On January 19, 2026, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op. 30259(U), holding that avoiding embarrassment or harm to reputation was an insufficient basis for sealing the court records, explaining:
As a preliminary matter, defendants fail to submit an affidavit from a person with knowledge explaining why the file or certain documents should be sealed. Where no affidavits are submitted by any of the defendants, the authors of the documents or the participants in the events recorded therein there is no evidence in the record as to why the documents are so confidential or sensitive that public access to them should be restricted.
. . .
Further, defendants fail to meet their substantial burden of establishing good cause to seal the proposed documents. Courts have held that neither the potential for embarrassment or damage to reputation, nor the general desire for privacy, constitutes good cause to seal court records. Defendants cite to Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intl. Fin. Co., B.V. (28 AD3d 322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]) and Maxim Inc. v Feifer (145 AD3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2016]) for the proposition that sealing is warranted where the documents contain unproven or irrelevant allegations that could harm nonparties.
Defendants misconstrue the law set forth in these cases. In Gryphon, the First Department cites Matter of Hofman (284 AD2d 92 [1st Dept 2011]) and Liapakis v Sullivan (290 AD2d 393 [1st Dept 2002]) providing that in these cases the court found no sufficient basis for sealing where the documents contained embarrassing allegations and prejudice to reputations caused by allegations of unethical and criminal conduct. The court’s decision in Maxim, Inc. makes no mention of sealing documents on the grounds that they contain allegations of wrongdoing or imply unethical or illegal conduct. In fact, the court sets forth that confidentiality is the exception and vacates the trial court’s sealing order. Accordingly, the defendants’ reliance on these cases are unfounded.
Similarly, defendants misquote and misconstrue the court’s decision in Dawson v White (184 AD2d 246 [1st Dept 1992]). Defendants cite to Dawson for the proposition that New York courts recognize that sealing is justified where the nature of the materials creates a high likelihood of misunderstanding or unfair prejudice. First, the quoted language – the nature of the materials – appear nowhere in the Dawson opinion. Second, the court speaks neither to misunderstandings nor unfair prejudice; rather, the court finds that sealing is warranted because there is no relevant public interest in disclosing the financial information at issue. Defendants’ repeated distortions and misrepresentations of the case law are concerning. Moreover, defendants fail to establish good cause for sealing.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).