating it as a per se violation of the section 8(a)(5)/8(d) duty to bargain in good faith. GC 25-07 is narrow: it addresses bargaining sessions, not employee recordings of supervisors generally.

Recording the police in New York

The lead authority for recording New York police is state statute, not federal First Amendment doctrine. N.Y. Civil Rights Law section 79-p, the Right to Record Act, was signed by Governor Cuomo on June 14, 2020 as part of the police-reform package and took effect approximately November 14, 2020 after a 150-day implementation delay. It provides:

• A non-detained person has the right to record law-enforcement activity and to maintain custody and control of that recording and of any property used to record law-enforcement activity.
• Nothing in the statute permits actions that physically interfere with law-enforcement activity or that constitute obstructing governmental administration under the Penal Law.
• A person whose right is violated has a private right of action against any law-enforcement official, and any state or municipal agency or department employing the official, for compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and expert fees.

The state cause of action carries a three-year statute of limitations and is independent of First Amendment doctrine. Plaintiffs in New York do not need to rely on a federal circuit precedent to sue for retaliation against on-duty recording.

New York City has a parallel ordinance: NYC Admin Code section 14-189, Local Law 67 of 2020, which establishes a city right to record police activity in public, with a private right of action against the New York Police Department for unlawful interference. Section 14-189 is a city ordinance only and does not bind state troopers, county sheriffs, or police outside the five boroughs. Section 79-p covers the rest of the state.

Reyes v. City of New York and the open Second Circuit question

The Second Circuit's decision in Reyes v. City of New York, No. 23-7640 (2d Cir. June 18, 2025) is procedurally important but does not establish a new First Amendment merits rule. The Second Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction enjoining the NYPD from enforcing a Patrol Guide policy banning recording inside police-facility lobbies, sustained the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, and certified to the New York Court of Appeals the novel question whether section 79-p and NYC Admin Code section 14-189 extend to indoor police-facility recording. The court grounded irreparable harm in statutory expressive rights under the Right to Record Acts. The certified question is pending before the New York Court of Appeals as of May 2026.

The Second Circuit has not issued a published decision squarely holding that the First Amendment protects outdoor recording of police, parallel to Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011) or Fields v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 2017). The earlier Second Circuit decision in Higginbotham v. City of New York, 105 F. Supp. 3d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), was affirmed in part and reversed in part by a non-precedential summary order on July 25, 2018 that, as the docket on CourtListener reflects, expressly declined to reach the First Amendment merits and resolved the case on qualified-immunity grounds. The practical takeaway: lead with section 79-p when asserting a New York right to record police, and cite the out-of-circuit consensus only as persuasive authority.

Body-worn cameras and the section 50-a repeal

Body-worn-camera footage in New York is now generally accessible through the Freedom of Information Law because Civil Rights Law section 50-a, which previously shielded police personnel records, was repealed by Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2020 (A10611/S8496), signed by Governor Cuomo on June 12, 2020 and effective immediately. Police, firefighter, and corrections-officer disciplinary records, and body-worn-camera footage that previously fell within section 50-a's scope, are now subject to disclosure under N.Y. Public Officers Law section 87, subject to standard FOIL exemptions for privacy, ongoing investigation, and personal-safety risk. The pre-repeal Appellate Division decision in Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. de Blasio, 159 A.D.3d 73 (1st Dep't 2018), held that body-cam footage is not itself a "personnel record" shielded by section 50-a; that holding is largely mooted by the 2020 repeal but remains useful for the proposition that body-cam footage was always treated separately from personnel records.

N.Y. Executive Law section 234, enacted June 16, 2020, mandates body-worn cameras for all New York State Police troopers. Local agencies (NYPD, county sheriffs, town police) deploy cameras under their own policies. The Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office, established under Executive Law section 75 within the New York Attorney General's office, has recommended that the Legislature mandate body and dash cameras for all New York law-enforcement encounters statewide.

Penalties and civil remedies

Eavesdropping under section 250.05 is a class E felony with a maximum prison sentence of four years under N.Y. Penal Law section 70.00(2)(e). The maximum fine is the greater of $5,000 or double the amount of the defendant's gain under section 80.00. Possession of eavesdropping devices under section 250.10 is a class A misdemeanor with up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine under sections 70.15(1) and 80.05(1).

Unlawful surveillance in the second degree under section 250.45 is also a class E felony, with up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Unlawful surveillance in the first degree under section 250.50, available where the defendant has a prior unlawful-surveillance conviction within ten years, is a class D felony with up to seven years in prison and mandatory sex-offender registration.

