New York Court Allows Pseudonymity in Revenge Porn Case Despite Delayed Request

In a recent legal decision, Queens County, New York Judge Scott Dunn allowed a defendant to use a pseudonym in a high-stakes case involving allegations of revenge porn and intimate image dissemination, despite the defendant’s two-year delay in requesting anonymity.

The case, P.F. v. M.B., centers on a complex dispute between two parties who were allegedly involved in a serious romantic relationship while one defendant, M.B., was married to another individual, Calcetas. The plaintiff, P.F., accused M.B. and others of disseminating intimate photographs and videos of her without consent to her mother, business associates, and a third party. The defendants also allegedly used social media and emails to threaten and harass the plaintiff, causing significant emotional and reputational harm.

P.F. initially sought and obtained pseudonymity in August 2023, but M.B. was named in the filings throughout the proceedings. In April 2025, M.B. filed counterclaims alleging unlawful disclosure of his intimate images and battery through non-consensual drugging. By July 2025, M.B. moved to be pseudonymized in future filings, arguing that continued use of his name would exacerbate his emotional distress and lead to further humiliation.

Court Balances Privacy and Public Access

The court granted M.B.’s request for pseudonymity, citing several key factors:

• Nature of the allegations: The court found that the allegations involved “the utmost intimacy” and were directly related to revenge porn, a highly sensitive issue.
• Public interest: The court determined that the public’s interest in open access to proceedings would not be negatively affected, as the pseudonymity would only apply to future filings.
• Defendant’s emotional harm: M.B. submitted an affidavit detailing the severe emotional toll the case had taken on him, including nightmares, loss of sleep, and the need for therapy. He argued that continued use of his name would increase the risk of further humiliation and revictimization.
• Limited scope of relief: M.B. clarified that he was not seeking retroactive pseudonymity but only to proceed anonymously moving forward, which the court found persuasive.

“The content of the allegations here involving Defendant M.B. is of the utmost intimacy and ‘revenge porn.’ … While it is true that Defendant M.B. has participated in this public action for more than two years before seeking a pseudonym, such fact does not preclude a finding that Defendant M.B. would suffer additional or exacerbated physical and mental injuries if required to continue litigating this action without a pseudonym.” — Queens County Judge Scott Dunn

The court’s decision underscores the delicate balance between an individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to access court records, particularly in cases involving deeply personal and sensitive matters.