This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is the publisher of the Watertown Daily Times. P sought access to the disciplinary hearing involving a dentist who was charged with misconduct. D refused this request, stating that it was the policy of the Board of Regents to conduct closed professional disciplinary hearings unless the accused professional specifically requested an open hearing. P commenced this article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment enjoining enforcement of this policy and declaring professional disciplinary hearings presumptively open to the press and public. The trial court dismissed, The Supreme Court held that professional disciplinary hearings are not presumptively open. It reasoned that the general policy favoring open administrative hearings did not apply in the disciplinary context where different considerations favor confidentiality. Supreme Court also concluded there was no constitutional right of public access to such hearings. The Appellate Division affirmed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.