MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

d. Sealing of Courtroom/Court records
Matter of Beatrice Dreyfus, (Unpublished Decision and Order), Dec. 19, 2008, Index # 100050-
2005, Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. (Ambrosio, J.)
Court declines to find good cause to overcome the presumption of openness and seal the accountings
filed in an Article 81 proceeding. In this case, where there were multiple issues involving
misappropriation of large sums of the IP’s funds, breach of fiduciary duty and, self-dealing by her
guardian, the court determined that the proceedings should be open to the public stating: “This is
certainly not the case in which the court should draw a veil of secrecy surrounding the finances of
the ward and the alleged misappropriation of her assets by [her guardian] while under the jurisdiction
of the court. ...... These proceedings, including the accountings, should be open to the public to
ensure that they are conducted efficiently, honestly, and fairly. Transparency is more conducive to
ascertaining the truth. The presence of the public historically has been ... to enhance the integrity
and quality of what takes place..... .” The court also noted that although the IP did not wish to have
her personal finances disclosed, she does not have the same privacy rights with respect to her
finances as she has in relation to her mental and medical conditions. The court further stated: “That
the IP may be embarrassed by the disclosure is insufficient to overcome the presumption of
openness”. The court did however order that before disclosure is made, identifying information such
as account numbers be redacted.
In the Matter of V.W., 20 Misc.3d1106A; 2008 NY Slip Op 51250U (Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., 2008)
(Hunter, J.)
The original petitioner, who was found to be unfit to serve as guardian, by motion sought a copy of
the transcript and to have the court's file unsealed for the purpose of obtaining all orders contained
in the court file related to the guardianship matter in order to perfect his appeal. The court held that
the appeal could be made on a sealed record and since his inability to serve as guardian was a matter
of law decided by the court, he had not sufficiently demonstrated why a transcript of the entire
Article 81 hearing and other subsequent orders related to the guardianship would be relevant or
necessary for him to file his appeal. Therefore, his requests for a copy of the transcript and to unseal
the record to allow him to obtain copies of all orders contained in the file were denied.
Matter of Phillip Marshall (Brooke Astor), 13 Misc.3d 1203A; 824 N.Y.S.2d 755 (Sup. Ct., NY
Cty., 2006) (Stackhouse, J.)
In a highly publicized case in which Phillip Marshall sought to remove his father, Anthony Marshall,
as caregiver of his 104 year old grandmother, philanthropist and socialite Brooke Astor, the Court,
at the request of several news organizations, and over the objection of every party to the proceeding,
vacated its own interim sealing order, with limited exceptions. Initially, the Court found that the
public had a great interest in the proceeding, emphasizing its interest in witnessing that “justice is
dispensed in the same manner to the rich as to the poor,” and its interest in learning about “the
neglect and mistreatment of the elderly.” Secondly, the Court found that opening the proceedings
to the public would not impede the orderly and sound administration of justice (despite the Court
215