From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anonymous v. Anonymous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1990
158 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Summary

recognizing qualified right of access to custody cases

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Gaston

Opinion

February 6, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.).


The Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in declining to grant plaintiff's request to exclude all persons except the parties, their counsel and witnesses from the hearing in the instant custody dispute. Public access to court proceedings is strongly favored, both as a matter of constitutional law (Richmond Newspapers v Virginia, 448 U.S. 555) and as statutory imperative (Judiciary Law § 4). In that regard, plaintiff has not established sufficient grounds to warrant closing the court in the present instance. The unsupported speculation by her counsel as to the deleterious effect that media coverage might have on the child is simply inadequate to overcome the strong presumption that court proceedings be open to the public. There is also no merit to plaintiff's contention that the child's right to equal protection is violated since his custody is being determined in the Supreme Court rather than the Family Court. Under existing law, there is no significant distinction between the protection from improper media coverage afforded the subject of a custody dispute in Family Court and in the Supreme Court (see, Uniform Rules for Trial Cts, 22 NYCRR 205.4) . However, we believe that the long-term interests of the child would be better served by changing the title and caption of this proceeding to reflect anonymous or fictitious names, and therefore, plaintiff's application should have been granted only as to this portion of the motion. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Anonymous v. Anonymous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1990
158 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

recognizing qualified right of access to custody cases

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Gaston
Case details for

Anonymous v. Anonymous

Case Details

Full title:ANONYMOUS, Appellant, v. ANONYMOUS, Respondent. FOURTH WALL REPERTORY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 6, 1990

Citations

158 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
550 N.Y.S.2d 704

Citing Cases

Merrick v. Merrick

As to closure of the courtroom, public access to court proceedings is strongly favored (Richmond Newspapers…

In re Doe

( See Schaschlo v Taishoff, 2 NY2d 408, 411 [1957].) As the Appellate Division has written: "Public access to…