Offense	Statute	Class	Maximum Prison	Maximum Fine
Eavesdropping	section 250.05	Class E felony	4 years	$5,000 (or 2x gain)
Possession of eavesdropping devices	section 250.10	Class A misdemeanor	1 year	$1,000
Unlawful surveillance, 2nd degree	section 250.45	Class E felony	4 years	$5,000
Unlawful surveillance, 1st degree	section 250.50	Class D felony	7 years	$5,000; sex-offender registration
Divulging eavesdropping warrant	section 250.20	Class A misdemeanor	1 year	$1,000

Importantly, the Penal Law section 250 series is criminal-only in New York. There is no state civil cause of action attached to section 250.05. Federal law fills the gap for telecommunications interception: 18 U.S.C. section 2520 provides a civil cause of action for unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, available in federal or state court. New York-specific civil remedies exist under separate statutes: section 79-p (police interference), section 52-c (workplace AG enforcement), and section 52-b (intimate-image dissemination). None of these is a Penal Law section 250 remedy. Drafting a complaint that claims a "civil cause of action under Penal Law 250.05" is a common mistake and a quick way to draw a motion to dismiss.

Are recorded conversations admissible in New York courts?

Lawfully made one-party recordings are admissible in New York civil and criminal proceedings, subject to ordinary authentication, hearsay, and prejudice rules. Illegally intercepted communications are not. The operative statute is N.Y. CPLR 4506.

CPLR 4506 bars the admission of "the contents of any overheard or recorded communication, conversation, or discussion, or evidence derived therefrom" in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before any court, grand jury, or other authority of New York if the recording was obtained in violation of section 250.05. The exclusion runs to evidence derived from the unlawful recording as well, applying a fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree principle inside New York court proceedings. CPLR 4506 contains an important counter-exception: an unlawfully obtained recording is admissible against the person who made the unlawful recording, in a prosecution under section 250.05 or in a related civil proceeding.

Aggrieved parties move to suppress under CPLR 4506 before trial. The motion goes to the judge who issued the eavesdropping warrant, if any, or to a Supreme Court justice in the judicial district where the proceeding is pending. In family-court and divorce proceedings, lawfully made one-party recordings are generally admissible to document threats, custody-relevant statements, financial admissions, or other facts at issue, subject to the same authentication and best-evidence rules that apply in any proceeding.

Recording court hearings and public meetings

Recording inside a New York courtroom is restricted by 22 NYCRR section 29.1, the Chief Judge's rule on the use of recording, photographic, and broadcasting equipment. Section 29.1 generally bars still photography, audio recording, and video recording of trial-court proceedings without prior judicial approval. Appellate-court proceedings may be recorded only with court permission. The rule reaches reporters, parties, and members of the public alike. The Second Circuit and other federal courts in New York apply their own advance-notice protocols for any recording inside court facilities.

Public meetings of New York governmental bodies are governed by the Open Meetings Law, N.Y. Public Officers Law Article 7 (sections 100 through 111). The Open Meetings Law presumptively requires that meetings of public bodies be open to the general public and recognizes the right to record such meetings, subject to reasonable rules adopted by the body to avoid disruption. Recording of city council meetings, county legislature meetings, school-board meetings, state legislative proceedings, and public hearings is therefore generally permitted. A public body may regulate the placement of recording equipment but cannot prohibit recording outright.

AI, deepfakes, and digital replicas in New York

New York's deepfake-specific criminal statute is N.Y. Penal Law section 245.15, unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image. The statute criminalizes the intentional dissemination or publication of a still or video image that depicts an identifiable person with intimate parts exposed or engaging in sexual conduct, without that person's consent and under circumstances where the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private. Section 245.15 is a class A misdemeanor.

The 2023 amendment added a digitization clause that brings AI-generated and deepfake intimate imagery within reach of section 245.15. The amendment, Senator Hinchey's S.1042-A, Chapter 226 of the Laws of 2023, was signed by Governor Hochul on October 2, 2023 and took effect on December 1, 2023, sixty days after signing. As amended, section 245.15 reaches an "image created or altered by digitization," with "digitization" defined as realistically depicting any intimate part of another individual, depicting nude body parts as the intimate parts of another individual, or treating computer-generated intimate parts as the intimate parts of another individual.

The civil counterpart is N.Y. Civil Rights Law section 52-b, which provides depicted persons a private cause of action for actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief against any person who discloses, disseminates, publishes, or threatens to disseminate sexually explicit material, including computer-generated images, without consent. Section 52-b was amended in parallel with section 245.15 to cover digitized and deepfake intimate images.

Right-of-publicity protection for AI replicas runs through N.Y. Civil Rights Law section 50-f, most recently amended by legislation signed by Governor Hochul on December 11, 2025. The 2025 amendment removed the prior likelihood-of-deception requirement and the disclaimer exemption and revised the definition of "digital replica" to focus on a computer-generated, electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual in sound recordings, images, audiovisual works, or transmissions where the actual individual did not perform or where the performance has been materially altered. Section 50-f reaches commercial uses of a deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness without consent of the rights holder. The most relevant fact pattern is commercial AI-voice or AI-likeness use; ordinary recording of conversations is not within section 50-f's commercial-use frame.

