New York RAISE Act: Responsible AI Safety and Education Act

High-level summary

Ordered by novelty

An SB 53 copy, plus a registration regime run by the state's financial regulator, plus a 72-hour incident clock, minus whistleblower protections.

Repealed

Repealed: the former deployment prohibition.

Binds you if: Applies to the whole article. The former article 44-B (including the § 1421(2) prohibition on deploying a frontier model that would create an unreasonable risk of critical harm) is repealed in its entirety by the clause quoted here; the article printed on the rest of this page is the replacement, and no section of it prohibits deployment.
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗

Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 2 →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

No CA analogue

Registration with the Department of Financial Services: no disclosure statement on file, no developing or deploying a frontier model in New York.

Binds you if: Binds you if you are a large frontier developer (>10^26-operation model plus >$500M in revenues with affiliates) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(9)-(10), 1425)
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: California has no registration to compare. Nothing in SB 53 makes lawful operation contingent on being on a state list; its nearest text, § 22757.12(d), is a periodic risk summary to the Office of Emergency Services, the only affirmative duty in SB 53 to send anything to a state body. § 1428(3) prescribes the contents: business names, New York addresses, beneficial owners at 5% or more (private) or 50% (public), and three named points of contact. Renewal every two years, or on transfer of ownership or material change, whichever is earlier. This is the Department of Financial Services' supervised-entity posture: the regulator knows who it regulates before anything goes wrong.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(1)-(2) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

Large frontier developers pay a proportional share of the regulator's costs.

Binds you if: Binds you if you are a large frontier developer (>10^26-operation model plus >$500M in revenues with affiliates) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(9)-(10), 1425)
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(4) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

$1,000 per day for operating unregistered, filing false information, or not paying assessments.

Binds you if: Binds any person developing, deploying, or operating a large frontier model in part in New York without a current disclosure on file
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: California's only penalty track runs through the Attorney General and a court. New York's second track needs neither: the office levies it after notice and hearing, it accrues daily rather than per violation, and it sits 'in addition to any other penalty or liability that may be imposed under this article.' One seam, reproduced as passed: § 1428(5) says 'large frontier model,' a term the article never defines, where § 1420 defines 'frontier model' and 'large frontier developer'.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(5) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

The Department of Financial Services publishes the list of large frontier developers who have registered.

Binds you if: Binds the office, not developers
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: California publishes incidents; New York publishes names. The nearest California text publishes anonymized, aggregated incident information once a year, where New York publishes a named roster of who is covered, with contact details withheld. It is the only place in any enacted state frontier law where the public can learn which developers the statute actually reaches from the state rather than from the companies.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(6) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

Standing rulemaking authority for the Department of Financial Services, including power to add reporting and publication requirements.

Binds you if: Binds the office; reaches every frontier developer the article covers once exercised
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: Far wider rulemaking power than California's. California's only grant in the chapter is the narrow one shown alongside: the Office of Emergency Services may designate equivalent federal reporting regimes, and nothing else. New York grants general implementing authority plus an express invitation to expand the regime, covering post-incident information, sharing plans and protocols, and transmission of frontier AI frameworks to the office. It is rulemaking rather than mandatory: none of it binds anyone until the Department of Financial Services acts, and the obligations here are the ceiling, not the floor.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1429 →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

Tightens CA

Quarterly internal-use catastrophic-risk summaries to the office, on a schedule the office must agree to.

Binds you if: Binds you if you are a large frontier developer (>10^26-operation model plus >$500M in revenues with affiliates) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(9)-(10), 1425)
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: Same three-month clock, one changed parameter. An alternative schedule must be 'requested by the large frontier developer ... and agreed upon by the office,' where California lets the developer unilaterally specify 'another reasonable schedule.' The tightening call is a side-by-side reading of the two texts. It cuts the other way in § 1422(2)(b): New York's office takes 'all reasonable precautions' limiting access to 'personnel authorized to know,' against California's 'all necessary precautions' and 'specific need to know.'

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(2)(a) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

72-hour critical safety incident reporting to the office.

Binds you if: Binds you if you are any frontier developer (>10^26-operation model) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(8)-(9), 1425)
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: Same obligation, tighter clock: 72 hours against California's 15 days. The trigger differs too. New York starts the clock either on a determination that an incident occurred or on learning facts sufficient to establish a reasonable belief, where California starts it on 'discovering' the incident.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(a) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

Annual public incident report from the regulator, with recommended statutory updates.

Binds you if: Binds the office, not developers; first report due January 1, 2028
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: Same annual anonymized-and-aggregated report, with three more things in it. New York's § 1422(7)(a)(ii)-(iv) adds anything the office deems relevant to frontier model safety, recommended updates to the article, and any developments relevant to its purposes, none of which California's § 22757.13(g)(1) carries. New York also transmits to named legislative committee chairs, not just to the Legislature and Governor. Its first report is due 2028-01-01, California's 2027-01-01.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(7) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

Federal-equivalence safe harbor, but copies of the federal reports still go to the office.

