Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: June 1, 2021
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
Two recent cybersecurity enforcement actions resolved by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS or Department) highlight the importance of notifying NYDFS of cybersecurity incidents. Notably, even if the breach is not considered “material” under NYDFS’s Cybersecurity Regulation, 23 NYCRR Part 500 (Part 500), reporting to NYDFS may still be required if the breach triggers notification to another government entity, such as required under another state’s data breach law.
NYDFS enacted the first state-level cyber regulations for the financial industry in 2017. Its comprehensive regulations impose a wide range of obligations on banks, insurance companies, and other financial services institutions ( “Covered Entities”).
Under the regulation, Covered Entities are required to implement cybersecurity policies that are tailored to their unique risks and needs, and must also appoint a chief information security officers to implement and enforce them. Other requirements under the regulation include:
Unlike previous state regulations, NYDFS also requires regulated entities to report data breaches within 72 hours of their discovery. Under Part 500.17(a)(1), covered entities must report data breaches in the following situations:
Since the cyber regulations fully took effect in March 2019, the NYFDS has been slowly ramping up enforcement. The resulting settlements and penalties provide insight into how the NYDFS intends to enforce the regulations.
One important trend that has emerged involves data breach reporting. Part 500 makes it clear that material breaches must be reported within 72 hours. However, it also broadly states that any data breach that triggers a “separate obligation of the company to report to a government body, self-regulatory agency, or any other supervisory body” must also be reported.
Two recent enforcement actions confirm the consequences of failing to report a breach that required notification under another state’s data breach law. In March, NYDFS announced that Residential Mortgage Services, Inc. (RMS) would pay a $1.5 million penalty to New York State for violations of the Cybersecurity Regulation. According to NYDFS, a July 2020 examination uncovered evidence that RMS had been the subject of a cyber breach in 2019 which had not been reported to NYDFS, in violation of Part 500.17 of the Cybersecurity Regulation.
According to the Consent Order, the breach involved unauthorized access to an employee’s Residential Mortgage email account via a phishing scam. RMS’s response to the email intrusion, including the failure to satisfy its reporting obligations, resulted in the enforcement action. As described by NYDFS, Residential Mortgage failed to (1) identify whether Employee’s mailbox contained private consumer data during the breach, (2) identify which consumers were impacted, and (3) apply the applicable state notice requirements triggered by the breach. “In failing to conduct an appropriate investigation, Residential Mortgage was unable to provide a data breach notice to any consumer, nor to any state agency – including the Department within 72 hours as required by the Cybersecurity Regulation,” the Consent Order stated. “Rather, in September 2020, nearly 18 months after the breach, and only after prompting by the Department, Residential Mortgage undertook an appropriate investigation and considered which consumer and state breach notices were required by law.”
In April, NYDFS announced that National Securities Corporation (National Securities) would pay a $3 million penalty for violations of NYDFS’s Cybersecurity Regulation that caused the exposure of a substantial amount of sensitive, non-public, personal data belonging to its customers. The NYDFS investigation uncovered evidence that National Securities had been the subject of four cyber breaches between 2018 and 2020, two of which had not been reported to the Department as mandated by the Cybersecurity Regulation.
According to the Consent Order, both data breaches resulted from phishing schemes. In one, National Securities’ IT department identified emails from the Chief Financial Officer that were being forwarded by a rule to an external account. After concluding that certain customers had NPI (“Non public personal information”) potentially exposed, National Securities reported the event to the Attorney General’s Offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, as well as to all individuals who had their NPI potentially exposed. National Securities did not report the breach to the Department as required by the Cybersecurity Regulation.
In another breach, National Securities learned that an unauthorized threat actor gained access to an employee’s secure document management system account. National Securities notified all potentially impacted customers of the breach, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the local County Sheriff’s Office. However, it again failed to notify NYDFS.
The recent enforcement actions highlight that the NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulations require reporting of a data breach, even when it is not deemed material. Accordingly, covered entities should ensure that their policies and procedures include not only thoroughly investigating cyber incidents, but also quickly determining what notification requirements may be triggered. If reporting is required to another agency, the 72-hour NYDFS reporting requirement will likely apply.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Maryam Meseha, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-york-department-of-financial-3317217/
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Operating a business in the New Jersey and New York City metropolitan region offers incredible opportunities, but it also requires navigating a dense and highly regulated legal environment. From entity formation to regulatory compliance, seemingly minor legal oversights can expose business owners to significant risk. In our work with businesses throughout the region, our attorneys […]
Author: Dan Brecher

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!