Is it legal to record phone calls in New York?
Yes, generally. New York is a one-party consent state: you may record a phone call you take part in without telling the other person, because your own consent satisfies the rule. Recording calls you are not part of is illegal. When the other person may be in an all-party consent state like California or Florida, disclose the recording anyway.
What New York law says
New York follows one-party consent for phone calls, consistent with the federal Wiretap Act: as long as one participant — and you count — consents, the recording is lawful. The rule covers conversations you participate in; intercepting other people’s calls remains a crime. Bear in mind the rule protects you within New York — interstate calls can implicate stricter states’ laws, which is why professionals default to disclosure.
New York is a one-party consent state for most recording scenarios. Article 250 makes it a class E felony to engage in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or interception of an electronic communication without lawful authority — but the definitions in section 250.00 carve out the familiar one-party rule: wiretapping requires intercepting a telephonic communication without the consent of either the sender or receiver, and mechanical overhearing requires recording a conversation without the consent of at least one party while the recorder is not present. If you are on the call, your own consent is enough. New York separately criminalizes unlawful surveillance (hidden cameras in intimate settings) under sections 250.45–250.60, which operate on different rules than ordinary call recording.
"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." — N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05. "Wiretapping" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver. "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation by a person not present thereat, without the consent of at least one party thereto. — N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00.
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits interception when one party consents — the same floor New York's Penal Law § 250.00 effectively adopts for participant recording. Federal one-party consent does not preempt stricter state law: calling into California, Washington, or other all-party states from New York still exposes you to those states' rules. New York adds felony penalties and separate unlawful-surveillance crimes for hidden cameras that federal wiretap law alone does not fully cover.
New York follows federal-style one-party consent for calls and in-person conversations you participate in. If you are a party to a phone call, you may record it without telling the other person — your consent satisfies section 250.00's wiretapping definition, which only punishes interception by someone who is neither the sender nor the receiver and who lacks consent from either. For in-person talks, mechanical overhearing requires that the recorder not be present and that no party consented; recording a conversation you are in is not mechanical overhearing. Consent can be express or implied from the circumstances: McLaughlin v. McLaughlin holds that when people speak loudly enough for a non-participant to overhear naturally, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and the eavesdropping statute does not apply. Sharon v. Sharon confirms the wiretapping provisions cover cellphones and cordless phones, not just landlines. The major limit on third-party recording is presence: planting a device or intercepting from another room without any party's consent is a felony. New York's eavesdropping article does not create a private civil damages remedy — Greenfield v. Schultz held victims cannot sue under it — though other theories (common law privacy, unlawful surveillance statutes) may apply in camera cases. Separately, CPL Article 700 governs law-enforcement wiretaps; Berger v. New York (U.S. Supreme Court) struck down an earlier version of New York's ex parte eavesdropping order statute for lacking Fourth Amendment safeguards.
| Consent rule for phone calls | One-party consent |
| Recording calls you're part of | Allowed — your own consent is sufficient. |
| Calls with people in other states | The stricter state's rule may apply — when in doubt, disclose. |
What breaking the law costs in New York
Eavesdropping under Penal Law § 250.05 is a class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Unlawful surveillance in the second degree (§ 250.45) is a class E felony; first-degree unlawful surveillance (§ 250.50) is a class D felony. Possession of eavesdropping devices (§ 250.10) is a class A misdemeanor.
No — New York's eavesdropping statute does not authorize civil damages. Greenfield v. Schultz, 673 N.Y.S.2d 684 (App. Div. 1998). Victims of hidden-camera violations under Article 250's unlawful-surveillance provisions may have remedies under other statutes or common law, but ordinary one-party-legal call recordings do not trigger eavesdropping civil liability.
Exceptions worth knowing
- One-party consent: a party to a telephone or electronic communication may record; mechanical overhearing requires absence of any party's consent, so participants may record in-person conversations they attend
- No reasonable expectation of privacy: conversations audible to third parties in public or quasi-public settings fall outside the statute (McLaughlin v. McLaughlin; People v. Kirsh)
- Law-enforcement interceptions conducted under CPL Article 700 with a valid eavesdropping warrant
- Telephone-company monitoring in the ordinary course of business as defined in § 250.00(1)
- Stored electronic communications: at least one court has held Article 250 applies to communications in transit, not post-delivery email archives (People v. Thompson) — a different legal framework governs seized stored messages
How New York courts have ruled
Statutes set the rule; cases show how it plays out when a recording ends up in front of a judge. These are real, decided cases under New York law.
What happened: Pursuant to New York Code of Criminal Procedure § 813-a, police obtained ex parte eavesdropping orders to bug an attorney's office and a liquor-license applicant's office, recorded conspiracy conversations, and used the tapes to indict and convict Ralph Berger as a bribery go-between.
The ruling: The Supreme Court held New York's eavesdropping statute unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because it authorized searches without adequate particularity, notice, or judicial supervision.
What happened: In a matrimonial proceeding, one spouse sought to use recordings of conversations with the other; the question was whether the eavesdropping statute barred recordings of discussions conducted where others could freely overhear.
The ruling: The court held that individuals who speak in a manner allowing a non-participating third party to overhear have no reasonable expectation of privacy, so the eavesdropping law does not apply.