Binds you if: Binds you if you are any frontier developer (>10^26-operation model) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(8)-(9), 1425)
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: The safe harbor is copied from SB 53, with one clause added. Under § 1422(9)(b)(iii) a developer riding a designated federal regime must still 'send copies of any critical safety incident reports required by such federal standards to the office concurrently.' California's § 22757.13(i)(2) has no equivalent, and the state simply loses sight of the reports. The harbor only operates once the office designates a federal regime by regulation under § 1422(8), which is why it is marked rulemaking.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(9)-(10) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

Attorney General civil penalties: up to $1M first violation, up to $3M per subsequent violation.

Binds you if: Reaches only large frontier developers, and only the four listed procedural failures
Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Compared with CA: Tighter only on repeat violations: $3M against California's flat $1M-per-violation cap. The first-violation ceiling is identical. Read the trajectory the other way: S8828 cut these from the $10M / $30M the Legislature originally enacted, and deleted the original injunctive-and-declaratory-relief clause. The trigger list is closed and entirely procedural: fail to publish or transmit, misstate, fail to report, fail to follow your own framework. Deploying a dangerous model is not on it.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(1) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

Matches CA

8 provisions track the California baseline.

Catastrophic risk: >50 deaths or >$1B in property damage, from chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, autonomous crime or cyberattack, or loss of controlN.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(3)
Who is covered: 10^26 operations, $500M revenue (California's thresholds, adopted verbatim)N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(9)-(10)
Publish a frontier AI framework: 10 topicsN.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)
Third-party assessment: describe your use of it; no audit requiredN.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)(e)
Transparency report at deployment, with catastrophic-risk assessment summaries for large developersN.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(3)
No materially false or misleading statements about catastrophic risk or framework complianceN.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(4)
24-hour disclosure to an authority with jurisdiction when death or serious injury is imminentN.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(b)
No private right of action; third-party causation defense preservedN.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(2)-(3)

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(3) → N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(9)-(10) → N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1) → N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)(e) → N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(3) → N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(4) → N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(b) → N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(2)-(3) →

Eff. 1 Jan 2027

↑ Summary

The Act

Enacted text, verbatim · quoted in statute order

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(3)

Matches CA

Click to compare

Catastrophic risk: >50 deaths or >$1B in property damage, from chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, autonomous crime or cyberattack, or loss of control§

3. (a) "Catastrophic risk" means a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier developer's [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above 10^26 operations (§ 1420(8)-(9))] development, storage, use, or deployment of a frontier model will materially contribute to the death of, or serious injury to, more than fifty people or more than one billion dollars in damage to, or loss of, property arising from a single incident involving a frontier model doing any of the following: (i) providing expert-level assistance in the creation or release of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon; (ii) engaging in conduct with no meaningful human oversight, intervention, or supervision that is either a cyberattack or, if the conduct had been committed by a human, would constitute the crime of murder, assault, extortion, or theft, including theft by false pretense; or (iii) evading the control of its frontier developer or user. (b) "Catastrophic risk" does not include a foreseeable and material risk from any of the following: (i) information that a frontier model outputs if the information is otherwise publicly accessible in a substantially similar form from a source other than a foundation model; (ii) lawful activity of the federal government; or (iii) harm caused by a frontier model in combination with other software if the frontier model did not materially contribute to the harm.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Definitional: the harm every other duty in the article is keyed to.
Goes to: n/a: definitional.
Compared with CA: The standard is identical to California's, after a substantive change. The original RAISE Act regulated 'critical harm' at 100 deaths / $1B; S8828 swapped the vocabulary to California's 'catastrophic risk' at 50 deaths / $1B, a changed threshold rather than a renaming. New York spells the numbers out in words where California uses numerals.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(3) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(9)-(10)

Matches CA

Click to compare

Who is covered: 10^26 operations, $500M revenue (California's thresholds, adopted verbatim)§

9. (a) "Frontier model" means a foundation model that was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations. (b) The quantity of computing power described in paragraph (a) of this subdivision shall include computing for the original training run and for any subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, or other material modifications the developer applies to a preceding foundation model. 10. "Large frontier developer" means a frontier developer that together with its affiliates collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of five hundred million dollars in the preceding calendar year.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Definitional: who the article covers at all.
Goes to: n/a: definitional.
Compared with CA: New York landed on California's two numbers as a concession. The original RAISE Act keyed coverage to models 'the compute cost of which exceeds one hundred million dollars,' and S8828 traded that for California's compute-and-revenue pair. New York has no analogue to California's § 22757.14 standing threshold review, so nothing revisits 10^26 as compute gets cheaper.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(9)-(10) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)

