The opinion
Enterprise v Shvo
2024 NY Slip Op 33492(U)
September 28, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 653221/2024
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.
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 04:17 P~ INDEX NO. 653221/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/28/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
JENNIE ENTERPRISE, DANGENE ENTERPRISE, CORE INDEX NO. 653221/2024
GLOBAL HOLDINGS LLC, CORE GLOBAL VENTURES
LLC, and CORE 5TH AVENUE LLC, CORE SF LLC,
MOTION DATE
Plaintiffs,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 002
- V -
MICHAEL SHVO, SHVO CONCEPTS, LLC, SHVO DECISION+ ORDER ON
HOLDINGS INC., SHVO CAPITAL LLC, SHVO MOTION
DEVELOPMENT LLC, SHVO REAL TY INVESTORS LLC,
SHVO, INC., SHVO ENTERPRISES LLC, SHVO
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, SHVO CARRY 711
LLC, SEREN MANAGING MEMBER 711 LLC, BH EJ
CORE LLC, 711 FIFTH AVE PRINCIPAL OWNER LLC,
BHSD TPC PROPCO LLC, DEUTSCHE FINANCE
AMERICA LLC, DEUTSCHE FINANCE GROUP,
UNIVERSAL INVESTMENT GESELLSCHAFT MBH,
UNIVERSAL INVESTMENT GROUP, and BAYERISCHE
VERSORGUNGSKAMMER,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43
were read on this motion to/for SEAL
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
In motion sequence 002 1 , defendants Michael Shvo, Shvo Concepts, LLC, Shvo
Holdings Inc., Shvo Capital LLC, Shvo Development LLC, Shvo Realty Investors LLC,
Shvo, Inc., Shvo Enterprises LLC, Shvo Property Management LLC, Shvo Carry 711
LLC, Seren Managing Member 711 LLC, BH EJ Core LLC move pursuant to the
Uniform Rules of the New York State Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 216.1 to seal and/or
1 Defendants are reminded to follow Part 48 procedures. Defendants motion to seal did
not contain a chart explaining the redactions it seeks nor a copy of the document with
the redactions highlighted.
653221/2024 ENTERPRISE, JENNIE ET AL vs. SHVO, MICHAEL ET AL Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 002
1 of 4
[* 1]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 04:17 P~ INDEX NO. 653221/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/28/2024
redact NYSCEF Doc. No. [NYSCEF] 19 (Lease Agreement) and NYSCEF 202 (Memo of
Law in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.) The motion is unopposed.
"Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to
access to judicial proceedings and court records." (Masai/em 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 NYC RR § 216.1.)
The "party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate
compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access" to the documents.
(Masai/em, 76 AD3d at 349 [citations omitted].) Good cause must "rest on a sound
basis or legitimate need to take judicial action." (Danco Lab Ltd. v Chemical Works of
Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 27 4 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks omitted].)
Defendants have failed to meet their substantial burden of establishing good
cause to seal NYSCEF 19. Wholesale sealing of the entire record is generally
disfavored, even if both parties to the litigation request sealing. ( See Applehead
Pictures LLC v Perelman, 80 AD3d 181, 192 [1st Dept 201 O] [citation omitted].)
2 A redacted copy is publicly available at NYSCEF 4.
653221/2024 ENTERPRISE, JENNIE ET AL vs. SHVO, MICHAEL ET AL Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 002
2 of 4
[* 2]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 04:17 P~ INDEX NO. 653221/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/28/2024
As to the more favorable redaction of confidential information NYSCEF 19,
defendants fail to identify the specific information that is either sensitive financial
information or confidential information in NYSCEF 19.
Defendants have demonstrated good cause to redact NYSCEF 20. 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].) Defendants have an interest in keeping
lease clauses that contain financial and confidential information private and there has
been no showing of a legitimate public interest in this information. Thus, NYSCEF 20
shall be sealed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendant's motion sequence 002 is granted, in part; and it is
further
ORDERED that defendants are permitted to move, by Order to Show Cause, to
seal portions of NYSCEF 19 that contain financial and sensitive business information
within 10 days of receipt of this order, if so advised. If defendants fail to move to seal
within the stipulated period, the County Clerk will be directed to unseal this action; and it
is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk shall seal NYSCEF 20; 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
653221/2024 ENTERPRISE, JENNIE ET AL vs. SHVO, MICHAEL ET AL Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 002
3 of 4
[* 3]
!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2024 04: 17 PM! INDEX NO. 653221/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/28/2024
counsel of record upon presentation to the County Clerk of written authorization from
counsel; and it is further
ORDERED that the 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
ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for purposes of
trial.
9/28/2024
DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
653221/2024 ENTERPRISE, JENNIE ET AL vs. SHVO, MICHAEL ET AL Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 002
[* 4] 4 of 4