Doe v. Yeshiva Univ.
2021 NY Slip Op 04101
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2021Background:
- Plaintiff brought suit against Yeshiva University and sought to proceed under the pseudonym "John Doe."
- Supreme Court (N.Y. County) granted plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously after balancing privacy against the presumption of public disclosure.
- Plaintiff asserted fear of embarrassment, economic harm, social stigmatization, professional repercussions, and isolation within the legal community; counsel elaborated these fears at oral argument.
- Plaintiff agreed to disclose his identity to the court and to defendants, limiting potential prejudice to defendants.
- Defendants argued anonymity was unnecessary because plaintiff already sued and challenged that the motion relied only on an attorney affirmation.
- Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's exercise of discretion to allow the pseudonymous proceeding.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may proceed anonymously | Privacy interest and concrete fears of stigma, economic and professional harm justify pseudonymity | Public's right to know identity; anonymity unnecessary because suit already filed | Granted: court properly balanced interests and allowed pseudonymity |
| Whether public interest requires disclosure of plaintiff's identity | Public interest served by open records but not necessarily by revealing identity | Public must know identity beyond case details | Denied: records open but identity need not be disclosed to public |
| Whether defendants would be prejudiced by anonymity | Plaintiff will provide identity to defendants and court, so no prejudice | Anonymity could prejudice defendants' ability to defend | Denied: no showing of prejudice because identity will be disclosed to defendants and the court |
| Whether an attorney affirmation alone can support a pseudonym motion | Attorney affirmation supplemented by specific facts and counsel argument suffices | Motions based solely on counsel affirmations can be deficient | Granted: acceptable here because facts specific to plaintiff were presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Anonymous v. Lerner, 124 AD3d 487 (First Dept. 2015) (articulating balancing test for pseudonymous proceedings)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 64 Misc 3d 1220(A) (Sup Ct. 2019) (addressing scope of anonymity and disclosure to respondents and court)
- GCVAWCG-Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 69 Misc 3d 648 (Sup Ct. 2020) (criticizing pseudonym applications lacking plaintiff-specific affidavits)