Matches CA

Click to compare

Publish a frontier AI framework: 10 topics§

§ 1421. Transparency requirements. 1. A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose revenues with affiliates topped $500M last year (§ 1420(10))] shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework that applies to the large frontier developer's frontier models and describes in detail how the large frontier developer handles all of the following: (a) incorporating national standards, international standards, and industry consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework; (b) defining and assessing thresholds used by the large frontier developer to identify and assess whether a frontier model has capabilities that could pose a catastrophic risk, [foreseeable, material risk of >50 deaths or serious injuries, or >$1B in property damage, from one incident (§ 1420(3))] which may include multiple-tiered thresholds; (c) applying mitigations to address the potential for catastrophic risks based on the results of assessments undertaken pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subdivision; (d) reviewing assessments and adequacy of mitigations as part of the decision to deploy a frontier model or use it extensively internally; (e) using third parties to assess the potential for catastrophic risks and the effectiveness of mitigations of catastrophic risks; (f) revisiting and updating the frontier AI framework, including any criteria that trigger updates and how the large frontier developer determines when its frontier models are substantially modified enough to require disclosures pursuant to subdivision three of this section; (g) cybersecurity practices to secure unreleased model weights from unauthorized modification or transfer by internal or external parties; (h) identifying and responding to critical safety incidents; (i) instituting internal governance practices to ensure implementation of these processes; and (j) assessing and managing catastrophic risk resulting from the internal use of its frontier models, including risks resulting from a frontier model circumventing oversight mechanisms.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds you if you are a large frontier developer (>10^26-operation model plus >$500M in revenues with affiliates) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(9)-(10), 1425). The ten topics are SB 53's, adopted as a template.
Goes to: No filing: published on the developer's own website, so the public receives it
Compared with CA: Same ten topics in the same order as SB 53. One wording difference: New York requires the framework to describe 'in detail how the large frontier developer handles' each topic, where California requires it to describe 'how the large frontier developer approaches' them. The difference is verbal, not a changed parameter.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)(e)

Matches CA

Click to compare

Third-party assessment: describe your use of it; no audit required§

(e) using third parties to assess the potential for catastrophic risks and the effectiveness of mitigations of catastrophic risks;

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds you if you are a large frontier developer (>10^26-operation model plus >$500M in revenues with affiliates) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(9)-(10), 1425)
Goes to: The public: published on the developer's website as part of the framework; no auditor, no regulator
Compared with CA: New York requires no audit, exactly as California requires none. Both ask only that the framework describe how the developer uses third parties, and there is no independent-audit mandate anywhere in §§ 1420-1429. Illinois is the state that requires an actual audit. The row is here so that the empty audit cell shows up in the text and not only in a table.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)(e) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(3)

Matches CA

Click to compare

Transparency report at deployment, with catastrophic-risk assessment summaries for large developers§

3. (a) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above 10^26 operations (§ 1420(8)-(9))] shall clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a transparency report containing all of the following: (i) the internet website of the frontier developer; (ii) a mechanism that enables a natural person to communicate with the frontier developer; (iii) the release date of the frontier model; (iv) the languages supported by the frontier model; (v) the modalities of output supported by the frontier model; (vi) the intended uses of the frontier model; and (vii) any generally applicable restrictions or conditions on uses of the frontier model. (b) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose revenues with affiliates topped $500M last year (§ 1420(10))] shall include in the transparency report required by paragraph (a) of this subdivision, summaries of all of the following: (i) assessments of catastrophic risks from the frontier model conducted pursuant to the large frontier developer's frontier AI framework; (ii) the results of the assessments under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph; (iii) the extent to which third-party evaluators were involved; and (iv) other steps taken to fulfill the requirements of the frontier AI framework with respect to the frontier model. (c) A frontier developer that publishes the information described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subdivision as part of a larger document, including a system card or model card, shall be deemed in compliance with the applicable paragraph.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: (a) binds any frontier developer deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model in New York; (b) adds the risk-assessment summaries only for large frontier developers
Goes to: The public: published on the developer's own website, not filed with the office (within the Department of Financial Services)
Compared with CA: Materially the same standard, on a full read of the enacted text. An earlier reading of this row as New York going beyond California did not survive § 1421(3)(b). New York drops California's § 22757.12(c)(4) sentence ('encouraged, but not required') and otherwise tracks it.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(3) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(4)

Matches CA

Click to compare

No materially false or misleading statements about catastrophic risk or framework compliance§

