New York’s video surveillance laws permit silent video recording in most public and common spaces but treat hidden cameras in bedrooms, bathrooms, and changing areas as felonies, and they apply separate, stricter rules the moment a microphone is added. Where you can point a camera, whether you can turn on the audio, and whether the person being recorded had a reasonable expectation of privacy are the three questions that decide whether a camera is legal or criminal.
Where Video Recording Is Legal
Video recording in places where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy is generally lawful. Sidewalks, parks, storefronts, building exteriors, and anywhere visible to a passerby are open to security cameras, dashcams, and personal recording. No statute requires consent to film someone walking down the street or entering a business.
The edges matter most. A storefront camera aimed at a public sidewalk is fine. The same camera angled through a neighbor’s window is not. New York courts have also recognized a right to record public governmental meetings, though the body holding the meeting may impose reasonable rules on how devices are used. The deciding factor across every situation is whether the person being recorded had a legitimate reason to believe they were unobserved.
Hidden Cameras in Private Spaces Are a Felony
New York’s unlawful surveillance law, commonly called Stephanie’s Law, makes it a felony to secretly record someone in a place where they reasonably expect privacy. Penal Law Section 250.45 covers three distinct scenarios.
The first is secretly using a camera to view or record someone’s intimate body parts, or a person dressing or undressing, where they expect privacy, for purposes such as entertainment, profit, sexual gratification, or to degrade the person. The second is installing a recording device in a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, or hotel guest room for no legitimate purpose; the law presumes a camera in any of those locations has no legitimate purpose, and the person who installed it bears the burden of proving otherwise. The third is using a device to record under someone’s clothing without their knowledge or consent, regardless of location.
Each is a Class E felony with a maximum prison sentence of four years.1New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 250.45 – Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree2New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 70.00 – Sentence of Imprisonment for Felony A prior unlawful surveillance conviction within the past ten years elevates the charge to unlawful surveillance in the first degree under Section 250.50, a Class D felony carrying up to seven years.3New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 250.50 – Unlawful Surveillance in the First Degree Sharing footage obtained through unlawful surveillance is a separate Class A misdemeanor under Section 250.55.4New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 250.55 – Dissemination of an Unlawful Surveillance Image in the Second Degree
Audio Recording Follows Different Rules
Adding a microphone changes the legal picture entirely. New York is a one-party consent state for audio: at least one person in a conversation must agree to the recording. Penal Law Section 250.00 defines “mechanical overhearing of a conversation” as recording a discussion without the consent of at least one participant by someone who is not present for the conversation.5New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 250.00 – Eavesdropping Definitions of Terms Doing so is eavesdropping under Section 250.05, a Class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison.6New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 250.05 – Eavesdropping
This trips up more people than you would expect. A silent security camera in a hallway is lawful. The same camera, with its microphone active, that captures a private conversation between two people who do not know they are being recorded can expose the owner to felony prosecution. Many off-the-shelf security cameras ship with audio recording enabled by default, and property owners who install them without disabling the microphone or obtaining consent are taking on real criminal exposure.
The fallout extends beyond prosecution. Under CPLR Section 4506, any recording obtained through illegal eavesdropping is inadmissible in court. A landlord who captures audio of a tenant’s wrongdoing through an unauthorized microphone cannot use it in an eviction or civil case, and may face charges for making it.
Cameras at Work
New York Labor Law Section 203-c prohibits employers from recording employees by video in restrooms, locker rooms, or any room the employer has designated for changing clothes, unless a court order authorizes it. Employees who find a violation can sue for damages, attorney’s fees, and an injunction to have the cameras removed.7New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 203-C – Employee Privacy Protection
Outside those protected rooms, cameras in common work areas such as lobbies, warehouses, retail floors, and open offices are generally permissible when they serve a legitimate business purpose like theft prevention or safety monitoring. The statute does not explicitly require posted notice in those areas, but posting is a practical safeguard against privacy claims and helps establish that employees had no expectation of being unobserved.
