The opinion
GNHC 1703-518, LLC v Venari Partners, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 33466(U)
September 30, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 651347/2022
Judge: Andrea Masley
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. 651347/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 201 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
GNHC 1703-518, LLC, INDEX NO. 651347/2022
Plaintiff,
MOTION DATE --
-v-
MOTION SEQ. NO. 013
VENARI PARTNERS, LLC, SWEETBRIAR CAPITAL, LLC,
MIN-FAM-HOLDING, LLC,110 PARTNERS LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, UPTOWN INVESTORS L.P., JOHN DECISION + ORDER ON
MININNO, BRAD J. BLASCHAK, JOSEPH P. RICCARDO, MOTION
PETER RICCARDO, MICHAEL CALLAGHAN, JEREMIAH
CALLAGHAN, DOES 1-25, NHCALILLY, LLC,
NHCAGILEAD, LLC, NHCABAYLASH, LLC, HEALTH
CHOICE ALLIANCE, LLC, HEALTH CHOICE
ADVOCATES, LLC, and HEALTH CHOICE GROUP, LLC,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 185, 186, 187, 188,
189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199
were read on this motion to/for SEAL .
In motion sequence 013, defendants Sweetbriar Capital, LLC, 110 Partners, LLC,
and Uptown Investors, L.P. move pursuant to the Uniform Rules of the New York State
Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 216.1 to redact (i) NYSCEF 1891 (Sweetbriar Capital, LLC’s
answer), (ii) NYSCEF 1902 (110 Partners, LLC’s answer) and (iii) NYSCEF 1913
(Uptown Investors, L.P.’s answer). Moving defendants also seeks an order that any
future filings be redacted to the extent such filings contain information that they are
seeking to redact here. The motion is unopposed. There is no indication that the press
or public have an interest in this matter.
1 A public copy of NYSCEF 189 with proposed redactions is at NYSCEF 182.
2 A public copy of NYSCEF 190 with proposed redactions is at NYSCEF 183.
3 A public copy of NYSCEF 191 with proposed redactions is at NYSCEF 184.
651347/2022 GNHC 1703-518, LLC vs. VENARI PARTNERS, LLC ET AL Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 013
1 of 4
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 651347/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 201 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
“Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to
access to judicial proceedings and court records.” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d
345, 348 [1st Dept 2010] [citations omitted].) The public’s right to access is, however,
not absolute, and under certain circumstances, “public inspection of court records has
been limited by numerus statutes.” (Id. at 349.) One of those statutes is section 216.1
(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, which empowers courts to seal documents
upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:
“Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter
an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in
whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall
specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been
shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the
parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe
appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.” (22 NYCRR 216.1.)
The “party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate
compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access” to the documents.
(Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 349 [citations omitted].) For example, in the business context,
courts have sealed records where the disclosure of documents “could threaten a
business’s competitive advantage.” (Id. at 350-351 [citations omitted].) Records
concerning private financial information may be sealed where there has not been a
showing of relevant public interest in the disclosure of that information. (See Dawson v
White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992].) A party “ought not to be required
to make their private financial information public ... where no substantial public interest
would be furthered by public access to that information.” (D’Amour v Ohrenstein &
Brown, 17 Misc 3d 1130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52207[U], *20 [Sup Ct, NY County 2007]
[citations omitted].)
651347/2022 GNHC 1703-518, LLC vs. VENARI PARTNERS, LLC ET AL Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 013
2 of 4
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 651347/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 201 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
Moving defendants have demonstrated good cause to redact NYSCEF 189, 190,
and 191. The proposed redactions are limited to the amounts of the moving
defendants’ investments in defendant Venari Partners, LLC and distributions received
from Venari Partners, LLC. Disclosure of such confidential business and financial
information would put moving defendants in competitive disadvantage.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that and the County Clerk, upon service of this order, shall
permanently seal NYSCEF 189, 190 and 191; and it is further
ORDERED the New York County Clerk shall restrict access to the sealed
documents with access to be granted only to authorized court personnel and designees,
the parties and counsel of record in this action, and any representative of a party or of
counsel of record upon presentation to the County Clerk of written authorization from
counsel; and it is further
ORDERED that moving defendants serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk of
the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office in accordance with the procedures
set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically
Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s website at the address
www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh)]; and it is further
ORDERED that if any party seeks to redact identical information in future filings
that the court is permitting to be redacted here, that party shall submit a proposed
sealing order to the court (via SFC-Part48@nycourts.gov and NYSCEF) instead of filing
another seal motion; and it is further
651347/2022 GNHC 1703-518, LLC vs. VENARI PARTNERS, LLC ET AL Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 013
3 of 4
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 651347/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 201 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for purposes of
trial.
9/30/2024
DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
651347/2022 GNHC 1703-518, LLC vs. VENARI PARTNERS, LLC ET AL Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 013
4 of 4
[* 4]