4. (a) (i) A frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above 10^26 operations (§ 1420(8)-(9))] shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about catastrophic risk [foreseeable, material risk of >50 deaths or serious injuries, or >$1B in property damage, from one incident (§ 1420(3))] from its frontier models or its management of catastrophic risk. (ii) A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose revenues with affiliates topped $500M last year (§ 1420(10))] shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about its implementation of, or compliance with, its frontier AI framework. (b) This subdivision shall not apply to a statement that was made in good faith and was reasonable under the circumstances.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: (a)(i) binds any frontier developer; (a)(ii) binds only large frontier developers
Goes to: n/a: a prohibition; the Attorney General enforces it under § 1427(1)
Compared with CA: Copied from SB 53, good-faith carve-out included. It is one of the four closed triggers in § 1427(1), which is why it sits under enforcement: the misrepresentation rule is what gives the transparency duties teeth in the absence of any substantive standard.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(4) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(2)(a)

Tightens CA

Click to compare

Quarterly internal-use catastrophic-risk summaries to the office, on a schedule the office must agree to§

2. (a) A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose revenues with affiliates topped $500M last year (§ 1420(10))] shall transmit to the office [an office within the New York State Department of Financial Services, reporting to the Superintendent of Financial Services (§ 1420(16))] a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk [foreseeable, material risk of >50 deaths or serious injuries, or >$1B in property damage, from one incident (§ 1420(3))] resulting from internal use of its frontier models every three months or pursuant to another reasonable schedule requested by the large frontier developer, communicated in writing to the office with written updates, as appropriate, and agreed upon by the office. The office shall establish a mechanism to be used by a large frontier developer to confidentially submit summaries of any assessments of the potential for catastrophic risk resulting from internal use of its frontier models.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds you if you are a large frontier developer (>10^26-operation model plus >$500M in revenues with affiliates) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(9)-(10), 1425)
Goes to: The office, confidentially; exempt from Freedom of Information Law disclosure under § 1422(6)
Compared with CA: Same three-month clock, one changed parameter. An alternative schedule must be 'requested by the large frontier developer ... and agreed upon by the office,' where California lets the developer unilaterally specify 'another reasonable schedule.' The tightening call is a side-by-side reading of the two texts. It cuts the other way in § 1422(2)(b): New York's office takes 'all reasonable precautions' limiting access to 'personnel authorized to know,' against California's 'all necessary precautions' and 'specific need to know.'

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(2)(a) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(a)

Tightens CA

Click to compare

72-hour critical safety incident reporting to the office§

3. (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this subdivision, a frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above 10^26 operations (§ 1420(8)-(9))] shall report any critical safety incident [weight theft causing death or injury, realized catastrophic risk, loss of control causing death or injury, or a model deceiving its developer to subvert controls (§ 1420(4))] pertaining to one or more of its frontier models to the office [an office within the New York State Department of Financial Services, reporting to the Superintendent of Financial Services (§ 1420(16))] within seventy-two hours from a determination that a critical safety incident has occurred or within seventy-two hours of the frontier developer learning facts sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that a critical safety incident has occurred.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds you if you are any frontier developer (>10^26-operation model) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(8)-(9), 1425)
Goes to: The office; the report is exempt from Freedom of Information Law disclosure under § 1422(6)
Compared with CA: Same obligation, tighter clock: 72 hours against California's 15 days. The trigger differs too. New York starts the clock either on a determination that an incident occurred or on learning facts sufficient to establish a reasonable belief, where California starts it on 'discovering' the incident.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(a) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(b)

Matches CA

Click to compare

24-hour disclosure to an authority with jurisdiction when death or serious injury is imminent§

(b) If a frontier developer discovers that a critical safety incident [weight theft causing death or injury, realized catastrophic risk, loss of control causing death or injury, or a model deceiving its developer to subvert controls (§ 1420(4))] poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury, the frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above 10^26 operations (§ 1420(8)-(9))] shall disclose that incident within twenty-four hours to an authority, including any law enforcement agency or public safety agency with jurisdiction, that is appropriate based on the nature of that incident and as required by law.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds you if you are any frontier developer (>10^26-operation model) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(8)-(9), 1425)
Goes to: Not the office: 'an authority, including any law enforcement agency or public safety agency with jurisdiction'; not public
Compared with CA: Word-for-word the California clause. The 24-hour rule is routinely reported as New York tightening California, and it is not: it is copied, and it runs to a law-enforcement or public-safety authority rather than to the AI office.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(b) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(7)

Tightens CA

Click to compare

Annual public incident report from the regulator, with recommended statutory updates§

