John Doe, Plaintiff, v. LMHC COUNSELING FOR YOU NYC MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING (2026)

NYSCEF documents 5-9, 13-14 were read and considered in deciding this motion.

Relief Requested

The plaintiff moves, by order to show cause, inter alia, to proceed anonymously; to enjoin the defendants from disclosing the identity of the plaintiff to anyone other than their attorneys, experts, consultants, or insurance carriers in connection to this action, and only on the condition that those recipients shall also be bound by this Court's order to maintain the confidentiality of the plaintiff's identity; to require that in any publicly filed documents and papers, all parties and their attorneys shall refer to the plaintiff by the pseudonym "John Doe" and shall redact the plaintiff's true name an identifying information from any documents and papers prior to filing them to the docket, with unredacted copies to be promptly served on all parties' attorneys on the condition that they shall not be disclosed to the public; to order that the plaintiff will promptly provide the defendants with the true name of the plaintiff in this action, but only after the plaintiff's motion to proceed in this case using a pseudonym and to enjoin public disclosure of the plaintiff's identity is granted by this Court.

Background

The plaintiff commenced this action under the pseudonym John Doe, alleging that he suffered degrading, inappropriate, and forcible sexual assault at the hands of the defendant Christie Marie Brulhardt, LMHC, when the plaintiff presented for mental health care and counseling. The plaintiff sought mental health care and counseling from the defendant Counseling For You. The plaintiff alleges that the sexual assault occurred on or about February 2024 through on or about June 21, 2024.

Motion Sequence 002

By order to show cause signed April 14, 2026, the plaintiff moves, inter alia, to proceed anonymously; to enjoin the defendants from disclosing his identity to anyone other than their attorneys, experts, consultants, or insurance carriers in connection to this action, and only on the condition that those recipients shall also be bound by this Court's order to maintain the confidentiality of the plaintiff's identity; to require that in any publicly filed documents and papers, all parties and their attorneys shall refer to the plaintiff by the pseudonym "John Doe" and shall redact the plaintiff's true name an identifying information from any documents and papers prior to filing them to the docket, with unredacted copies to be promptly served on all parties' attorneys on the condition that they shall not be disclosed to the public; to order that the plaintiff will promptly provide the defendants with the true name of the plaintiff in this action, but only after the plaintiff's motion to proceed in this case using a pseudonym and to enjoin public disclosure of the plaintiff's identity is granted by this Court.

In an attorney affirmation submitted in support of the motion, counsel for the defendant contends that the plaintiff is a young adult in his early 20s who resides in Nassau County, and works a professional in a high school. Given the highly sensitive and invasive nature of the allegations of sexual abuse at issue herein, counsel contends, the plaintiff should be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym to protect his identity and to avoid disruption in his ability to engage in his profession and significant ridicule. Counsel states that the plaintiff wishes to avoid further traumatization and invasion of privacy by this disclosure of his name in this legal proceeding. Counsel also states that, if this motion is granted, the plaintiff will promptly provide the defendants with the plaintiff's true name and date of birth, and therefore, the defendants suffer no prejudice. Counsel further states that the defendants are already aware of the plaintiff's identity based upon their own records and the plaintiff's reports of Brulhardt's conduct to the defendants.

Brulhardt opposes the motion. In an attorney affirmation, counsel for Brulhardt contends that although this action involves allegations of sexual abuse, the plaintiff is not automatically permitted to proceed under a pseudonym. Counsel also contends that any allegations made in this motion regarding potential harm that would be suffered by the plaintiff were raised only in an attorney affirmation, and not an affirmation from the plaintiff himself, which is insufficient. Counsel also contends that, if this Court grants the plaintiff's motion, the defendants should be permitted to reveal the plaintiff's identity to any individual or entity that the defendants determine are necessary to the defense of this action.

The defendants Counseling for You and NYC Mental Health Counseling P.C. (hereinafter together NYC Mental Health), oppose the motion. In a memorandum of law, counsel contends that the plaintiff's motion must be denied because (1) Civil Rights Law § 50-b is inapplicable to this case because, inter alia, the plaintiff is not a victim seeking protection in criminal prosecution, (2) this action does not implicate private interests so substantial as to outweigh the public interest in judicial openness. Counsel further contends that the defendants are entitled to investigate the plaintiff's allegations which would include talking to potential witnesses and third parties, thus necessitating the disclosure of his name.

