You are here: / / IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE...
, ,

IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF THE COURTROOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, NOT CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC IN EMAILS, AND (2), THE COURTROOM CLOSURE WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC-TRIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 4 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ordered closure of the courtroom pursuant to Judiciary Law section 4 in this divorce proceeding. The criteria for closure of a courtroom are discussed in some detail. Here the judge ordered some documents to be submitted under seal and then based the closure on the existence of sealed documents as evidence. That justification for closure is not one of the exceptions in Judiciary Law section 4:

The motion court did not provide the public and the press adequate notice of the husband’s courtroom closure request. Because it directed the parties to file their submissions on the application for courtroom closure by email, the submissions were not reflected on “the publicly maintained docket entries,” as required … .

We also reverse on substantive grounds. “Public access to court proceedings is strongly favored, both as a matter of constitutional law . . . and as statutory imperative …” … . In the order appealed here, the motion court improperly read an exception into the “statutory imperative” of NY Judiciary Law §4 that does not exist. The first part of that statute, entitled “Sittings of courts to be public,” states: “The sittings of every court within this state shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend the same . . .” The only exceptions to this rule are set forth in the statute’s next sentence: “except that in all proceedings and trials in cases for divorce, seduction, rape, assault with intent to commit rape, criminal sexual act, bastardy or filiation, the court may, in its discretion, exclude therefrom all persons who are not directly interested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court” … .

Here, the motion court used its discretion to insert another, unwritten category of cases into the statutory exception: proceedings that could entail arguments that implicate documents filed under seal. We find its decision to do so to have been improper … . Paulson v Paulson, 2023 NY Slip Op 03310, First Dept 6-20-23

Practice Point: A request for courtroom closure must be accessible by the public, not concealed in email exchanges.

Practice Point: Courtroom closure based on a reason not included in the public-trial exceptions in Judiciary Law section 4 is an abuse of discretion.

 

You might also like
THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION’S (NRA’S) FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AND SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL (NYAD) WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; WITH RESPECT TO THE RETALIATION COUNTERCLAIM, THE NYAD DEMONSTRATED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUE THE NRA (FIRST DEPT).
The Fact that One of Four Men Approached for a Level One Street Inquiry Ran Did Not Provide the Police with Reasonable Suspicion that Defendant, Who Obeyed the Police Commands, Was Involved in a Crime
VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON CHILDREN’S CONSENT (FIRST DEPT).
Plea Colloquy of Co-Defendant Was Inadmissible Hearsay—Court’s Granting of Defendant’s Request to Have the Colloquy Read to the Jury Over Defense Counsel’s Objection Deprived Defendant of His Right To Counsel
7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST DEPT).
PARTY ADMISSIONS WERE NOT HEARSAY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 ACTION; THE “PARTY-ADMISSIONS” ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND DEEMED DISPOSITIVE ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
IN 2011 PLAINTIFF WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS FOR YEARS; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED AND TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE WHICH CONTEMPLATED ONLY OUT-OF-POCKET... FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITIONS AND MADE FINDINGS...