7. (a) Beginning January first, two thousand twenty-eight, and annually thereafter, the office [an office within the New York State Department of Financial Services, reporting to the Superintendent of Financial Services (§ 1420(16))] shall produce a report, that includes the following: (i) anonymized and aggregated information about critical safety incidents that have been reviewed by the office since the preceding report; (ii) any information that the office deems relevant to frontier model safety; (iii) recommended updates to this article, if any; and (iv) any developments relevant to the purposes of this article. (b) The office shall not include information in a report pursuant to this subdivision that would compromise the trade secrets or cybersecurity of a frontier developer, public safety, or the national security of the United States or that would be prohibited by any federal or state law. (c) The office shall transmit a report pursuant to this subdivision to the governor, the temporary president and minority leader of the senate, the speaker and minority leader of the assembly, the chair and ranking member of the senate committee on internet and technology, and the chair and ranking member of the assembly committee on science and technology.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds the office, not developers; first report due January 1, 2028
Goes to: The Governor, both chambers' leaders, and the internet-and-technology and science-and-technology committee chairs and ranking members
Compared with CA: Same annual anonymized-and-aggregated report, with three more things in it. New York's § 1422(7)(a)(ii)-(iv) adds anything the office deems relevant to frontier model safety, recommended updates to the article, and any developments relevant to its purposes, none of which California's § 22757.13(g)(1) carries. New York also transmits to named legislative committee chairs, not just to the Legislature and Governor. Its first report is due 2028-01-01, California's 2027-01-01.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(7) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(9)-(10)

Tightens CA

Click to compare

Federal-equivalence safe harbor, but copies of the federal reports still go to the office§

9. (a) A frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above 10^26 operations (§ 1420(8)-(9))] that intends to comply with subdivision three of this section by complying with the requirements of, or meeting the standards stated by, a federal law, regulation, or guidance document designated pursuant to subdivision eight of this section shall declare its intent to do so to the office. [an office within the New York State Department of Financial Services, reporting to the Superintendent of Financial Services (§ 1420(16))] (b) After a frontier developer has declared its intent pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the following shall apply: (i) the frontier developer shall be deemed in compliance with subdivision three of this section to the extent that the frontier developer meets the standards of, or complies with the requirements imposed or stated by, the designated federal law, regulation, or guidance document until the frontier developer declares the revocation of that intent to the office or the office revokes a relevant regulation pursuant to subdivision ten of this section; (ii) the failure by a frontier developer to meet the standards of, or comply with the requirements stated by, the federal law, regulation, or guidance document designated pursuant to subdivision eight of this section shall constitute a violation of this article; and (iii) frontier developers who comply with subdivision three of this section by meeting such federal standards shall send copies of any critical safety incident [weight theft causing death or injury, realized catastrophic risk, loss of control causing death or injury, or a model deceiving its developer to subvert controls (§ 1420(4))] reports required by such federal standards to the office concurrently with sending them to federal authorities. 10. The office shall revoke a regulation adopted under subdivision eight of this section if the requirements of subdivision eight of this section are no longer met.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds you if you are any frontier developer (>10^26-operation model) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(8)-(9), 1425)
Goes to: The office, concurrently with the federal authority
Duty: rulemaking
Compared with CA: The safe harbor is copied from SB 53, with one clause added. Under § 1422(9)(b)(iii) a developer riding a designated federal regime must still 'send copies of any critical safety incident reports required by such federal standards to the office concurrently.' California's § 22757.13(i)(2) has no equivalent, and the state simply loses sight of the reports. The harbor only operates once the office designates a federal regime by regulation under § 1422(8), which is why it is marked rulemaking.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(9)-(10) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(1)

Tightens CA

Click to compare

Attorney General civil penalties: up to $1M first violation, up to $3M per subsequent violation§

§ 1427. Violations. 1. The attorney general may bring a civil action to recover a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed one million dollars for a first violation and in an amount not to exceed three million dollars per subsequent violation, determined based on the severity of the violation where a large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose revenues with affiliates topped $500M last year (§ 1420(10))] fails to publish or transmit a compliant document required to be published or transmitted under this article, makes a statement in violation of subdivision four of section fourteen hundred twenty-one of this article, fails to report an incident as required by section fourteen hundred twenty-two of this article, or fails to comply with its own frontier AI framework.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Reaches only large frontier developers, and only the four listed procedural failures
Goes to: The New York Attorney General, by civil action
Compared with CA: Tighter only on repeat violations: $3M against California's flat $1M-per-violation cap. The first-violation ceiling is identical. Read the trajectory the other way: S8828 cut these from the $10M / $30M the Legislature originally enacted, and deleted the original injunctive-and-declaratory-relief clause. The trigger list is closed and entirely procedural: fail to publish or transmit, misstate, fail to report, fail to follow your own framework. Deploying a dangerous model is not on it.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(1) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(2)-(3)

