The following papers were considered in connection with the petition to unseal certain matrimonial records:

Order to show cause, verified petition, exhibits1-15

The petitioner Christopher Madsen brings this proceeding for permission to access sealed matrimonial records relating to the 1925 divorce of Holland Sackett Duell and Mabel Halliwell Duell (Westchester County Index No. 3516/25). According to the verified petition, the petitioner is in the process of writing a book about the life of Holland Sackett Duell. He believes that the book will constitute "an academic work of historical importance" and believes that he may find important relevant information to his research within the sealed matrimonial file. The petitioner submits [*2]various published obituaries and online records (from official and from third-party non-governmental sources) in an effort to establish that the parties to the divorce, as well as all of their issue, are now deceased. The last of the parties' children, Harriet-Anne (Duell) Pierson, purportedly died on February 7, 2003. The Westchester County Clerk previously denied the petitioner's application to access to the files, and issued a statutory Certificate of Disposition. For the reasons that follow, the unopposed petition is denied.

"An officer of the court with whom the proceedings in a matrimonial action . . . are filed . . . shall not permit a copy of any of the pleadings, affidavits, findings of fact, conclusions of law, judgment of dissolution, written agreement of separation or memorandum thereof, or testimony, or any examination or perusal thereof, to be taken by any other person than a party, or the attorney or counsel of a party, except by order of the court" (DRL 235 [1] [emphasis added]). Although a non-party has a right to learn the disposition of a matrimonial action through a "certificate of disposition," such certificate "shall in no manner evidence the subject matter of the pleadings, testimony, findings of fact, conclusions of law or judgment of dissolution derived in any such action" (DRL 235 [3]). The limitation on access to confidential matrimonial records "shall cease to apply one hundred years after date of filing, and such records shall thereupon be public records available to public inspection" (DRL 235 [5]).

Since the sought-after matrimonial records were filed in 1925, the petitioner may not access them absent a court order. "Section 235 of the Domestic Relations Law, which prohibits the taking of copies, or even the inspection, of the records of matrimonial proceedings by any one other than the parties or their counsel, manifests a clear legislative design that those proceedings be kept secret and confidential" (Shiles v News Syndicate Co., 27 NY2d 9, 14 [1970]).

"The policy behind the rule is that matrimonial matters can involve painful, even embarrassing details, which the parties should have a right to keep private. Absent some overriding importance to the persons who would have access to the file, that privacy should be respected. Moreover, to the extent that the particular matrimonial matter might be subject to media publicity, the statute holds that such potentially embarrassing material should remain private, lest the details be used for spite or for scandal."

Requests for access to sealed records are generally denied absent a showing of special circumstances, such as a nexus to pending civil or criminal matters (see Harvey v Mazal American Partners, 179 AD2d 1, 9 [1st Dept1992] ["No sufficient nexus between the marital proceedings and plaintiff's injury was demonstrated to warrant overcoming the statutory protection accorded to testimony and pleadings in a matrimonial action"] Solomon v Meyer, 103 AD3d 1025, 1026 [3d Dept 2013] see People v Doe, 117 Misc 2d 35, 37 [Supreme Court, Erie County 1982] ["DRL 235 "erects a procedural barrier which places a neutral magistrate between the investigating hand of the [*3]government and these files, which may contain highly sensitive and personal information, revealing the most private and closely guarded aspects of citizens' lives"] see also Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C235:1 ["access to matrimonial records may be permitted by court order where the records are pertinent to issues presented in non-matrimonial litigation"]).

In this Court's view, fishing expeditions into sealed records should not be permitted; rather, a petitioner seeking access to sealed records must be able to articulate and particularize the relevance of the information sought to an important pending matter (cf. Janecka v Casey, 121 AD2d 28 [1st Dept 1986] [a case where the court permitted access to sealed records "given the relevancy of the relationship between the deceased and the spouse who claims pecuniary loss due to her death, and the obvious significance of the court file in the spouse's matrimonial action on that issue"]).

Here, in light of the petitioner's failure to articulate the specific information sought in the Duell's divorce file or to establish a compelling reason for unfettered access to the file, the request must be denied. The petitioner's request to access this information for the purposes of writing a biographical work is insufficient to justify an intrusion into the 100-year period of privacy afforded by DRL 235 (see Hovagim v Marchand's School of Dance, Inc., 225 AD2d 522, 522-523 [2d Dept1996] ["The defendants have failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the marital proceedings and the plaintiff's alleged injury to warrant overcoming the statutory protection accorded to testimony and pleadings in a matrimonial action"]). Although the petitioner has implicitly argued that no social embarrassment will be caused since the Duells and their issue are deceased, this reason alone is insufficient to warrant a foray into sealed records.

Public officials charged with safeguarding records containing the intimate details of litigants' lives bear a "heavy responsibility" (see People v Doe, 117 Misc 2d at 37). By sparingly exercising their discretion to permit access to these records, courts promote an atmosphere of privacy for litigants that encourages open and honest disclosure in the context of matrimonial litigation. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby,

ORDERED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that all other relief requested and not decided herein is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:White Plains, New York

April 22, 2014

_____________________________________HON. Francesca E. Connolly, J.S.C. [*4]