Doe v. Heath

2025 NY Slip Op 31716(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: May 12, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 152523/2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Doe v Heath 2025 NY Slip Op 31716(U) May 12, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152523/2025 Judge: Leslie A. Stroth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 152523/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LESLIE A. STROTH PART 12M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 152523/2025 JANE DOE MOTION DATE NIA Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -

CHRISTOPHER J. HEATH, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 7, 8, 9 were read on this motion to/for ANONYMITY

Plaintiff moves, by Order to Show Cause, for permission from this Court to proceed

anonymously during this action.

Plaintiff argues that allowing plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym would protect

plaintiff from the stigma associated with sexual assault that may result upon disclosure of their

identity in the instant matter. Plaintiff, like many other similarly situated plaintiffs, is concerned

that disclosure of their identity will cause further emotional distress, embarrassment, and ridicule

(NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5 1 8).

The Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law ("GMV A"), revives

previously time-barred claims for "crime[s] of violence motivated by gender." (New York

Administrative Code, Chapter 11 §§ 10-1101 -10-1107).

The Court finds that, based upon the affidavits of service, Defendant was duly served

with the instant Order to Show Cause, and did not submit opposition. (NYSCEF Doc No. 9).

152523/2025 DOE, JANE vs. HEATH, CHRISTOPHER J. Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 152523/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2025

While the relief herein is unopposed, the Court has determined that a decision reflecting its

deliberation on the application herein is warranted.

In general, "[t]he determination of whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously

requires 1he court to use its discretion in balancing plaintiffs privacy interest against the

presumption in favor of open trials and against any prejudice to defendant" (Anonymous v.

Lerner, 124 AD3d 487,487 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see

J Doe No. 1 v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 24 AD3d 215 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Doe v. Szul

Jewelry, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 31382 [U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]). Among the recognized

values of open access to civil proceedings is that "the bright light cast upon the judicial process

by public observation diminishes the possibilities for injustice, incompetence, perjury, and fraud"

(Danco Labs. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 7, [1st Dept 2000]). Likewise,

the very openness of the process should provide the public "with a more complete understanding

of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness" and serves to "ensure that [the

proceedings] are conducted efficiently, honestly and fairly" (Danco, 274 AD2d at 7, supra).

However, the right of the public, and the press, to access judicial proceedings is not

absolute or unfettered, and involves judicial discretion (Lerner, 124 AD3d at 487, supra).

Moreover, access may still be respected in keeping with constitutional requirements while

sensitive information is restricted in keeping with "the State's legitimate concern for the well-

being" of an individual (Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596,606 [1982]).

In addition, while "[i]t is elementary that the primary function of a pleading is to apprise

an adverse party of the pleader's claim", the same does not necessarily apply to a pleader's name

(Cole v. Jvfandell Food Stores, Inc., 93 NY2d 34, 40 [1999]).

152523/2025 DOE, JANE vs. HEATH, CHRISTOPHER J. Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 152523/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2025

Here, there can be little doubt that Plaintiffs case will involve information of a personal

and highly sensitive nature. Plaintiff alleges that they are the victim of sexual assault and that as

a result they have suffered significant physical, emotional, and psychological injuries (NYSCEF

Doc No. 5, ,r,r 6-7) Defendants have neither opposed plaintiffs motion, nor do they make their

own motion for anonymity. As such, based upon the unopposed motion and the documents

received and reviewed, the Court does not find that Defendants are prejudiced at this time.

An express purpose of the GMV A is to revive previously time-barred claims. (New York

Administrative Code, Chapter 11 § 10-1105) Revealing Plaintiffs identity may have a chilling

effect on Plaintiff in litigating the instant matter, and on other plaintiffs from pursuing similar

litigation. Such would directly contradict the express legislative purpose of the GMV A. (New

York Administrative Code, Chapter 11 § 10-1102)

Granting anonymity to Plaintiff is a far less drastic limitation on the public's right to open

proceedings than the sealing of records. (Doe v New York Univ., 6 Misc 3d 866, 878 [Sup Ct

2004]). Plaintiff has not moved for sealing the records. The public interest in seeing this case

determined on the merits outweighs the public interest in knowing plaintiffs identity.

Anonymity at this stage in the proceeding ensures that Plaintiff will proceed with the action and

effectuate that goal.

Accordingly, it is, for the reasons stated above, hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to file a complaint and proceed herein under a

pseudonym, rather than in Plaintiffs legal name, and to proceed throughout this action under

such pseudonym, rather than in Plaintiffs own name, is granted;

152523/2025 DOE, JANE vs. HEATH, CHRISTOPHER J. Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 152523/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2025

ORDERED that the caption shall be maintained as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE Plaintiff, Index No.: 152523/2025

-against-

CHRISTOPHER J. HEATH Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X ORDERED that the movant shall serve a copy of this Order upon the County Clerk

within 14 days of this Order.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

5112/2025 DATE ~~'~ ~~rSTROTH CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED ~ NO~~;~NAL DISPOSITION J.S.C~ GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

152523/2025 DOE, JANE vs. HEATH, CHRISTOPHER J. Page 4of 4 Motion No. 001

4 of 4 [* 4]