Matches CA

Click to compare

No private right of action; third-party causation defense preserved§

2. Nothing in this article shall be construed to establish, authorize or create a private right of action associated with violations of this article. 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent a large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose revenues with affiliates topped $500M last year (§ 1420(10))] from asserting that another person, entity, or factor, may be responsible for any alleged harm, injury or damage resulting from a catastrophic risk or critical safety incident.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Applies to anyone who might otherwise sue under the article
Goes to: n/a: a bar on suits
Compared with CA: Same result as California, stated expressly rather than by implication. § 1427(2) answers California's Attorney-General-only enforcement clause. § 1427(3), the third-party-causation defense, has no California counterpart at all, and it carries no new-duty label because it narrows liability rather than adding an obligation. The original RAISE Act also allowed injunctive and declaratory relief, and S8828 dropped it.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(2)-(3) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(1)-(2)

No CA analogue

Click to compare

Registration with the Department of Financial Services: no disclosure statement on file, no developing or deploying a frontier model in New York§

§ 1428. Large frontier developer disclosure. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose revenues with affiliates topped $500M last year (§ 1420(10))] may develop, deploy, or operate a frontier model, in whole or in part in New York state, without having a current disclosure statement filed with the office [an office within the New York State Department of Financial Services, reporting to the Superintendent of Financial Services (§ 1420(16))] and paying the required share. 2. The disclosure statement shall be filed in the form and the manner prescribed by the office and shall contain all the information required by the office. It shall be renewed every two years, whenever ownership of the frontier model is transferred or whenever there is a material change to the information reported in the previously filed disclosure statement, whichever occurs earlier.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds you if you are a large frontier developer (>10^26-operation model plus >$500M in revenues with affiliates) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(9)-(10), 1425)
Goes to: The office; the fact of filing is published under § 1428(6), the contact details are not
Compared with CA: California has no registration to compare. Nothing in SB 53 makes lawful operation contingent on being on a state list; its nearest text, § 22757.12(d), is a periodic risk summary to the Office of Emergency Services, the only affirmative duty in SB 53 to send anything to a state body. § 1428(3) prescribes the contents: business names, New York addresses, beneficial owners at 5% or more (private) or 50% (public), and three named points of contact. Renewal every two years, or on transfer of ownership or material change, whichever is earlier. This is the Department of Financial Services' supervised-entity posture: the regulator knows who it regulates before anything goes wrong.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(1)-(2) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(4)

No CA analogue

Source →

Large frontier developers pay a proportional share of the regulator's costs§

4. Large frontier developers shall be assessed in pro rata shares by the department [the New York State Department of Financial Services (§ 1420(12))] to defray the operating expenses, including all direct and indirect costs, of administering the obligations imposed by this article.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds you if you are a large frontier developer (>10^26-operation model plus >$500M in revenues with affiliates) operating in whole or in part in New York state (§§ 1420(9)-(10), 1425)
Goes to: The Department of Financial Services, which assesses the shares

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(4) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(5)

No CA analogue

Click to compare

$1,000 per day for operating unregistered, filing false information, or not paying assessments§

5. If any person develops, deploys, or operates a large frontier model in part in New York state without a current disclosure filed with the office as required by this section, submits false information in its disclosure or fails to timely pay any assessment required by this article, in addition to any other penalty or liability that may be imposed under this article, the office [an office within the New York State Department of Financial Services, reporting to the Superintendent of Financial Services (§ 1420(16))] may, after notice and hearing, levy civil penalties, fees, and costs as follows: (a) a civil penalty of one thousand dollars for each day the entity fails to file a disclosure as required by this section or fails to correct false information; and (b) an amount equal to the assessments owed.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds any person developing, deploying, or operating a large frontier model in part in New York without a current disclosure on file
Goes to: The office, after notice and hearing: an administrative track, no court and no Attorney General required
Compared with CA: California's only penalty track runs through the Attorney General and a court. New York's second track needs neither: the office levies it after notice and hearing, it accrues daily rather than per violation, and it sits 'in addition to any other penalty or liability that may be imposed under this article.' One seam, reproduced as passed: § 1428(5) says 'large frontier model,' a term the article never defines, where § 1420 defines 'frontier model' and 'large frontier developer'.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(5) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(6)

No CA analogue

Click to compare

The Department of Financial Services publishes the list of large frontier developers who have registered§

6. The office [an office within the New York State Department of Financial Services, reporting to the Superintendent of Financial Services (§ 1420(16))] shall maintain and publish a list of large frontier developers who have filed disclosure statements, however such publication shall not include the contact information set forth in paragraph (d) of subdivision three of this section.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds the office, not developers
Goes to: The public
Compared with CA: California publishes incidents; New York publishes names. The nearest California text publishes anonymized, aggregated incident information once a year, where New York publishes a named roster of who is covered, with contact details withheld. It is the only place in any enacted state frontier law where the public can learn which developers the statute actually reaches from the state rather than from the companies.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(6) on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1429

