The Uniform Rules contain a number of procedural directives which supplement those found in the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”). Among them is Uniform Rule 202.5(e) regarding the redaction of personal information in public court filings.

The Uniform Rule provides that certain personal information “shall” be redacted in filed papers. Those redactions include taxpayer identification numbers and social security numbers except for the last four digits thereof; birth dates other than years; identifying numbers for bank, investment, credit card, and insurance accounts except for the last four digits thereof; and matrimonial documents or transcripts protected by Section 235 of New York Domestic Relations Law. The Uniform Rule is consistent with requirements found in Section 399- ddd of New York General Business Law, which more broadly prohibits the public disclosure of persons’ confidential information.

The direction to redact in Uniform Rule 202.5(e) arises from the fact that court filings are, for the most part, records available to the general public. Just as each of us would not wish for our personal social security, credit card, bank account, or investment numbers to be freely available to the public on the internet or elsewhere, parties to actions and proceedings have the same legitimate desire to not have such information disclosed through publicly-available litigation documents. For this reason, the Uniform Rule explicitly does not apply to documents filed in actions that already have built-in confidentiality or sealing such as New York Mental Hygiene Law (“MHL”) Article 81 proceedings, matrimonial actions, and certain surrogate proceedings. It instead applies to court filings that are otherwise available to the public. Attorneys who must mention personal information in court filings should redact all identifying numbers but for the last four digits. A social security number, therefore, may be properly reported as XXX-XX-0123, which would stymie any public reader of the document from an ill-intent.

A party’s disclosure of personal identifying information which is supposed to remain confidential may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty (Daly v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 4 Misc.3d 887 [Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2004]). The remedy for a violation of the Uniform Rule does not include monetary sanctions against the non-complying party, as sanctions are not provided for in the rule itself (Axis Capital, Inc. v. Jaina Systems Network Inc., 49 Misc.3d 350 [Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 2015] [Marber, J.]). Instead, the remedy is for the court to require that redacted documents be filed as substitutes for non-compliant documents in accordance with the language of subdivision (e)(2) of the Uniform Rule (Kelly D. v. Niagara Frontier Transit Authority, 177 A.D.3d 1261 [N.Y. App. Div., 4th Dep’t 2019]; Doggart v. Praeger, 229 N.Y.S.3d 311 [Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2025] [Malik, J.]).

When courts render decisions and orders that must reference account information, they shall likewise redact all information other than the last four digits of the larger number. The last four digits are enough for the parties and the court to identify and understand which specific account is being referenced.

Uniform Rule 202.5(e)(3) envisions a circumstance where the full confidential personal information may be material and necessary to the adjudication of the action or proceeding. In such an instance, the party may apply to the court for leave to serve and file, with the papers, a separate confidential affidavit or affirmation setting forth the full identifying information. Courts will assess whether the full identifying information is necessary as to warrant the granting of any such motion. If granted, the separate WESTCHESTER LAWYER | OCTOBER 2025 | 13 information remains unavailable to the public.

Consumer credit transactions receive special treatment, such as in actions to recover on defaulted credit card debt. In those instances, if a defendant appears in the action and denies responsibility for the account at issue, the plaintiff may, without leave of court, amend the pleading to add the full account number by submitting the amended pleading to the court, on notice to the defendant, for in camera use, or alternatively, file the full account information with the court under seal (Uniform Rule 202.5[e][4]).

Uniform Rule 202.5(e) applies whether an action or proceeding involves e-filing under NYSCEF or hard copy paper filings. While Uniform Rule 202.5(e) applies to the supreme and county courts within the state, parallel rules exist for the court of claims (Uniform Rule 206.5[e]), civil court (Uniform Rule 208.4[b]), city courts outside the City of New York (Uniform Rule 210.4[b]), and district courts on Long Island (Uniform Rule 212.4[b]).

If a judgment is rendered against a defendant and accounts are to be attached or garnished to satisfy the judgment debt, different rules apply. Judgment creditors may serve information subpoenas upon judgment debtors demanding information that will assist the creditor in collecting upon the judgment (CPLR §5223, R.5224[a][3][i], §5240), which typically includes full identifying account information. In such circumstances, arrangements may be made by the parties, or ordered by the court, for responsive information to be provided to the judgment creditor’s counsel without being disseminated beyond the parties and counsel (Alpert v. Alpert, 151 A.D.3d 541 [N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t 2017]). Further, information subpoenas may be pared by the court to permit the confidential disclosure of bank account information as would assist in collection efforts, while quashing social security information or other personal information extraneous to those efforts (Argon Elec. Corp. v. Gomez, 55 Misc.3d 140[A] [N.Y. App. Term, 2d Dep’t 2017]).

As Sgt. Phil Esterhaus used to say near the beginning of every episode of the iconic Hill Street Blues television program in the 1980s, “Be careful out there.”

Hon. Mark C. Dillon is a Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department, an Adjunct Professor of New York Practice at Fordham Law School, and a contributing author of CPLR Practice Commentaries in McKinney’s

.