What happened: In a divorce action, a husband recorded telephone conversations with his wife using a recorder attached to his cellphone.
The ruling: The court held the recordings lawful because the husband was a party to the calls and New York's wiretapping definition applies to cellular telephones as well as traditional landlines.
What happened: Prosecutors obtained search warrants for approximately 100,000 stored emails from Google and Hotmail accounts; the defendant argued the seizures violated New York's eavesdropping statute (CPL 700.05 / Penal Law Article 250).
The ruling: The court held New York's eavesdropping statutes govern communications in transit, not stored emails already held by an ISP; search warrants, not wiretap orders, are the proper tool for stored digital communications.
What happened: A plaintiff sued for damages after discovering that conversations had been recorded, arguing the eavesdropping statute implied a private right of action.
The ruling: The Appellate Division held Penal Law Article 250 creates criminal offenses only and does not authorize civil lawsuits for eavesdropping violations.
What happened: In a prosecution involving recorded conversations, the court addressed whether a parent may consent on a child's behalf to recording — the vicarious-consent doctrine recognized in other states.
The ruling: The court surveyed federal and out-of-state authority on vicarious parental consent but noted New York appellate decisions had admitted recorded evidence for impeachment in other cases; the opinion treats New York as a one-party-consent jurisdiction aligned with federal Title III.
Personal calls vs. business calls in New York
Recording personal calls
If you are on the call, you can record it in New York without announcing — Sharon v. Sharon confirms that rule covers cellphones, and your participation is the consent § 250.00 requires. People routinely record exes, landlords, contractors, and coworkers they are speaking with to document threats or broken promises, and lawfully made recordings are generally admissible under normal evidence rules. The line you cannot cross is third-party interception: tapping your spouse's phone line, bugging a room while you are absent, or having a friend record a conversation you are not in — without any participant's consent — is felony eavesdropping. Also remember McLaughlin: yelling in public is fair game; hiding a recorder in a private bedroom is not. Hidden-camera rules under §§ 250.45–250.50 are stricter than call-recording rules and can be felonies even when audio one-party consent would have allowed the same words to be recorded on a call.
Recording business calls
New York businesses may record calls their employees participate in without notifying the customer, because the company (through its agent on the line) is a party and one-party consent suffices. Many companies still play a recording disclosure for customer trust and because interstate callers may be in all-party states. Employers must not plant recorders to capture conversations they are not party to — for example, secretly recording the break room or an employee's personal cellphone calls. New York's eavesdropping law offers no statutory civil penalty, but unlawful surveillance or hidden-camera claims are a separate exposure. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p separately protects the right to record police in public, subject to narrow exceptions.
Calls that cross state lines
New York courts have not issued a definitive interstate choice-of-law decision comparable to California's Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, but the practical rule is symmetric: New York's one-party rule protects recordings you make as a participant in New York, while all-party states can apply their stricter laws to calls with their residents. If you are in New York recording someone in California, Florida, or another all-party state, follow the strictest rule on the line. Out-of-state businesses calling New Yorkers may rely on one-party consent for the New York leg, but should still announce recording when any participant may be in a stricter jurisdiction.
The safe way to record in New York
Whatever the local rule, one habit covers every situation: say the call is being recorded at the start. Consent is then on the recording itself, and cross-border calls stop being a legal puzzle. Callmark can play "This call may be recorded" automatically on your calls, so the disclosure never depends on your memory.
For the full national picture — every all-party state, cross-border rules, and consent mechanics — see our state-by-state consent guide.
Sources and further reading
Statutes, court opinions, and reference guides cited on this page. Laws change — verify current text before relying on it for anything consequential.
- N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05 — eavesdropping (official text, NY Senate)
- N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00 — definitions (official text)
- Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) — FindLaw
- People v. Thompson, 51 Misc. 3d 693 (2016) — NY Courts
- Reporters Committee — New York recording guide
- Justia 50-State Survey — Recording Phone Calls
Common questions
Yes. As a participant in the call, your consent satisfies New York’s one-party rule. Disclosure is still wise whenever the other party might be in an all-party consent state.
Courts have applied different states' laws to interstate calls, and you often can't verify where a mobile number is. The practical rule: assume the strictest state applies and disclose the recording.
In most states, continuing a call after a clear "this call may be recorded" announcement is treated as implied consent — the same mechanism customer-service lines rely on.
Yes, if you are on the call. New York's wiretapping definition requires that the recorder be someone other than the sender or receiver and lack consent from either — your own participation supplies the required consent.
Generally no, if they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin and People v. Kirsh hold that conversations conducted where others can freely overhear are not protected by the eavesdropping statute.
Not under the eavesdropping statute itself. Greenfield v. Schultz held Article 250 creates criminal liability only. Unlawful hidden-camera claims or other tort theories may still be available depending on the facts.
Live electronic communications are covered, but People v. Thompson held the eavesdropping framework applies to communications in transit, not stored emails sitting on a server — those are obtained through search warrants under different rules.
Yes, when the employer is a party to the call through its employee on the line — one-party consent covers that. Secretly intercepting calls the employer is not a party to, such as personal calls on a bugged line, is felony eavesdropping.
Follow the stricter state's law. Your New York location does not immunize you from all-party consent exposure when the other participant is in a state like California or Florida that requires everyone's consent.
Record responsibly in New York, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark