New York Assembly Bill A09526

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26

Caption

Prohibits the use of aversive conditioning which includes any procedure which causes obvious signs of physical pain, including but not limited to hitting, pinching and electric shock; prohibits the use of any procedure or punishment which denies a vulnerable person reasonable sleep, shelter, bedding, bathroom facilities and any other aspect expected of a humane existence; defines terms.

Impact

If enacted, A09526 would significantly impact social services laws in New York by formalizing protections against treatment that could be deemed abusive. By amending existing statutes to include these explicit prohibitions, the bill is expected to reshape practices within facilities that provide care and support. The implications could extend to educational programs, ensuring that students receiving specialized services are not subjected to harmful treatment methods. As a result, the bill supports a transition towards more compassionate care frameworks within the state's social services.

Summary

Bill A09526, introduced in the New York Assembly, aims to prohibit the use of aversive conditioning and other forms of physical punishment within state-funded programs and facilities that cater to vulnerable individuals. This legislative measure seeks to establish a legal framework that ensures the humane treatment of these individuals by banning procedures that inflict pain, discomfort, or any form of degrading treatment. The bill notably defines aversive conditioning and delineates the specific circumstances under which such practices are prohibited, thereby seeking to protect the rights and dignity of vulnerable populations.

Contention

Debate surrounding A09526 may center on the definitions of aversive conditioning and the potential implications for treatment protocols used by state facilities and programs. Proponents argue that prohibiting such methods is a necessary step toward safeguarding vulnerable individuals, aligning state practices with modern understandings of humane psychological care. However, critics may raise concerns about the feasibility of implementing these restrictions within certain programs, questioning how staff will adapt to new guidelines without compromising the effectiveness of behavioral interventions. As such, the bill could face scrutiny regarding its impact on operational practices and outcomes in state-funded facilities.