Upon the following papers read on non-party Newsday's application for access to records: NYSCEF documents 1 thru 94; it is hereby

ORDERED application to unseal Index Number 612135/2022 is granted, and the Suffolk County Clerk shall make available to the public all documents filed on NYSCEF in this case upon petitioner filing with the Suffolk County Clerk a copy of this order and a notice pursuant to CPLR 8019 (c).

On August 10, 2020, two minor children of plaintiffs Kevin and Valerie Cavooris, R.C. (then aged 2) and B.C. (then aged 4) were involved a serious motor vehicle accident. An action was filed on behalf of the infant plaintiffs on June 27, 2022, against defendant David Mascarella, an off-duty Suffolk County Police Officer. Ultimately a resolution was reached between the parties and approved by the Court in an infant compromise. The file was sealed as the infants were minors. During the course of the litigation plaintiffs, through their guardians, cooperated with Newsday reporters and multiple articles, which included the names, photographs, videos, and injuries of the children were released to the public. Allegations of misconduct on behalf of the investigating Suffolk County Police Officers investigating the accident were made, including that defendant was not subject to alcohol testing after the car crash. Petitioner Newsday, relying on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, now requests access to the file, which was only sealed upon settlement.

In opposition, the plaintiffs object to unsealing. They rely upon confidentiality provisions designed to protect the privacy rights of children who were charged as juveniles (Matter of Joseph M., 82 NY2d 128, 603 NYS2d 804 [1993]). A far different situation than the innocent minors here. The Court is not unmindful of its obligation to protect the infant plaintiffs. In the first case cited by plaintiffs, wherein plaintiffs remind the Court of the necessity of heightened protection of minors (People v Burton, 189AD2d 532, 597 NYS2d 488 [3rd Dept 1993]), the Third Department reversed the trial Court and provided Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. access to trial records in a rape and murder prosecution of an elderly woman. Plaintiffs also emphasize that in child protective proceedings (Matter of Katherine B., 189 AD2d 443, 596 NYS2d 847 [2d Dept 1993], where a 10-year- old child was kidnapped, imprisoned in an underground dungeon, and sexually abused, the Family Court neglect proceeding was sealed. The application in that case included an affirmation of Anne H. Meltzer, a psychologist that opined that reports of the child's sexual abuse and kidnaping would have a negative effect on her emotional wellbeing. Here, the opposition is not supported by any psychological testimony and harm to the children is speculative at best. Plaintiffs urge the Court to apply a balancing test to weigh the interests of the public and the justice system against potential harm to the minor (Matter of Hynes v Karassik, 47 NY2d 659, 419 NYS2d 942 [1979]). Matter of Hynes, however, involves an attorney who was found not guilty after trial, records were sealed pursuant to CPL § 160. 50, and the sealed records were being sought to investigate the attorney's fitness to practice law.

Defendant, David Mascarella, also objects to unsealing. He relies on 22 NYCRR § 216.1 (a) which provides:

(a) Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court [*2]may prescribe appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.

That section involves sealing of a file as opposed to unsealing. At the time of sealing, good cause was shown, that is the protection of the infant plaintiffs. However, at the time of sealing no party advised the Court that the children, through their guardians, waived their rights to privacy in articles published on August 19, 2022, and December 25, 2024. Those articles included photographs of R.C. in an intensive care unit, photographs of the family in another state, and even medical imaging of R.C.'s skull. Nor did any party advise the Court that a prior motion to seal the records of this action was denied by Justice Bergmann, who initially presiding over the action. In fact, in that motion decision, the Court notes that "to the extent plaintiff movant requests the sealing of this action, there is no basis for such relief demonstrated, the Court further takes judicial notice of the fact that the underlying accident was published previously." "In balancing the minors' privacy rights against the public's right to know, transparency outweighs the privacy concerns of R.C. and B.C., especially where their guardians waived those privacy rights. Plaintiffs concede in their opposition papers that the civil file remained open to the public for two years.

The Court notes that under Judiciary Law § 7 the sittings of every court within this state shall be public. News media and the public have a federal constitutional right pursuant to the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, a presumptive state constitutional right under Article 1, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution, a statutory right as set forth in sections 4 of the Judiciary Law and 12 of the Civil Rights Law and common-law right to access to judicial proceedings and a common-law right to inspect things filed or admitted into evidence therein (Globe Newspaper Co. v Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 [1982]; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 [1980]; In re Application of NBC, Inc. v Myers, 635 F.2d 945 [2d Cir.1980]; Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Sise, 71 NY2d 146, 524 NYS2d 35 [1987], cert. den. 486 U.S. 1056, 108 S.Ct. 2823, 100 L.Ed.2d 924 [1988]; Associated Press v Bell, 70 NY2d 32, 517 NYS2d 444 [1987]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 431 NYS2d 400 [1980]). However, these rights are not absolute (Matter of Gannett Co. v DePasquale, 43 NY2d 370, 401 NYS2d 756 [1977]).

Access to and publicity about trials is very desirable as they tend to insure that the truth will be told and the secrecy of inquisition-like proceedings will not occur (Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v Leggett, 48 NY2d 430, 437—38, 423 NYS2d 630 [1979]).

Closure of portions of a trial have been upheld (People v Joseph, 59 NY2d 496, 465 NYS2d 915 [1983], People v Smallwood, 31 NY2d 750, 338 NYS2d 433 (1972). Similarly, access to documents or things admitted into evidence may be restricted.

While most of the principles regarding the public nature of trials arise from criminal cases they are, of course, applicable to civil cases (Matter of Herald Co. Inc. v Weisenberg, 59 NY2d 378, 383, 465 NYS2d 862 [1983]; Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v Leggett, 48 NY2d 430, 437—38, 423 NYS2d 630 [1979]). In civil cases the "common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute ... and the determination of whether access to such records is appropriate is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case" (Matter of Crain Communications, Inc., v Hughes, 135 AD2d 351, 521 NYS2d 244 (1st Dept 1987), aff'd, 74 NY2d 626, 541 NYS2d 971 [1989], rearg. den. 74 NY2d 843, 546 NYS2d 559 (sealed record on settlement of case).

A sealing order is not "an unconstitutional restriction of the freedom of the press" (Danziger v Hearst Corp., 304 NY 244, 249, 107 NE2d 62 (1952). "[A] court has inherent control over its own records and may order that those records be sealed in any case where the circumstances require it" (Rich—Haven Motor Sales, Inc., v National Bank of New York City, 163 AD2d 288, 289, 558 NYS2d 91 (2d Dept 1990), app. den. 76 NY2d 709, 561 NYS2d 548 [1990]; Newsday, Inc. v Goodman, 159 AD2d 667, 552 NYS2d 965 (2d Dept 1990) (access to petit juror questionnaires denied).

Sealing orders usually pertained to matters or things that were considered to be confidential, such as juvenile proceedings, family related matters, and unwarranted disclosure of trade secrets. The Court, of course, has an obligation to protect children. However, the general rule favors nonsealing of records.

Section 216.1 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) was enacted on March 1, 1991, and it provides guidelines on sealing records in civil cases. Applying the balancing test recommended by plaintiffs' and required by Section 216, the issue is not close. No party has established any even potential harm to the children, based upon their highly successful prosecution of the civil case against defendant. Moreover, the children's guardians, by cooperating with the media, and even permitting filming of the children, have waived any confidentiality that would require sealing. The public's access to the records contained under Index Number 612135/2022 outweigh the waived privacy rights of the minors. Accordingly, the Suffolk County Clerk is directed to unseal the file.