Week ending February 21, 2026

Selected decisions

A town may withhold e-news subscriber names and e-mail addresses under FOIL’s privacy exemption

Matter of Russell v Town of Mount Pleasant

Holding The Town properly denied the FOIL request because the privacy interests in keeping subscriber names and email addresses confidential outweighed any public interest in disclosure. The court held that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy due to significant cybersecurity risks and the lack of public benefit.

The Town established that the privacy interests in keeping the information confidential are weighty, and that disclosure of the requested records would serve no public interest.

45 NY3d 677, at the official text

By court

Court of Appeals

• Matter of Russell v Town of Mount Pleasant45 NY3d 677
  February 19, 2026 · Freedom of Information Law

  The Town properly denied the FOIL request because the privacy interests in keeping subscriber names and email addresses confidential outweighed any public interest in disclosure. The court held that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy due to significant cybersecurity risks and the lack of public benefit.

Appellate Division, Second Department

• Matter of Gold252 AD3d 14
  February 18, 2026 · Attorney Discipline and Professional Responsibility

  The Court affirmed the Special Referee’s report and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for five years, finding that her conduct warranted public discipline despite a presidential pardon. The Court determined that the pardon forgave the conviction but did not nullify the underlying misconduct or the basis for the disciplinary proceeding.

Appellate Division, Third Department

• Ditech Fin. LLC v Temple252 AD3d 180
  February 19, 2026 · Mortgage Foreclosure

  The Appellate Division held that a validly executed loan modification agreement de-accelerated the mortgage debt and reset the statute of limitations, rendering the subsequent foreclosure action timely. The court rejected the lower court’s reliance on res judicata and standing issues, finding that the agreement satisfied the writing requirements of General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1) to revive the lender’s right to sue.

Also decided

• PEOPLE v ZUBIDI 46 NY3d 58 February 19, 2026
• Matter of Dougherty 252 AD3d 11 February 18, 2026
• PEOPLE v GUERRERO 45 NY3d 659 February 17, 2026
• PEOPLE v AMBROSIO 45 NY3d 646 February 17, 2026

Published February 21, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026.