Acquittees adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity are not entitled by statute to have their court records sealed. The not guilty verdict is not a termination in favor of the defendant. Such persons can, however, request the court to seal any records covered by the doctor/patient or psychiatrist/patient privilege.

The acquittee killed his wife and three children in February 1978. He was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The court sealed the record pursuant to CPL 160.50, which stated in part that all criminal actions which terminate in favor of the accused are to be sealed.

Nearly 20 years later, the acquittee had remarried and embarked upon a new life. His past resurfaced when an author retained by Random House sought and was denied access to the acquittee's court records. The frustrated author requested the court to unseal the record. Pursuant to the court's instruction, he provided notice of the petition to the acquittee, who promptly opposed the unsealing.

The court reiterated its former position that non-parties to a lawsuit had standing to challenge the sealing order on common law or First Amendment grounds. Next, the court pointed out that the purpose of the sealing statute was to prevent the stigma of an unsustained accusation. Insanity acquittees are persons who committed what would normally be a crime deserving of punishment. They are not persons whose criminal acts have been terminated "favorably", or whose charges were unfounded, frivolous or unproven.

The 1978 court record was improperly sealed and the author was entitled to access it, subject to any protective orders issued at the request of the acquittee.