Federal law adds another layer. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12, was signed on May 19, 2025. It criminalizes the knowing publication without consent of intimate visual depictions of identifiable adults and minors, including AI-generated digital forgeries, with maximum penalties of two years (adult victim) or three years (minor victim). The Act requires "covered platforms" to establish a notice-and-removal process and remove flagged content within 48 hours of a valid victim notice. The criminal provisions took effect on signing. The platform notice-and-removal obligation takes effect on May 19, 2026, ten days after this hub's most recent refresh. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the platform-removal obligations as unfair or deceptive practices under section 5 of the FTC Act.

Pending legislation: S.5070 and S.5077 (no force of law)

Senate Bill S.5070, introduced by Senator Joseph Griffo on February 18, 2025, would amend section 250.00 to require an individual recording a conversation or incident in a context with a reasonable expectation of privacy to state their intentions to use a recording device so that all parties present know. Senate Bill S.5077, also introduced by Senator Griffo on February 18, 2025, would redefine "wiretapping" to require all parties to consent to recording in contexts with a reasonable expectation of privacy, effectively converting New York from one-party to all-party consent.

Both bills are pending in the Senate Codes Committee. Neither has advanced beyond committee. Both are reintroductions of bills that have failed across multiple legislative sessions: S.4221 and S.4225 in 2023-2024, S.3831 and S.3832 in 2021-2022, and earlier versions going back to 2018 (S.9173). They have no current force of law. Cite them only as a pending watch list, not as an enacted or imminent change to New York's one-party rule.

If S.5077 were enacted in its current form, the practical effect would be substantial: covert recordings of in-person conversations, even by participants, would become unlawful in many private settings. If S.5070 were enacted, participants would have to give a verbal disclosure before turning on a recording device in a private setting. We will update this hub if either bill advances out of committee.

Specific recording situations in New York

Can I record my landlord?

Yes, if you are part of the conversation. Recording interactions with a landlord can document verbal repair commitments, illegal entry, harassment, or rent-related disputes. The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 establishes substantive tenant protections; lawfully made one-party recordings are admissible in housing-court proceedings to support claims under that Act, subject to ordinary authentication and best-evidence rules.

Can I record my doctor?

Yes, you can record a medical appointment you attend as a patient. Patient recording can be helpful for remembering complex treatment plans, documenting informed-consent discussions, and sharing accurate information with family caregivers. HIPAA does not bind patients; the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, governs covered entities and business associates only. A provider's facility may set a policy against third-party recording in clinical areas; that is a facility access rule, not a HIPAA mandate.

Can I record an Administration for Children's Services worker?

Yes. ACS workers are government employees, and a parent or family member can record interactions with them as a participant. Recordings can be valuable documentation in investigations, hearings, and family-court proceedings.

Can I record my ex-spouse or co-parent?

Yes, during conversations you are part of. New York family courts routinely admit lawfully made one-party recordings in custody and visitation disputes. Two practical cautions apply. Do not record children's conversations when you are not present, and do not coach a child to wear a recorder for you; both fact patterns risk eavesdropping liability and family-court adverse inferences. In contested custody, courts also consider whether secret recordings reflect a pattern of intrusive surveillance against a co-parent.

Can I use a dashcam?

Yes. Dashcams are legal in New York. N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law section 375 prohibits windshield obstructions, and a properly mounted dashcam complies. Audio captured by an in-car dashcam follows section 250.05's one-party rule. Dashcam footage is routinely admitted in New York traffic-court and personal-injury proceedings.

Can I record debt collectors?

Yes. Federal Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. section 1006.6, governs how third-party debt collectors communicate with consumers but does not impose a federal recording-disclosure mandate on collection calls. New York consumers can lawfully record incoming collection calls as participants under section 250.05.

Can I use AI meeting bots and transcription tools?

Yes, if you are a participant in the meeting. New York's one-party rule allows a participant to use Otter, Fireflies, Zoom transcription, Microsoft Copilot meeting summaries, Plaud AI voice recorders, smart-glasses recording, and similar tools without informing the other participants. Three practical cautions apply. First, the New York City Bar Association's Formal Opinion 2025-6 identifies ethical issues for attorneys using AI to record, transcribe, and summarize client conversations. The opinion focuses on attorney conduct but reflects the operational risks for any user: data security, third-party storage, and transcript accuracy. Second, in a workplace setting, an employer's no-recording policy may apply even where state law permits the recording. Third, smart-glasses and wearable recorders that capture video also implicate section 250.45 in private spaces. New York does not currently have a biometric privacy statute parallel to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, so facial-geometry capture by smart glasses does not carry a BIPA-style statutory damages exposure, but the legal landscape may shift. For a deeper dive, see our guide on wearable recording devices at work and our employer wearable recording-device policy template.

Frequently asked questions

More New York laws

• New York Lemon Laws
• New York Car Seat Laws
• New York Child Support Laws
• New York Dog Bite Laws
• New York Hit and Run Laws
• New York Statute of Limitations
• New York Sexting Laws
• New York Whistleblower Laws