What's happening
This bill requires New York courts to accept web-based maps and images as evidence, with a rebuttable presumption of accuracy.
Why it matters
Speeds up court proceedings. by allowing parties to use widely available web-based maps (like Google Maps or satellite images) as evidence without needing special authentication, unless specifically challenged—reducing time and costs for litigants.
Shifts the burden of proof. to the opposing party, who must provide credible evidence to dispute the accuracy or fairness of the web-based map or image, making it easier to introduce such evidence in the first place.
Promotes transparency and fairness. by requiring advance notice (at least 30 days before trial) and disclosure of the specific maps or images to be used, giving the opposing party time to object or investigate.
Reflects technological realities. and modernizes court procedures, recognizing the reliability of common digital mapping tools and aligning legal evidentiary standards with how people access and verify location-based information in daily life.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Courts Use Google Maps Evidence
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Approval memo.19
- Signed chap.516
- Delivered to governor
- Returned to senate
- Passed assembly
- Ordered to third reading rules cal.491
- Substituted for A11191
- Referred to judiciary
- Delivered to assembly
- Passed senateVote 62–0
- Ordered to third reading cal.1914
- Referred to rules
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Allow courts to use Google Maps
Assembly Floor Calendar · Sponsor Jeffrey Dinowitz
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
9061
IN SENATE
June 15, 2018
Introduced by Sen. GIANARIS -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules
AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to judicial notice of an image, map, location, distance, calculation, or other information taken from a web mapping service
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Rule 4511 of the civil practice law and rules, as renumbered by chapter 315 of the laws of 1962, is amended to read as follows:
Rule 4511. Judicial notice of law. (a) When judicial notice shall be taken without request. Every court shall take judicial notice without request of the common law, constitutions and public statutes of the United States and of every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States and of the official compilation of codes, rules and regulations of the state except those that relate solely to the organization or internal management of an agency of the state and of all local laws and county acts.
(b) When judicial notice may be taken without request; when it shall be taken on request. Every court may take judicial notice without request of private acts and resolutions of the congress of the United States and of the legislature of the state; ordinances and regulations of officers, agencies or governmental subdivisions of the state or of the United States; and the laws of foreign countries or their political subdivisions. Judicial notice shall be taken of matters specified in this subdivision if a party requests it, furnishes the court sufficient information to enable it to comply with the request, and has given each adverse party notice of his intention to request it. Notice shall be given in the pleadings or prior to the presentation of any evidence at the trial, but a court may require or permit other notice.
(c) When judicial notice shall be taken based on a rebuttable presumption. Every court shall take judicial notice of an image, map, location, distance, calculation, or other information taken from a web mapping service, a global satellite imaging site, or an internet mapping tool, when requested by a party to the action, subject to a rebuttable
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD16284-02-8
S. 9061 2
presumption that such image, map, location, distance, calculation, or other information fairly and accurately depicts the evidence presented. The presumption established by this subdivision shall be rebutted by credible and reliable evidence that the image, map, location, distance, calculation, or other information taken from a web mapping service, a global satellite imaging site, or an internet mapping tool does not fairly and accurately portray that which it is being offered to prove. A party intending to offer such image or information at a trial or hearing shall, at least thirty days before the trial or hearing, give notice of such intent, providing a copy or specifying the internet address at which such image or information may be inspected. No later than ten days before the trial or hearing, a party upon whom such notice is served may object to the request for judicial notice of such image or information, stating the grounds for the objection. Unless objection is made pursuant to this subdivision, or is made at trial based upon evidence which could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the time for objection otherwise required by this subdivision, the court shall take judicial notice of such image or information.
(d) Determination by court; review as matter of law. Whether a matter is judicially noticed or proof is taken, every matter specified in this section shall be determined by the judge or referee, and included in his or her findings or charged to the jury. Such findings or charge shall be subject to review on appeal as a finding or charge on a matter of law.
[(d)] (e) Evidence to be received on matter to be judicially noticed. In considering whether a matter of law should be judicially noticed and in determining the matter of law to be judicially noticed, the court may consider any testimony, document, information or argument on the subject, whether offered by a party or discovered through its own research. Whether or not judicial notice is taken, a printed copy of a statute or other written law or a proclamation, edict, decree or ordinance by an executive contained in a book or publication, purporting to have been published by a government or commonly admitted as evidence of the existing law in the judicial tribunals of the jurisdiction where it is in force, is prima facie evidence of such law and the unwritten or common law of a jurisdiction may be proved by witnesses or printed reports of cases of the courts of the jurisdiction.