No CA analogue

Click to compare

Standing rulemaking authority for the Department of Financial Services, including power to add reporting and publication requirements§

§ 1429. Rulemaking authority. The office is hereby authorized to adopt rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this article as needed. To the extent the office determines that doing so will facilitate safety and transparency consistent with the underlying purpose of this article, the office [an office within the New York State Department of Financial Services, reporting to the Superintendent of Financial Services (§ 1420(16))] may consider additional reporting or publication requirements for information to facilitate safety and transparency, including but not limited to, post-critical safety incident information, sharing plans and protocols, and the transmission of frontier AI frameworks to the office.

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Binds the office; reaches every frontier developer the article covers once exercised
Goes to: n/a: grant of authority to the office
Duty: rulemaking
Compared with CA: Far wider rulemaking power than California's. California's only grant in the chapter is the narrow one shown alongside: the Office of Emergency Services may designate equivalent federal reporting regimes, and nothing else. New York grants general implementing authority plus an express invitation to expand the regime, covering post-incident information, sharing plans and protocols, and transmission of frontier AI frameworks to the office. It is rulemaking rather than mandatory: none of it binds anyone until the Department of Financial Services acts, and the obligations here are the ceiling, not the floor.

Read N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1429 on nysenate.gov ↗·Copy link

Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 2

Repealed

Source →

Repealed: the former deployment prohibition§

§ 2. Article 44-B of the general business law, as added by a chapter of the laws of 2025 amending the general business law relating to the training and use of artificial intelligence frontier models, as proposed in legislative bills numbers S. 6953-B and A. 6453-B, is REPEALED and a new article 44-B is added to read as follows:

Effective: 2027-01-01 Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 3 ↗
Binds you if: Applies to the whole article. The former article 44-B (including the § 1421(2) prohibition on deploying a frontier model that would create an unreasonable risk of critical harm) is repealed in its entirety by the clause quoted here; the article printed on the rest of this page is the replacement, and no section of it prohibits deployment.
Goes to: n/a: this row records what the enacted article no longer contains; it is not an obligation to a receiver

Read Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 2 on nyassembly.gov ↗·Copy link

Full text ↗

Every quote above is checked against the archived official text. This page covers the frontier-model duties only: read the whole act on nysenate.gov ↗.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(3)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(c)

(c) (1) “Catastrophic risk” means a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier developer’s development, storage, use, or deployment of a frontier model will materially contribute to the death of, or serious injury to, more than 50 people or more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in damage to, or loss of, property arising from a single incident involving a frontier model doing any of the following: (A) Providing expert-level assistance in the creation or release of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon. (B) Engaging in conduct with no meaningful human oversight, intervention, or supervision that is either a cyberattack or, if the conduct had been committed by a human, would constitute the crime of murder, assault, extortion, or theft, including theft by false pretense. (C) Evading the control of its frontier developer or user. (2) “Catastrophic risk” does not include a foreseeable and material risk from any of the following: (A) Information that a frontier model outputs if the information is otherwise publicly accessible in a substantially similar form from a source other than a foundation model. (B) Lawful activity of the federal government. …

Continue on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(9)-(10)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(i)-(j)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(i) (1) “Frontier model” means a foundation model that was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations. (2) The quantity of computing power described in paragraph (1) shall include computing for the original training run and for any subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, or other material modifications the developer applies to a preceding foundation model. (j) “Large frontier developer” means a frontier developer that together with its affiliates collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) in the preceding calendar year.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a)

(a) A large frontier developer shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework that applies to the large frontier developer’s frontier models and describes how the large frontier developer approaches all of the following: (1) Incorporating national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. (2) Defining and assessing thresholds used by the large frontier developer to identify and assess whether a frontier model has capabilities that could pose a catastrophic risk, which may include multiple-tiered thresholds. (3) Applying mitigations to address the potential for catastrophic risks based on the results of assessments undertaken pursuant to paragraph (2). (4) Reviewing assessments and adequacy of mitigations as part of the decision to deploy a frontier model or use it extensively internally. (5) Using third parties to assess the potential for catastrophic risks and the effectiveness of mitigations of catastrophic risks. …

Continue on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)(e)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a)(5)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(5) Using third parties to assess the potential for catastrophic risks and the effectiveness of mitigations of catastrophic risks.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(3)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(1)-(3)

