ALBANY — Facebook users can be required to hand over private photographs and posts that may be relevant in lawsuits, New York's highest court unanimously decided Tuesday.

In a 7-0 decision, Forman v. Henkin, New York State Court of Appeals, No. 1, the Court of Appeals ruled that limiting access only to a person's public posts on Facebook is counter to “New York's history of liberal discovery.”

Writing for the court, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said that a party seeking discovery must “satisfy the threshold requirement that the request is reasonably calculated to yield information that is 'material and necessary.'”

The decision stems from a personal injury and negligence lawsuit, Forman v. Henkin, 113059/11, filed by plaintiff Kelly Forman against defendant Mark Henkin over injuries she alleges that she received in a fall from his horse on Long Island. Forman sued Henkin in June 2011 claiming that she suffered a spinal injury and brain damage that left her with cognitive deficits, memory loss, difficulty communicating and in social isolation. Forman claimed that Henkin was negligent in properly equipping the horse for riding.

Prior to the fall, Forman had been an active Facebook user posting photos and messages frequently, but deactivated her Facebook account roughly six months after the fall.

In discovery, Henkin and his attorneys moved for an order compelling Forman to give him unrestricted access to her Facebook account, arguing that the records were needed to evaluate her credibility, and seeking evidence about her claims that the accident negatively affected her ability to read, write, use a computer or cook, clean and travel, etc.

In February 2014, a state Supreme Court justice in New York County granted the defense the motion for the photos posted to Facebook after the accident. Justice Lucy Billings said the “photographs of plaintiff engaging in various activities after her injury, particularly any activities she claims she no longer is able to engage in due to her fall,” were probative. Billings ordered that photos showing nudity or romantic encounters be omitted.

The following year, the Appellate Division, First Department, blocked access to most of Forman's posts arguing that “unbridled disclosure of such information, based merely on speculation that some relevant information might be found, is the very type of 'fishing expedition' that cannot be countenanced.” But two justices dissented, concluding the defendant was entitled to broader access, and asked for “reconsideration of the court's recent precedent addressing disclosure of social media information as unduly restrictive and inconsistent with New York's policy of open discovery.” The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the highest court asking whether its ruling was made properly.

But the Court of Appeals said it wasn't. The Court of Appeals reversed with costs and reinstated the Supreme Court trial judge's ruling, agreeing with the defendant that the Appellate Division “erred in employing a heightened threshold for production of social media records that depends on what the account holder has chosen to share on the public portion of the account.”

DiFiore wrote in her opinion, “Some materials on a Facebook account may fairly be characterized as private. … But even private materials may be subject to discovery if they are relevant.”

“For purposes of disclosure, the threshold inquiry is not whether the materials sought are private but whether they are reasonably calculated to contain relevant information,” she wrote.  “The defendant more than met his threshold burden of showing the plaintiff's Facebook account was reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence.”

Associate Judges Jenny Rivera, Leslie Stein, Eugene Fahey, Michael Garcia, Rowan Wilson and Paul Feinman concurred with DiFiore's opinion.

Henkin's attorney, Michael Bono, a partner at Wade Clark Mulcahy, did not respond to a request for comment. Forman's attorney, Kenneth J. Gorman, also did not immediately respond.