Opinion
No. 2015–41.
04-05-2016
In the Matter of the Application of Sylvia Barbero LEVY, as Administrator of the Goods, Chattels, and Credits of Patricia Barbero, Deceased, for leave to Settle and Compromise a Certain Cause of Action for Negligence Resulting in the Personal Injury of the Decedent and to Render and Judicially Settle the Account as Such Administrator.
Joseph P. Rones, Esq., Finkelstein & Partners, Newburgh, Attorneys for Petitioner. Moore & Lee, LLP, McLean, VA, Attorneys for Defendant in Personal Injury Action.
Joseph P. Rones, Esq., Finkelstein & Partners, Newburgh, Attorneys for Petitioner.
Moore & Lee, LLP, McLean, VA, Attorneys for Defendant in Personal Injury Action.
JAMES D. PAGONES, J.
Petitioner moves for an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 216.1, sealing the Court records in this proceeding.
The following papers were read:
Notice of Motion–Affirmation–Exhibit A 1–3
“There is a presumption that the public has the right of access to the courts to ensure the actual and perceived fairness of the judicial system, as the bright light cast upon the judicial process by public observation diminishes the possibilities for injustice, incompetence, perjury, and fraud” (Mancheski v. Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499 [2nd Dept 2007] ).
Since confidentiality is the exception, the court must make an independent determination of whether to seal court records in whole or in part for “good cause” (see Matter of Hofmann, 284 A.D.2d 92 [1st Dept 2001] ). This task involves weighing the interests of the public against the interests of the parties (see Danco Lab. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 A.D.2d 1 [1st Dept 2000] ). The party seeking to seal documents must demonstrate compelling circumstances (see In re SCPA Section 2108 ex rel. Patrick, 39 Misc.3d 1212[A] [Sur Ct, Dutchess County 2013] ). 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 (see Mancheski v. Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499 [2nd Dept 2007] ).
Here, the record is devoid of any justification for prohibiting disclosure of any of the terms of the settlement other than the parties' settlement is contingent upon an agreement of confidentiality. While there is a strong public interest in encouraging the settlement of private disputes, conclusory claims of the need for confidentially of settlement agreements are insufficient to seal a record (see In re Will of Hofmann, 284 A.D.2d 92 [1st Dept 2001] ).
Accordingly, the motion is denied. The parties may choose to appropriately redact the settlement agreement and file it with the Court; thus, protecting their interest in confidentially but also protecting the public's right to access Court records.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.