(c) (1) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a frontier developer shall clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a transparency report containing all of the following: (A) The internet website of the frontier developer. (B) A mechanism that enables a natural person to communicate with the frontier developer. (C) The release date of the frontier model. (D) The languages supported by the frontier model. (E) The modalities of output supported by the frontier model. (F) The intended uses of the frontier model. (G) Any generally applicable restrictions or conditions on uses of the frontier model. (2) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a large frontier developer shall include in the transparency report required by paragraph (1) summaries of all of the following: (A) Assessments of catastrophic risks from the frontier model conducted pursuant to the large frontier developer’s frontier AI framework. (B) The results of those assessments. …

Continue on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(4)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(e)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(e) (1) (A) A frontier developer shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about catastrophic risk from its frontier models or its management of catastrophic risk. (B) A large frontier developer shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about its implementation of, or compliance with, its frontier AI framework. (2) This subdivision does not apply to a statement that was made in good faith and was reasonable under the circumstances.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(2)(a)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(d)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(d) A large frontier developer shall transmit to the Office of Emergency Services a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk resulting from internal use of its frontier models every three months or pursuant to another reasonable schedule specified by the large frontier developer and communicated in writing to the Office of Emergency Services with written updates, as appropriate.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(a)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(1)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a frontier developer shall report any critical safety incident pertaining to one or more of its frontier models to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days of discovering the critical safety incident.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(3)(b)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(2)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(2) If a frontier developer discovers that a critical safety incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury, the frontier developer shall disclose that incident within 24 hours to an authority, including any law enforcement agency or public safety agency with jurisdiction, that is appropriate based on the nature of that incident and as required by law.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(7)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(g)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(g) (1) Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Office of Emergency Services shall produce a report with anonymized and aggregated information about critical safety incidents that have been reviewed by the Office of Emergency Services since the preceding report. (2) The Office of Emergency Services shall not include information in a report pursuant to this subdivision that would compromise the trade secrets or cybersecurity of a frontier developer, public safety, or the national security of the United States or that would be prohibited by any federal or state law. (3) The Office of Emergency Services shall transmit a report pursuant to this subdivision to the Legislature, pursuant to Section 9795, and to the Governor.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1422(9)-(10)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(i)-(j)

(i) (1) A frontier developer that intends to comply with this section by complying with the requirements of, or meeting the standards stated by, a federal law, regulation, or guidance document designated pursuant to subdivision (h) shall declare its intent to do so to the Office of Emergency Services. (2) After a frontier developer has declared its intent pursuant to paragraph (1), both of the following apply: (A) The frontier developer shall be deemed in compliance with this section to the extent that the frontier developer meets the standards of, or complies with the requirements imposed or stated by, the designated federal law, regulation, or guidance document until the frontier developer declares the revocation of that intent to the Office of Emergency Services or the Office of Emergency Services revokes a relevant regulation pursuant to subdivision (j). (B) The failure by a frontier developer to meet the standards of, or comply with the requirements stated by, the federal law, regulation, or guidance document designated pursuant to subdivision (h) shall constitute a violation of this chapter. …

Continue on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(1)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15(a)-(b)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(a) A large frontier developer that fails to publish or transmit a compliant document required to be published or transmitted under this chapter, makes a statement in violation of subdivision (e) of Section 22757.12, fails to report an incident as required by Section 22757.13, or fails to comply with its own frontier AI framework shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) per violation. (b) A civil penalty described in this section shall be recovered in a civil action brought only by the Attorney General.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1427(2)-(3)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15(b)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(b) A civil penalty described in this section shall be recovered in a civil action brought only by the Attorney General.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(1)-(2)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(d)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

NYSource text: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(4)

New York RAISE Act (S6953-B / A6453-B), as repealed and replaced by S8828

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(4)·nysenate.gov, official text ↗

4. Large frontier developers shall be assessed in pro rata shares by the department to defray the operating expenses, including all direct and indirect costs, of administering the obligations imposed by this article.

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(5)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15(a)-(b)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1428(6)

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(g)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

CACompared with: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1429

Cal. SB 53

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(h)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗

(h) The Office of Emergency Services may adopt regulations designating one or more federal laws, regulations, or guidance documents that meet all of the following conditions for the purposes of subdivision (i): (1) (A) The law, regulation, or guidance document imposes or states standards or requirements for critical safety incident reporting that are substantially equivalent to, or stricter than, those required by this section. (B) The law, regulation, or guidance document described in subparagraph (A) does not need to require critical safety incident reporting to the State of California. (2) The law, regulation, or guidance document is intended to assess, detect, or mitigate the catastrophic risk.

NYSource text: Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 2

New York RAISE Act (S6953-B / A6453-B), as repealed and replaced by S8828

Ch. 96 of 2026 (S8828), § 2·nyassembly.gov, official text ↗

RAISE Act · Responsible AI Safety and Education Act

High-level summary

The Act

Also on the books in New York