Petitioner appealed an order of the Supreme Court which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, denied Petitioner's application to proceed to trial under a pseudonym and have the record seal.
Affirming the Supreme Court's ruling, the Appellate Division said in considering whether to grant a petitioner's request to proceed in the litigation anonymously and have the record sealed, the court must use its discretion to:
(1) Balance the petitioner's privacy interest against the presumption in favor of open trials and against any potential prejudice to the respondent;
(2) Determine whether the petitioner is challenging a governmental activity or an individual's actions;
(3) Determine whether the proceeding requires disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy;
(4) Determine whether identification would put the petitioner or innocent third-parties at risk of suffering physical or mental injury; and
(5) Determine whether the respondent would be prejudiced by allowing the petitioner to proceed anonymously.
The Appellate Division cautioned that "Permission to use a pseudonym [and seal the record] is not to be granted automatically ... the motion court should exercise its discretion to limit the public nature of judicial proceedings sparingly and then only when unusual circumstances necessitate it and a petitioner seeking such permission must provide facts specific to the petitioner that will allow the motion court to exercise its discretion in an informed manner".
The Appellate Division also noted that its "review of the [instant] record revealed that the proceeding did not require disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy" and that the allegations of misconduct, while possibly embarrassing, were not highly sensitive or intimate in nature and are "insufficient, under the circumstances, to allow [Petitioner to proceed] anonymously" in the instant matter.
The Appellate Division's decision also pointed out that Petitioner failed to demonstrate Petitioner's risk of suffering physical or mental injury if required to proceed under Petitioner's legal name, and there is no question that Petitioner is challenging a governmental activity, "which implicates a public interest".
The Appellate Division also indicated that it agreed with Supreme Court that Petitioner's stated privacy interests did not present the type of unusual circumstances that warrant the use of an anonymous caption and that it had not found any abuse of discretion in the Supreme Court's denial of the Petitioner's application.
In the words of the Appellate Division, Petitioner's "general concerns about his reputation and employability – though perhaps valid – are insufficient to demonstrate 'compelling circumstances' to overcome the presumption of public access".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.