On March 1, 2026, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Ventura v. Rosenblum, 2026 NY Slip Op. 30747(U), rejecting an attempt at wholesale sealing of court records, explaining:
Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records. The public’s right to access is, however, not absolute, and under certain circumstances, public inspection of court records has been limited by numerous statutes. For example, § 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, empowers courts to seal documents only upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:
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 may prescribe appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.
The party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access to the documents. Good cause must rest on a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.
In motion sequence 011, plaintiffs seek wholesale sealing of NYSCEF 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, and 221. Wholesale sealing is generally disfavored. The law requires that any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives. Accordingly, plaintiffs will need to propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216 [a] and applicable case law. A confidentiality agreement entered for purposes of exchanging information does not constitute good cause to seal it demonstrates the steps taken to protect confidential information and can lend support to an argument for redacting. Because the law does not generally recognize good cause for sealing documents, even when they are subject to a confidentiality provision, plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause to seal.
Moreover, the court rejects plaintiffs’ unsupported assertions that targeted redactions would be ineffective, impractical, and unworkable.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).