Prescott v. Newsday, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1989 |
| Citation | 150 A.D.2d 541,541 N.Y.S.2d 501 |
| Parties | , 53 Ed. Law Rep. 1248, 16 Media L. Rep. 1926 Douglas PRESCOTT, etc., Respondent, v. NEWSDAY, INC., Defendant, Sewanhaka Central School District, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier & Dempsey, P.C., Mineola (Anton Piotroski, of counsel), for appellant.
Carlucci & Legum, Mineola (Douglas D. Viviani, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, KOOPER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for negligence and breach of an alleged common-law right to privacy, the defendant Sewanhaka Central School District appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated January 11, 1988, as denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion of the Sewanhaka Central School District to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to state a cause of action is granted.
This action arises out of the publication of a news article by Newsday on November 2, 1983, about an alternative educational program operated by the defendant school district. The plaintiff, 17 years of age at the time the article was published, was one of the students enrolled in the program. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as asserted against Newsday but declined to dismiss the complaint as asserted against the school district on the ground that triable issues of fact existed with regard to the liability of that defendant. The complaint alleges that the school district wrongfully permitted a reporter to enter the plaintiff's classroom and encouraged the plaintiff to speak to the reporter without obtaining his parent's permission.
We find that the Supreme Court erred in denying the school district's motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to state a cause of action. First, as the plaintiff concedes, the complaint is defective on its face since it sets forth only a common-law right to privacy claim, which is not recognized in New York (see, Arrington v. New York Times Co., 55 N.Y.2d 433, 442, 449 N.Y.S.2d 941, 434 N.E.2d 1319). However, the criterion in determining the sufficiency of the pleaded allegation is whether the proponent of the pleading actually has a cause of action, not whether he has properly stated one (see, Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kraut v. City of N.Y.
...see Jiminez v. Shahid, 83 A.D.3d 900, 922 N.Y.S.2d 123; Ruiz v. Griffin, 71 A.D.3d 1112, 1114, 898 N.Y.S.2d 590; Prescott v. Newsday, Inc., 150 A.D.2d 541, 542, 541 N.Y.S.2d 501). Here, the allegations of the complaint itself negated the essential element of proximate cause with regard to t......
- Praver v. Remsen Associates
-
Jiminez v. Shahid
...by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting there from ( see Prescott v. Newsday, Inc., 150 A.D.2d 541, 542, 541 N.Y.S.2d 501). Here, the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege any valid basis for the imposition of a duty of care on behalf......