On October 26, 2025, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in La Playastar Uno LLC v. Coco Hotel 1 LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 34114(U), denying a motion to seal because of a lack of factual justification, 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 enteran order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether inwhole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shallspecify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has beenshown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of theparties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribeappropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.
The party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstratecompelling circumstances to justify restricting public access to the documents. Good cause must rest on a soundbasis or legitimate need to take judicial action.
As a preliminary matter, defendants fail to submit an affidavit from a person withknowledge explaining why the file or certain documents should be sealed. Counsel’s affirmation is insufficient. Where no affidavits are submitted by any ofthe defendants, the authors of the documents or the participants in the events recordedtherein there is no evidence in the record as to why the documents are soconfidential or sensitive that public access to them should be restricted.
Further, defendants fail to meet their substantial burden of establishing goodcause for its proposed redactions. Although defendants assert that, if certain terms ofthe PSA are made publicly available, it would give any prospective buyer easy accessto the terms defendants were willing to agree to in the past and thus, an unfairadvantage, defendants’ proposed redactionsinclude information that, on its face, is neither private nor business-sensitive.
Defendants fail to establish how publication of such non-sensitive information couldthreaten defendants’ competitive advantage. Forexample, defendants fail to show good cause to redact many of the defined terms inSection 1.1 of the PSA. The law requires that any order denying access must benarrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives.
Accordingly, defendants will need to propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfythe requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216 [a] and applicable case law.
Defendants further argue that good cause exists because the parties contractedthat the PSA would remain confidential. However, the fact that the PSAdesignates its terms Confidential Information is not determinative. First, parties’designation of the materials as confidential is not controlling on the court’sdetermination whether there is good cause to seal.
Second, while a confidentiality agreement entered for purposes of exchanginginformation demonstrates the steps taken to protect confidential information and canlend support to an argument for redacting, it does not eliminate the requirement thatthe movant must demonstrate good cause. Defendants’ motion to seal is denied without prejudice, and leave is granted to refile an application to seal portions of the PSA that contain competitive business information within 10 days of the date of this order; if further application is not made, thedocuments will be unsealed. Defendants shall comply with Part 48 Procedures in thisregard and any application shall also be accompanied by an affidavit from a person withknowledge explaining why portions of certain documents should be redacted.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).