Support for Legislation to Seal Name and Gender Change Court Records

SUMMARY

In a July 2026 report, the LGBTQ+ Rights Committee, Civil Rights Committee, and Sex & Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association endorsed A.3925 (AM Lavine) / S.10600 (Sen. Bottcher), which would amend the Civil Rights Law to treat name change and sex designation change proceedings as categorically private.

Under current law, New York courts may seal these proceedings where disclosure would jeopardize an applicant’s safety — but that protection is discretionary and applies only after a petition is filed. Because e-filing systems make petitions publicly accessible at the moment of filing, and because data brokers routinely capture and republish court records, the report argues that post-filing sealing cannot undo an exposure that has already occurred.

The report addresses:

• Why the current framework fails, including the timing gap between filing and judicial review, and the permanent indexing of court records by third-party aggregators.
• Concrete harms from disclosure, including nonconsensual disclosure of transgender status, deadnaming, and risks to survivors of intimate partner violence seeking a name change for safety.
• Arbitrary disparities — most name changes in New York (marriage, divorce, adoption, citizenship) are already categorically private, while those who must petition a court receive the least reliable protection, with pro se litigants most disadvantaged.
• Why rulemaking is insufficient, including the limits of the Office of Court Administration’s expanded auto-sealing practices (22 NYCRR § 202.5(e)) and their inability to reach previously filed cases.

BILL INFORMATION

A.3925 (AM Lavine) / S.10600 (Sen. Bottcher) -Relates to ensuring the privacy of name change actions and of sex designation change actions; repealer (NYS 2026)

REPORT

REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER RIGHTS COMMITTEE, CIVIL RIGHTS COMMITTEE, AND THE SEX & LAW COMMITTEE

A.3925 (M. of A. Lavine)
S.10600 (Sen. Bottcher) 

AN ACT to amend the civil rights law, in relation to ensuring privacy of name change actions and of sex designation change actions 

THIS BILL IS APPROVED

I.  INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

The LGBTQ+ Rights, Civil Rights, and the Sex and Law Committees of the New York City Bar Association support A.3925 (AM Lavine) / S.10600 (Sen. Bottcher), which would ensure that name change and sex designation change proceedings filed in New York courts are treated as categorically private. The bill addresses a structural failure in the current legal framework. Individuals must often turn to the courts to secure legal recognition of their name or gender marker, yet the very act of seeking that relief can expose them to public disclosure of highly sensitive personal information. In a digital environment where court filings are rapidly disseminated and permanently indexed, that exposure is not incidental. It is the predictable consequence of the system’s design.

II.  THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK DOES NOT PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY IN PRACTICE

New York law permits courts to seal name change and sex designation change proceedings where disclosure would jeopardize an applicant’s safety.^[1] But that protection is discretionary and, critically, it operates only after one files a petition.^[2]

That timing renders the protection ineffective. Under modern e-filing systems, petitions and supporting documents are uploaded to publicly accessible databases at the moment of filing, before judicial review.^[3] Even where a court ultimately orders sealing, the disclosure has already occurred.

Once exposed, the information does not remain confined to court systems. Third-party data brokers and aggregation services routinely capture and republish court records.^[4] These materials are indexed, searchable, and distributed across platforms that are not subject to judicial control. The result is that sensitive personal information, such as prior names, gender markers, home addresses, and supporting documentation, can persist indefinitely in the public domain.

For this reason, the current framework fails to protect confidentiality, and it affirmatively creates the risk it purports to mitigate. A system that allows disclosure at the point of filing cannot be cured by sealing after the fact. The harm lies in the exposure itself.

III.  DISCLOSURE OF THESE RECORDS IMPLICATES SAFETY, DIGNITY, AND AUTONOMY

Public access to name change and sex designation change records creates concrete and foreseeable harms. These filings often contain deeply personal identifying information, and their disclosure can facilitate harassment, discrimination, and violence.

Those risks fall most heavily on individuals who already face structural vulnerability. Transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people frequently rely on court processes to align their legal documents with their identity.^[5] Public access to these records can result in nonconsensual disclosure of a person’s transgender status, exposing them to discrimination in employment, housing, and healthcare, as well as targeted harassment or violence.^[6] Moreover, deadnaming is an inherent risk itself. “Deadnaming” refers to calling a transgender person by their previous name, particularly when it does not correspond to the person’s gender identity. Intentional and malicious deadnaming is often done to invalidate or undermine a person’s gender identity. It can also be done, or threatened, as a means of exposing a person to danger. These actions can cause psychological distress and harm to the target of deadnaming, as well as expose people to danger.^[7]

The same concerns apply with equal force to survivors of intimate partner violence, who may seek name changes as part of efforts to secure safety and independence. Publicly accessible filings may reveal identifying information that could enable an abuser to locate them. In these circumstances, the absence of categorical confidentiality undermines the very purpose of judicial relief.

