Summary
In Anonymous v. Anonymous, 263 AD2d 494, 495 [1999], the Appellate Division, Second Department found that "an overriding concern to ensure that one party to the divorce settlement negotiations did not use the otherwise protected scurrilous material extensively referred to and repeated in the sealed documents to gratify private spite or force a desired settlement by threat of disclosure."
Summary of this case from Crocker C. v. Anne R.Opinion
Argued April 22, 1999
July 19, 1999
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the intervenor Gannett Suburban Newspapers appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered December 24, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was to vacate so much of an order of the same court entered February 10, 1997, as sealed all court decisions, orders, and other documents filed in this action.
Satterlee Stephens Burke Burke, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert M. Callagy of counsel), for intervenor-appellant.
Morrison Cohen Singer Weinstein, LLP, New York, N Y (Robert Stephan Cohen and Jonathan M. Plissner of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order entered December 24, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Domestic Relations Law § 235(1) protects against "the indiscriminate inspection and publication of the details of matrimonial matter", but leaves open for review the order, decision, or exhibits of the case (Domestic Relations Law § 235 Dom. Rel.[1]; Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C235:1, at 119). The sealing provision contained in the order entered February 10, 1997, extended protection from disclosure to include all court decisions, orders, and other documents filed in this action. The order appealed from modified the order entered February 10, 1997, by (1) specifically including within the sealing provision the order entered February 10, 1997, and its underlying decision, and an order of the same court entered June 11, 1997, and its underlying decision, and (2) specifically excluding from the sealing provision the order of the court entered December 24, 1997, and its underlying decision.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the sealing provision contained in the order appealed from was proper. There was an overriding concern to ensure that one party to the divorce settlement negotiations did not use the otherwise protected scurrilous material extensively referred to and repeated in the sealed documents to gratify private spite or force a desired settlement by threat of disclosure ( see, Shiles v. New Syndicate Co., 27 N.Y.2d 9, 14-15, cert denied 400 U.S. 999; Matter of Caswell, 18 R.I. 835, 836, 29A 259; United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048-1051).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.