The Appellate Division, First Department rejected a stay application on the April 26 decision by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James Burke to close the courtroom during sensitive evidence hearings in the criminal case against Harvey Weinstein.

Filed by Court TV after Burke declined to stay the Molineux/Sandoval hearings ahead of an immediate appeal, the petition argued the broadcaster would “suffer irreparable constitutional injury, because it will be forever deprived of its First Amendment right to attend the hearing.”

Court TV's petition was submitted separately but at the same time as a number of other news organizations' petition seeking the same relief. In both instances, Associate Justice Jeffrey Oing signed the orders denying the request by members of the media to stay Burke's hearings.

Even so, Oing agreed to a request by the parties for an expedited review of the Article 78 proceedings for a writ of mandamus. Filings are now due May 1 from those opposed to the mandamus petition, which includes attorneys representing Weinstein.

“We look forward to a review of Judge Burke's well reasoned and thoughtful analysis in which he gave the appropriate weight to the defendant's right to a fair trial,” said Aidala Bertuna & Kamins name attorney Barry Kamins in a statement.

A spokeswoman for the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., which also supported closing the courtroom to the public, did not immediately provide information about whether it too would file in opposition to the mandamus effort.

In accordance with the expedited order, Oing also set May 6 as the motion date in the matter.

Ballard Spahr associate Jacquelyn Schell represents Court TV in the proceedings. She, along with Davis Wright Tremaine partner Robert Balin, argued before Burke that the hearings should not be closed to the public. In a statement, she said her clients were pleased with the expedited appeal.

“We are optimistic that the appeals court will help make sure Mr. Weinstein's prosecution takes place in open view,” she said. “Blanket sealing—including allegations against Mr. Weinstein that are already public—makes no sense and is contrary to the laws ensuring public trials.”

Burke, ruling from the bench, stated that the “dissemination of highly prejudicial evidence at this stage … would not serve to ensure the defendant received a fair trial.” The materials to be reviewed during the Molineux/Sandoval evidentiary hearings “consisted entirely of information which is prejudicial to the defendant and are highly inflammatory.”

Weinstein faces multiple counts of predatory sexual assault, criminal sexual acts and rape. He is now expected to go to trial Sept. 9.

Related: