What are the financial disclosure requirements for New York State Assembly members?

1. The filing rule that controls what legislators must reveal — straightforward but broad

New York’s statutory framework requires legislators, including Assembly members, to file an annual statement of financial disclosure that collects information on their financial activities, business and professional relationships, gifts, non-state income, contracts with state or local agencies, and interests in trusts and securities. The legal basis cited across the summaries is Public Officers Law Section 73-a, which frames the obligation as a transparency tool to surface potential conflicts of interest and to make relevant financial information about officials and their spouses publicly retrievable ^{[1] [4] [5]}. The law’s scope is intentionally broad: it captures both direct and household financial ties and requires reporting across multiple categories to create a fuller picture of an official’s financial ecosystem.

2. The calendar and the handoff — what the timeline and agencies look like in practice

Assembly members must file their completed FDS on or before May 15 with the Legislative Ethics Commission, and those statements are then turned over for public posting by the state ethics/lobbying authority by June 30. This two-step timeline separates submission to an internal ethics body from public disclosure, creating an administrative handoff where the Legislative Ethics Commission initially receives reports and the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government (formerly JCOPE in cited material) posts them for public inspection ^{[2] [6]}. The staggered schedule builds in administrative processing time but also means there is a fixed window when filings remain non-public before being released, which matters for investigative timelines and media scrutiny.

3. What must be disclosed — the categories that reveal possible conflicts

The required FDS entries include gifts, non-state income, contracts with state or local agencies, holdings in trusts and securities, and information about spouses’ financial interests, among other items. The point of enumerating these categories is to capture both potential direct conflicts—such as a legislator’s contract with a state agency—and indirect channels, like spouse-owned interests or gifts that could influence official action. Sources describing the FDS emphasize that the information is intended to allow the public and enforcement bodies to identify overlapping private interests and public duties, providing the factual basis for ethics reviews or recusal decisions ^{[5] [2]}.

4. Exceptions, extensions, and special cases — who gets different treatment

The statute and related guidance acknowledge exceptions and extensions that apply in particular circumstances: certain filers may qualify for limited exceptions or administrative extensions, and additional disclosure protocols apply to candidates and local political party officials. These nuances mean the basic May 15 filing deadline and content checklist can be modified by statute or administrative rule for distinct categories of filers, creating layers of compliance that can affect enforcement and public availability. The presence of these carve-outs is documented in the legislative ethics rules and underscores that compliance is not a one-size-fits-all process but is subject to prescribed exceptions ^{[7] [4]}.

5. Points of agreement, sources of divergence, and what that implies for accountability

All cited summaries align on the core facts: Assembly members must file an annual FDS under Section 73-a, submissions go first to the Legislative Ethics Commission and later are posted publicly, and the reports include broad financial categories ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Differences across the materials are procedural emphasis rather than substantive disagreement: some summaries foreground the role of the Legislative Ethics Commission, while others highlight the public posting function of the state ethics and lobbying agency. That division reflects institutional roles rather than conflicting legal texts, but it matters for who enforces, who publishes, and when—practical distinctions that shape transparency timelines and where the public or press must direct inquiries ^{[2] [6] [3]}.