In Maltezos v. Wyden, No. 162211/2025, 2026 WL 1482438 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 20, 2026), the court denied the defendants’ motion to seal the complaint in this action for discrimination and hostile work environment.
According to the complaint, Brandon O’Brien (deceased) worked as a personal assistant for defendant Nancy Bass Wyden, and his job duties included looking after her two minor children. The complaint alleges that, “over the course of O’Brien’s employment, the children subjected him to continuous sexual harassment and discrimination, which defendants knew about but failed to correct and even spread defamatory statements about him, which precipitated his suicide.”
Defendants moved to seal the complaint and attached exhibits, or in the alternative to redact the children’s initials and all references to them as Wyden’s offspring.
The court explained the applicable law as follows:
Under New York law, there is a “broad presumption” that the public is entitled to access to court records (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). Indeed, only in limited, specific areas, not applicable here, has the legislature restricted access by statute (see id. at 349 [collecting exemplar statutes]).
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 216.1(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.
The party seeking sealing bears the burden of demonstrating good cause (see Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 349). Even when both parties agree to a sealing, good cause must be established, because the courts must also consider the public interest in the subject matter of the case and in fair, honest, and efficient proceedings in general (see Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v APP Intl. Fin. Co., B.V., 28 AD3d 322, 324-325 [1st Dept 2006]; Danco Labs., Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 6-8 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d 92, 93-94 [1st Dept 2001] [“Confidentiality is clearly the exception, not the rule, and the court is always required to make an independent determination of good cause”]). Embarrassing or inflammatory information alone does not constitute good cause (see Matter of Benkert, 288 AD2d 147 [1st Dept 2001]; Matter of Hofmann, 284 AD2d at 94).
Applying the law, the court explained that defendants “have not met their burden of establishing good cause, particularly in light of the existing news reports and defendants’ voluntary interjection of the children in their own separately filed action,” and denied the motion (with the exception of a filed document that contains the minors’ full names and related information.