These harms are not distributed evenly. Individuals at the intersection of multiple forms of marginalization face heightened risks of discrimination and violence. A system that conditions legal recognition on public exposure disproportionately burdens those communities.

IV.  THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS ARBITRARY AND INEQUITABLE

The lack of categorical confidentiality also produces arbitrary and unjustifiable disparities. Most name changes in New York, such as those associated with marriage, divorce, adoption, or citizenship, are treated as categorically private.^[8] Individuals who must rely on the courts are singled out for a different and more dangerous regime of disclosure.

That distinction is not grounded in any principled difference in the nature of the underlying interest. To the contrary, those who must petition the court are often the individuals with the greatest need for confidentiality. Yet under the current framework, they are the least likely to receive it reliably.

Even within the court system, outcomes vary.^[9] Because sealing is discretionary and occurs after filing, similarly situated applicants may experience different levels of exposure depending on timing, judicial practice, or whether they are represented by counsel. Pro se litigants, who comprise a substantial portion of name change applicants, are particularly disadvantaged, as they may lack the knowledge or resources to navigate sealing procedures or mitigate disclosure once it occurs.

V.  RULEMAKING ALONE CANNOT REMEDY THESE STRUCTURAL DEFECTS

The Office of Court Administration has taken meaningful steps to address these issues through rulemaking, including by expanding automatic sealing practices for name change and sex designation change proceedings.^[10] Those reforms represent important progress toward protecting the privacy of individuals seeking relief through the courts. But they remain incomplete.

Court rules operate within the confines of court procedure and do not establish a uniform statutory default of confidentiality.^[11] Nor do they fully define the obligations of clerks and records custodians across filing systems, particularly in an environment where electronic access to court records is widespread and rapidly evolving.^[12] As a result, confidentiality protections remain contingent and uneven, rather than comprehensive and guaranteed.

The limitations of rulemaking are particularly evident with respect to previously filed cases.^[13] Even where courts have expanded sealing practices, individuals whose records were publicly accessible prior to those reforms may remain exposed. The absence of a comprehensive mechanism to remove or restrict access to those records leaves many individuals without meaningful relief, particularly where sensitive information has already been captured or disseminated through electronic systems.

For these reasons, while recent rulemaking reflects an important recognition of the problem, it cannot fully resolve the structural deficiencies in the current framework.

VI.  LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A MEANINGFUL DEFAULT OF PRIVACY

A.3925 (AM Lavine) / S.10600 (Sen. Bottcher) addresses these deficiencies by changing the default. The bill provides that records relating to name change and sex designation change proceedings shall not be made available for public inspection at any time and requires that such records be treated as confidential immediately upon filing. It further directs clerks and records custodians to ensure that identifying information is not accessible through electronic databases and establishes a process to remove previously disclosed records from public access.

By establishing categorical confidentiality as a matter of law and requiring that records be withheld from public inspection at the point of filing, the bill ensures that sensitive information is not disclosed in the first instance. This approach reflects the realities of modern information systems, in which disclosure cannot be meaningfully undone once it occurs. It also aligns court-based name and sex designation changes with other legal mechanisms that already protect confidentiality.^[14]

The bill also addresses the consequences of past disclosure. By requiring the removal of previously accessible records from public view and providing a mechanism for affected individuals to seek relief, it offers a meaningful remedy to those who have already been exposed under prior practices.

In addition, the bill promotes consistency and fairness in the administration of justice. A uniform rule eliminates the disparities inherent in discretionary sealing and ensures that all applicants receive the same level of protection, regardless of resources or representation. It also reduces administrative burdens on courts by removing the need for case-by-case determinations and post hoc corrective measures.

More fundamentally, the bill recognizes that privacy protections must operate at the point of collection. In a digital environment defined by aggregation, indexing, and permanence, any regime that tolerates initial disclosure will fail to protect the interests it is designed to serve.

VII.     CONCLUSION

A.3925/S.10600 responds to a clear and urgent gap in New York law. The current framework does not merely risk disclosure—it produces it. By ensuring that name-change and sex-designation change proceedings are categorically private, the bill restores control to individuals seeking legal recognition, protects against foreseeable harms, and aligns the law with the realities of modern information systems.

For these reasons, the New York City Bar Association supports this legislation and urges its passage.

LGBTQ+ Rights Committee
Hayley Gorenberg, Co-Chair
Jared Trujillo, Co-Chair

Civil Rights Committee|
Evan Henley, Co-Chair

Sex & Law Committee
Natalie Birnbaum, Co-Chair
Susan Cersovsky, Co-Chair

July 2026