In this proceeding for leave to compromise causes of action for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, and to judicially settle her account, petitioner moves for an order sealing the petition and all supporting papers, collectively described as “Confidential Settlement Materials,” or, in the alternative, redacting any reference to monetary amounts contained therein, or in other documents which may be filed. Generally, all records in the Surrogate’s Court are open to inspection of any person at reasonable times, except those which are sealed (see SCPA 2501[8]). Public disclosure of court records has long been favored in New York (see Matter of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190 AD2d 483, 485 [1st Dept 1993]). Where it is not otherwise provided by statute or rule, court records are not to be sealed except upon a written finding of good cause (see 22 NYCRR §216.1[a]). The burden of establishing the required “good cause” rests upon the party seeking the sealing order (see Matter of Goldman, 21 Misc 3d 1138[A] [Sur Ct, NY County 2008]). Confidentiality being the exception rather that the rule (see Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d 92, 94-95 [1st Dept 2001]), to demonstrate “good cause,” movant must establish “compelling circumstances” exist to justify restricting disclosure of the records (see Mancheski v. Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499, 502 [2nd Dept 2007]; Doe v. New York Univ., 6 Misc 3d 866, 874 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004]). In support of the motion, an affirmation of petitioner’s attorney has been submitted. The attorney’s affirmation states that a condition of the settlement reached between petitioner and the settling defendant is that the terms of the settlement remain strictly confidential. However, a written settlement agreement containing such condition has not been submitted as an exhibit with the motion. Instead, a copy of correspondence from the defendant’s insurer to petitioner’s counsel has been filed which states therein that the terms of the release need to include confidentiality. Seemingly, the “good cause” proffered by the movant is merely that the settling parties, or primarily the insurance carrier involved, wish to keep the terms of the settlement confidential, or minimally the monetary amount it is paying, and it is claimed an order sealing the record or permitting redaction of any reference to monetary amounts would protect the privacy of the parties against the mere curiosity of the public. Although it is alleged that the settlement is conditioned upon it remaining strictly confidential, or it will otherwise be in jeopardy, such a condition or claim is insufficient to compel the Court to seal the record (see Matter of Benkert, 288 AD2d 147 [1st Dept 2001]; Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d at 94, [1st Dept 2001]; Matter of Nguyen, 2016 NYLJ LEXIS 2391, *2 [Sur Ct, NY County 2016]; Matter of Soltesz, (2015 NYLJ LEXIS 3394, *2, [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2015]). Petitioner also alleges that highly sensitive documents concerning a minor are involved and, therefore, the file should be sealed to protect such privacy interests. In support, movant cites Matter of R.R., Jr.,(153 Misc 2d 747 [Sur Ct, Rensselaer County 1992]), where the record was sealed in a wrongful death matter involving an 18 year old decedent, and argues that the same should be done in this proceeding involving the death of a 16 year old. Unlike Matter of R.R. Jr., however, where the settlement was reached out of court without instituting litigation, and where complete medical records containing items embarrassing to the memory of the decedent and the family were attached to the petition, here the action at bar was litigated in Supreme Court, and no records of the decedent’s medical history, nor any details of his prior physical condition, except as briefly stated in the complaint, have been filed with the Court. This proceeding appears to the Court to be similar to the many wrongful death compromise proceedings that regularly come before this Court. No compelling circumstance has been established to set it apart. As was stated In Matter of Soltesz, (supra at *3), “to allow sealing based solely upon the ‘desire’ of the parties to keep secret the settlement amount would open the door to an application being made in every tort action.” For the reasons set forth above, the motion is denied in all respects. This is the decision and order of the Court. Dated: June 21, 2021
