Doe v. Combs
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Doe v Combs
2026 NY Slip Op 04554
July 23, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
John Doe, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
Sean Combs et al., Defendants-Respondents, Sony Music Holdings, Inc., Defendant. [And Other Actions]
Decided and Entered: July 23, 2026
Index No. 161671/24, 161674/24, 161676/24|Appeal No. 6863-6864, 6865|Case No. 2025-01754, 2025-01756, 2025-02158|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., González, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.
Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo Plotkin & Hellman LLP, New York (Jeremy A. Hellman of counsel), for appellant.
Sher Tremonte LLP, New York (Mark Cuccaro of counsel), for respondents.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered February 21, 2025, which denied plaintiffs' separate motions to proceed anonymously, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court providently denied plaintiffs' motions to proceed anonymously. Plaintiffs only assert general claims of public embarrassment and argue that the nature of the crime itself is sufficient to satisfy the standard to proceed anonymously. However, while it is undisputed that plaintiffs' actions concern information of a highly sensitive and personal nature (see Doe v KIPP N.Y., Inc., 238 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2025]), their applications fail to provide any facts specific to each plaintiff that would allow a motion court to find that disclosure of their identities would result in particular harm (see Anonymous v Lerner, 124 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2015]; see also Twersky v Yeshiva Univ., 201 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2022]; cf. Doe v Yeshiva Univ., 195 AD3d 565, 565-566 [1st Dept 2021]). Rather, all three applications contain identical, generic claims of physical and psychological harm that are unsupported by any allegations in the complaints (see Twersky v Yeshiva Univ., 201 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2022]; cf. Doe v Bloomberg L.P., 200 AD3d 410, 410 [1st Dept 2021] ["In addition to her own affidavit attesting to the psychological harm it would cause to disclose her name publicly, plaintiff submitted affidavits from her treating psychologist and psychiatrist, both of whom opined that forcing plaintiff to proceed with the litigation under her legal name would have severe consequences for her mental health"]). Plaintiffs' claims of public embarrassment are insufficient, under the circumstances, to allow them to proceed anonymously (see Lerner, 124 AD3d at 488).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: July 23, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Doe v. Combs (Doe v. Combs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.