Discussion

"In determining whether to grant a plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously, the court must use its discretion in balancing plaintiff's privacy interest against the presumption in favor of open trials and against any potential prejudice to defendant" (Doe v Eliyas, 241 AD3d 1271, 1274 [2d Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Roe v Harborfields Cent. Sch. Dist., 212 AD3d 853, 855 [2d Dept 2023]; PB-7 Doe v Amherst Cent. Sch. Dist., 196 AD3d 9, 12 [4th Dept 2021]; Anonymous v Lerner, 124 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2015]; Twersky v Yeshiva Univ., 201 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2022]). "Among the factors the court should consider are 1) whether the plaintiff is challenging governmental activity or an individual's actions, 2) whether the plaintiff's action requires disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy, 3) whether identification would put the plaintiff [or innocent third-parties] at risk of suffering physical or mental injury, 4) whether the defendant would be prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously, and 5) the public interest in guaranteeing open access to proceedings without denying litigants access to the justice system" (Doe v Eliyas, 241 AD3d at 1274 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Applying those factors here, the plaintiff's motion should be granted in part. With respect to the first and fifth factors, the plaintiff is not challenging governmental activity and, thus, the public interest is not implicated in that regard (cf. Matter of Smith v New York State Educ. Dept., ___ AD3d ___, ___; 2026 NY Slip Op 04544, * ___ [3d Dept 2026]). The second and third factors also weigh in favor of allowing the plaintiff to prosecute this action under a pseudonym (see generally Doe v Khandker, 221 AD3d 782, 783 [2d Dept 2023]; Doe v Eliyas, 241 AD3d at 1274; Roe v Harborfields Cent. Sch. Dist., 212 AD3d at 855). Contrary to Brulhardt's contention, the plaintiff's failure to submit an affidavit or affirmation does not require the denial of his motion (see Doe v Eliyas, 241 AD3d at 1274). With regard to the fourth factor, the defendants already know the plaintiff's identity, and the defendants have not shown any reason that the public must be made aware of the plaintiff's identity (see Doe v Eliyas, 241 AD3d at 1274-1275; Roe v Harborfields Cent. Sch. Dist., 212 AD3d at 856). Based on the foregoing, those branches of the plaintiff's motion which are to proceed anonymously; to require that in any publicly filed documents and papers, all parties and their attorneys shall refer to the plaintiff by the pseudonym "John Doe" and shall redact the plaintiff's true name an identifying information from any documents and papers prior to filing them to the docket, with unredacted copies to be promptly served on all parties' attorneys on the condition that they shall not be disclosed to the public; and to order that the plaintiff will promptly provide the defendants with the true name of the plaintiff in this action, but only after the plaintiff's motion to proceed in this case using a pseudonym and to enjoin public disclosure of the plaintiff's identity is granted by this Court, should be granted.

That branch of the plaintiff's motion which is to enjoin the defendants from disclosing the identity of the plaintiff to anyone other than their attorneys, experts, consultants, or insurance carriers in connection to this action, and only on the condition that those recipients shall also be bound by this Court's order to maintain the confidentiality of the plaintiff's identity, seeks relief that is overly broad. "Any imposition of prior restraint, whatever the form, bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity, and a party seeking to obtain such a restraint bears a correspondingly heavy burden of demonstrating justification for its imposition. An injunction issued in the area of First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution must be tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case" (Doe v Eliyas, 241 AD3d at 1275 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the defendants should also be permitted to disclose the plaintiff's name for investigative purposes (see id.).

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of this determination.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that those branches of the plaintiff's motion which are to proceed anonymously; to require that in any publicly filed documents and papers, all parties and their attorneys shall refer to the plaintiff by the pseudonym "John Doe" and shall redact the plaintiff's true name an identifying information from any documents and papers prior to filing them to the docket, with unredacted copies to be promptly served on all parties' attorneys on the condition that they shall not be disclosed to the public; and to order that the plaintiff will promptly provide the defendants with the true name of the plaintiff in this action, but only after the plaintiff's motion to proceed in this case using a pseudonym and to enjoin public disclosure of the plaintiff's identity is granted by this Court, are GRANTED; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the plaintiff's motion which is to enjoin the defendants from disclosing the identity of the plaintiff to anyone other than their attorneys, experts, consultants, or insurance carriers in connection to this action, and only on the condition that those recipients shall also be bound by this Court's order to maintain the confidentiality of the plaintiff's identify, is GRANTED to the extent that the defendants are enjoined from disclosing the identity of the plaintiff to anyone other than their attorneys, experts, consultants, or insurance carriers in connection to this action, or for investigative purposes, and only on the condition that those recipients shall also be bound by this Court's order to maintain the confidentiality of the plaintiff's identity; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to the provisions of 22 NYCRR 202.19 and 22 NYCRR 202.23, a preliminary conference will be scheduled in this matter within 30 days after the date of this decision and order.

Any request for relief not specifically granted herein is DENIED.

This shall constitute the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: August 7, 2026

Mineola, New York

E N T E R :

HON. SARIKA KAPOOR, A.J.S.C.

Sarika Kapoor, J.