The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has ruled that Nassau County must release certain records related to cybersecurity contracts and public calendars. This decision affects the transparency of government operations and the public's right to access information. The case, known as Matter of Newsday, LLC v. County of Nassau (Docket No. 2024-10010), was decided on September 16, 2026.
The ruling comes after Newsday, a local newspaper, filed a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request with Nassau County. The court's decision is significant because it emphasizes the importance of public access to government records, particularly in areas related to cybersecurity and public safety.
In this case, Newsday requested access to all cybersecurity contracts in effect for the last five years and the public calendars of the Nassau County Executive for a specific period. The County denied these requests, citing concerns that disclosure could jeopardize the security of its information technology assets and endanger the safety of the County Executive.
The parties involved in the case are Newsday, LLC, as the petitioner, and the County of Nassau, along with Gregory Kalnitsky, who serves as the FOIL Appeals Officer for the County. The dispute arose when Newsday sought information that the County deemed sensitive and exempt from disclosure under FOIL.
Initially, in April 2023, Newsday requested the cybersecurity contracts, but the County denied the request, arguing that releasing the information could expose vulnerabilities to cyberattacks. Following this, in September 2023, Newsday sought the public calendars of the County Executive, which the County also denied, claiming that this could endanger the Executive's safety.
After the County denied Newsday's administrative appeals, the newspaper filed a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to compel the production of the requested records and sought attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The Supreme Court in Nassau County ruled against Newsday on July 11, 2024, leading to the appeal.
The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's judgment, stating that the County must produce the requested cybersecurity contracts and public calendars for in camera inspection. The court noted, "In order to promote open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broader duty on government to make its records available to the public." The judges involved in the ruling were Mark C. Dillon, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Lillian Wan, and Phillip Hom.
In its decision, the court emphasized that the County failed to provide sufficient justification for withholding the cybersecurity contracts. The affidavits submitted by the County did not adequately explain how the disclosure of the vendors' names, costs, and durations of the contracts would compromise security. The court stated, "If the agency fails to prove that a statutory exemption applies, FOIL compels disclosure, not concealment."
Regarding the public calendars, the court found that the County's arguments about potential dangers were not convincing. The affirmation submitted by a police official did not sufficiently demonstrate that releasing the past calendars would endanger the County Executive's life or safety. The court concluded that the County must disclose these records as well.
This ruling has important implications for government transparency and accountability. It reinforces the principle that government agencies must adhere to FOIL and provide valid reasons for denying access to public records. The decision also serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the agency when it comes to claiming exemptions from disclosure.
Going forward, this ruling may encourage other media organizations and citizens to pursue their rights under FOIL. It highlights the need for government entities to carefully consider their justifications for withholding information and to ensure that they are not infringing on the public's right to know.
The court's decision also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing that transparency is crucial in maintaining public trust in government operations. As agencies navigate the balance between security and transparency, this ruling will likely influence how they handle FOIL requests moving forward.
As for what’s next, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination regarding the production of the requested records and the award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The County may have the option to appeal this decision, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending related cases.