Opinion
141 Index No. 950045/21 Case No. 2022–03957
04-27-2023
N.S., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. William P. FRANKENHOFF, Defendant–Respondent.
Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder LLP, New York (Paul S. Hugel of counsel), for appellant. Levy Konigsberg, LLP, New York (Madeleine Skaller of counsel), for respondent.
Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder LLP, New York (Paul S. Hugel of counsel), for appellant.
Levy Konigsberg, LLP, New York (Madeleine Skaller of counsel), for respondent.
Webber, J.P., Moulton, Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered August 23, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously and to enjoin defendant and his agents from disclosing plaintiff's identity to anyone other than defendant's attorneys, insurers, and expert witnesses, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate so much of the order as enjoined defendant and his agents from disclosing plaintiff's identity to anyone other than defendant's attorneys, insurers, and expert witnesses, and remand to the motion court for further proceeding on the permissible scope of discovery, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the presumption in favor of open trials and against any potential prejudice to defendant was outweighed by plaintiff's privacy interest (see Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 A.D.3d 487, 487, 998 N.Y.S.2d 619 [1st Dept. 2015] ), in particular plaintiff's specific concern, as detailed in an affidavit, that her teenaged child would be traumatized if he or his peers were to discover information about the alleged rape online (see Twersky v. Yeshiva Univ., 201 A.D.3d 559, 560, 157 N.Y.S.3d 379 [1st Dept. 2022] [a plaintiff "must provide facts specific to the plaintiff that will allow the motion court to exercise its discretion in an informed manner"]; Doe v. MacFarland, 66 Misc.3d 604, 631–632, 117 N.Y.S.3d 476 [Sup. Ct., Rockland County 2019] ).
We agree with the motion court that defendant, who is aware of plaintiff's identity, is not substantially prejudiced by plaintiff's use of a pseudonym in publicly filed court documents (see Doe v. Amherst Cent. Sch. Dist., 196 A.D.3d 9, 14, 148 N.Y.S.3d 305 [4th Dept. 2021] ). However, defendant is prejudiced by the motion court's broad injunction against him. While a defendant may be restrained from publishing a plaintiff's name who has been granted anonymity (see Doe v. New York Univ., 6 Misc.3d 866, 877–878, 786 N.Y.S.2d 892 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2004] ), here, defendant is prohibited from even privately disclosing plaintiff's name for the purposes of discovery and investigation. Accordingly, in the absence of any compelling reasons why defendant should be so restrained, we vacate so much of the order enjoining him from disclosing plaintiff's identity to anyone other than his attorneys, insurers, and expert witnesses and remand for further proceedings on the permissible scope of discovery.