In re Caminite, 62 N.Y.S.3d 724

Special proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for Amelia G., an alleged incapacitated person with severe cognitive impairment and substantial real-estate assets.
Remaining stipulated issues: whether the guardianship record should be sealed, and whether court‑appointed counsel Michael Chetkof should continue representing Amelia G. after entry of the order.
Cross‑petitioner Denise B. Caminite moved to seal the court file; petitioners, court evaluator, temporary guardian, and court‑appointed counsel opposed sealing.
Statutory framework: Mental Hygiene Law § 81.14 permits sealing court records only upon a written finding of "good cause," balancing public access, orderly administration, nature of proceedings, and privacy of the alleged incapacitated person.
Court emphasized article 81’s adversarial design, the high burden of proof (clear and convincing), and the strong public‑access presumption in New York compared with several states that presumptively seal guardianship records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the guardianship record should be sealed	Caminite argued for sealing to protect privacy and potential harm from public disclosure	Petitioners and court actors argued public access should remain; concerns include allegations of financial exploitation and need for public scrutiny	Denied — Caminite failed to show good cause; public interest and allegations of wrongdoing weighed against sealing
Whether court‑appointed counsel should continue representing alleged incapacitated person	(implicit) No separate affirmative plaintiff position to remove counsel	Court‑appointed counsel advocated continuation; court found ongoing oversight warranted for large estate and personal care	Granted — Michael Chetkof reappointed to continue representation and court set status conference

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (establishes public right of access to judicial proceedings)
Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991) (public scrutiny reduces risk of injustice and fraud)
Matter of Miguel M., 17 N.Y.3d 37 (2011) (discusses interplay of privacy and statutory protections for medical records)
Mancheski v. Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499 (2007) (addresses standards for sealing court records and public interest)
Matter of Rosa B.-S., 1 A.D.3d 355 (2003) (notes respondent’s physician‑patient privilege in guardianship context)
Anonymous v. Anonymous, 263 A.D.2d 341 (2000) (reaffirms strong presumption of public access to court files)