Anonymous v. Anonymous
| Decision Date | 06 February 1990 |
| Citation | 158 A.D.2d 296,550 N.Y.S.2d 704 |
| Parties | , 18 Media L. Rep. 1560 ANONYMOUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANONYMOUS, Defendant-Respondent. The Fourth Wall Repertory Company, Inc., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
O.S. Paganuzzi, Jr., New York City, for plaintiff-appellant and appellants.
S.M. Katz, for defendant-respondent.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and MILONAS, KASSAL and ELLERIN, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered on or about June 13, 1988, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for an order excluding all persons except the parties and their counsel from the hearing in this matter and sealing the record, changing the title and caption of the instant custody proceeding to anonymous or fictitious names and restraining the parties and their counsel from discussing this proceeding with the press or other media, is unanimously modified on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of granting plaintiff's motion only as to changing the title and caption of this proceeding to anonymous or fictitious names and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Appeal from Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered on or about September 1, 1988, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's cross-motion to renew and reargue the court's order of June 13, 1988, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
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, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973) 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lisa C.-R. v. William R.
...562-63, 585 N.Y.S.2d 989 [Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co., 1992], aff'd 190 A.D.2d 516, 593 N.Y.S.2d 192 [1st Dept.1993]; Anonymous v. Anonymous, 158 A.D.2d 296, 297, 550 N.Y.S.2d 704 [1st Dept., 1990], modifying Sprecher v. Sprecher, NYLJ, June 21, 1988, p. 21, col. 6 [Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co., Schackman, J.]. That ......
-
Rogers v. Gaston
... ... right of access by public to custody cases involving the ... Division of Youth and Family Services); Anonymous v ... Anonymous, 158 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y.App.Div. 1990) ... (recognizing qualified right of access to custody cases) ... (holding ... ...
-
PB-7 Doe v. Amherst Cent. Sch. Dist.
...to proceed using a title and caption containing a fictitious name in certain circumstances (see e.g. Anonymous v. Anonymous , 158 A.D.2d 296, 297, 550 N.Y.S.2d 704 [1st Dept. 1990] ), and the courts of New York continue to permit that practice where the circumstances warrant it (see e.g. Do......
- Ulster County Dept. of Social Services on Behalf of Jane, Matter of
-
A Re-examination of the Protection of Children's Best Interests in Public Custody Proceedings
...v. Anonymous, 705 N.Y.S.2d 339, 340 (App. Div. 2000); P.B. v. C.C., 647 N.Y.S.2d 732, 733-34 (App. Div. 1996); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 550 N.Y.S.2d 704, 705 (App. Div. 1990); see also S.B. v. U.B., 953 N.Y.S.2d 831, 833 (Sup. Ct. 2012); CLB v. PHC, 36 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1990 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.......