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to judi- cial notice of an image, map, location, distance, calculation, or other information taken from a web mapping service
Purpose
To allow judicial notice of google maps and other web mapping or global imaging websites.
Summary of provisions
Section 1 amends Rule 4511 of the civil practice law and rules to provide a rebuttable presumption of judicial notice of web mapping or global imaging websites.
Read the full memo (768 words)
Justification
Google Maps is a tool that can be used by the courts to fairly resolve cases in a timely manner. Allowing a judge to take judicial notice of a satellite image, location, distance, or other information using Google Maps would relieve the parties from having to otherwise prove the infor- mation evidenced in the image or map. Such rebuttable presumption of judicial notice will save time in proving points of fact, while preserv- ing the ability of an opposing party to offer credible and reliable evidence otherwise.
Judicial notice is taken of Google Maps in federal court, as a source that "can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accu- racy cannot reasonably be questioned" pursuant to Rule 201 of the Feder- al Rules of Evidence. Federal courts have taken judicial notice of images, as well as general locations and distances, provided by Google Maps and Google Earth. There is extensive use of Google Maps to deter- mine distances between two locations, as well as an estimate of walking or driving time between such points provided by Google Maps. In 2015, the 9th Circuit sought to specifically determine if a Google Earth satellite image constituted hearsay. The Court held in US v. Lizarra- ga-Tirado (789 F.3d 1107 (2015)) that a Google Maps satellite image is not hearsay under Rule 801a because maps make "no assertion" and are not the statement of a person. Google Maps was held to be a source beyond reasonable question and as such, was subject to judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201.
The 9th Circuit first took judicial notice of Google Maps six years ago in 2012 in the U.S v. Perea-Rey case (680 F.3d 1179 (2012)). The deci- sion in this case described the direction of Hernandez Street in Calexi- co, California, and in a footnote stated:
"We take judicial notice of a Google map and satellite image as a "source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned," at least for the purpose of determining the general location of the home. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). See also Citizens for Peace in Space v. City of Colorado Springs, 477 F.3d 1212, 1219 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007) (taking judicial notice of online distance calculations); cf. Boyce Motor Lines v.
United States, 342 U.S. 337, 344 (1952) ("We may, of course, take judi- cial notice of geography.") (Jackson, J., dissenting)."
Federal judges in the 2nd Circuit have taken judicial notice of Google Maps or MapQuest in the following cases: United States v. Sessa, 2011 WL 256330 (EDNY 2011), affd 711 F3d 316, 321 (2d Cir.), cert denied 134 S.Ct. 353 (2013); Rindfleisch v. Gentiva Health Sys., 752 F. Supp. 2d 246, 259 n 13 (EDNY 2010); Maynard v. Harrah's Entm't, Inc., 2010 WL 1930263 (EDNY 2010); Access 4 All, Inc., v. Boardwalk Regency Corp. 2010 WL 4860585 (DNJ 2010); Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Rosenfeld, 2007 WL 2226014 (DNJ 2007).
In a 2014 Northwestern University Law Review article titled "Trial by Google: Judicial Notice in the Information Age," the author noted: "In the opinions to date, there seems to be little controversy as to the propriety of using Google Maps to judicially notice facts that would otherwise be proved by parties. Courts see the practice as self-evident- ly proper, often citing Justice Jackson's assertion in a 1952 case: 'We may of course, take judicial notice of geography.'" Jeffrey Bellin & Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Trial by Google: Judicial Notice in the Infor- mation Age, Nw. U. L. Rev. 108:1137 (2014). The article discussed Google Maps in particular as a source most often relied upon by courts. The authors found: "Judicial uses of Google Maps are varied, and the case law reflects reliance on not just the basic map feature, but also Google's satellite imagery to discern the physical contours of an area and nearby landmarks."
This change to the CPLR will further the interests of justice by allow- ing litigation to proceed in a timelier manner and will help both plain- tiff and defendant resolve litigation as soon as possible.
Legislative history
New Bill.
Fiscal implications
None.
Effective date
Immediately
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.