Federal law adds a layer. Under the National Labor Relations Act, employer surveillance that creates an impression of monitoring union-related or other protected activity can violate employees’ organizing rights. The test is whether reasonable employees would believe their union activities have been placed under surveillance. Simply observing open union activity on company property is not automatically a violation, but targeting known union supporters with cameras or changing surveillance patterns in response to organizing can cross the line.
Landlord and Tenant Cameras
Landlords can generally install cameras in shared spaces such as hallways, lobbies, stairwells, and entrances. No individual tenant has an expectation of total privacy there, and cameras serve a clear security function. Visibility matters: cameras should be apparent, or residents should be informed through posted notices or lease disclosures.
The line is crossed when a camera is positioned to observe the inside of a tenant’s apartment, whether through a window, an angled doorway view, or a hallway camera zoomed in on someone’s front door. That kind of monitoring can violate a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, and if intended to harass or intimidate, may support a harassment claim. A tenant can seek a court injunction ordering the camera moved or removed.
Audio-equipped cameras in common areas raise the same eavesdropping risk. A lobby camera that picks up residents’ private conversations violates the one-party consent rule if no participant has agreed to be recorded. Landlords running audio-capable systems in shared spaces should either disable the microphone or post conspicuous notice that audio recording is in effect, so anyone continuing to speak there is effectively consenting.
Short-Term Rentals
Hosts renting through platforms like Airbnb face an especially strict environment. Stephanie’s Law applies with full force: Section 250.45 specifically covers hotel and motel guest rooms, and a camera installed in any room assigned to guests triggers the rebuttable presumption of illegal purpose.1New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 250.45 – Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree The host would need to prove the camera had a legitimate reason to be there, and courts are skeptical of explanations for a camera in a bedroom or bathroom.
Platforms have moved beyond what the law requires. Since April 2024, Airbnb bans all indoor cameras in listings globally, including devices that are visible, turned off, or unplugged. Outdoor cameras facing public areas such as driveways and front doors are allowed only if the host discloses their exact location in the listing. Violating these policies can get a host removed from the platform on top of any criminal liability under state law.
Recording the Police
You have a clear right to record police officers performing their duties in public. The First Amendment protects photographing and filming law enforcement in any public space where you are lawfully present, so long as you do not physically interfere.
New York City goes further. NYC Administrative Code Section 14-189 explicitly establishes the right to record police activities and creates a private right of action if an officer interferes.8American Legal Publishing. NYC Administrative Code 14-189 – Right to Record Police Activities Interference includes trying to stop a recording, threatening or intimidating someone who is recording, issuing a summons or arresting someone because they recorded police activity, and seizing a recording device. An officer who does any of these can face civil liability unless they can show a reasonable officer would have believed the person was physically obstructing a lawful police function.
Some practical limits apply. Officers can order you to move a reasonable distance away if your presence genuinely interferes with their work, and you should comply even if you think the order is wrong; challenge it afterward. An officer who wants to confiscate your phone needs a warrant unless you are under arrest, and a warrant is required to search the phone’s contents. No government official may lawfully delete your photos or videos.
Using Video as Evidence
Capturing something on camera does not automatically mean the footage will reach a jury. New York courts admit video at the trial judge’s discretion, and the party offering it must show it is both relevant and reliable.9New York State Unified Court System. Video Recording
Authentication typically comes through a witness who saw the recorded events and confirms the footage accurately shows what happened, through the person who installed or maintained the camera confirming the video is a true representation of what appeared before it, or through chain-of-custody evidence tracing the file from capture to courtroom. Minor technical flaws like timestamp discrepancies or compression artifacts generally affect how much weight a jury gives the footage, not whether the judge lets it in. Compilations drawn from multiple cameras are admissible if properly authenticated.9New York State Unified Court System. Video Recording
A judge may still exclude video that would cause unfair prejudice, unduly delay the trial, or is purely sensational when the same facts can be proven another way. And any audio obtained through illegal eavesdropping is flatly inadmissible and can be suppressed before trial.