In this uncontested compromise and accounting proceeding, Bada Johnson (hereinafter, “petitioner”), administrator of the estate of Ismet Kolenovic (hereinafter, “decedent”) seeks the court’s permission to compromise and settle a cause of action arising from decedent’s personal injury, and to judicially settle her account for the recovery. Incident to this application, counsel for defendants in the underlying personal injury action wrote a letter to the judge on July 27, 2023 requesting that this matter be sealed. Petitioner’s counsel subsequently filed an affirmation dated November 14, 2023 asking for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 216.1 [a] to make all proceedings under this caption be made confidential, and that should the court determine that the settlement shall remain open to the public, that the amount of the settlement be kept confidential. 22 NYCRR 216.1 [a] states that a court shall not enter an order sealing the court records, “except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as the parties.” Courts have stressed the broad presumption under New York law that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records (see Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]; (Danco Labs. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2000] [discussing the court's aim to strike a balance between the public's interest and protecting interested parties]). Thus, the party seeking to seal the records bears the high burden of demonstrating “compelling circumstances” to justify restraining public assess (Doe v. New York Univ, 6 Misc 3d 866, 874-75 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004]; see Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 350; Matter of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190 AD2d 483, 485 [1st Dept 1993]). As the First Department has observed, “[c]onfidentiality is clearly the exception, not the rule, and the court is always required to make an independent determination of good cause” (Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d 92, 93-94 [1st Dept 2001]). Although 22 NYCRR 216.1 does not define “good cause,” the sealing order should rest on a “sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action” (Danco Labs. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000]). “A finding of ‘good cause’ presupposes that public access to the documents at issue will likely result in harm to a compelling interest of the movant and that no alternative to sealing can adequately protect the threatened interest” (Mancheski v. Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499, 502 [2d Dept 2007]). Here, petitioner requests a sealing order because the parties in the underlying personal injury action agreed to confidentiality in their settlement agreement. However, the fact that the parties have entered into their own stipulation agreeing to maintain confidentiality does constitute “good cause” in itself (see Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d 92, 94 [1st Dept 2001]; Estate of Riedner, NYLJ, June 24, 2021 at 18, col. 3 [Sur Ct, NY County 2021]). Moreover, no affidavits were submitted by any of the defendants, the authors of the settlement agreement or the participants in the events recorded therein. This court does not litigate by letter and does not respond to requests made by letter. Thus, there is no evidence in the record as to why the settlement is so confidential or sensitive that public access should be restricted (see Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 350). Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish good cause for restricting public access to the court’s records, and the request for a “confidentiality order” is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to email a copy of this order of the Court to counsel as listed below. Dated: November 26th, 2024
