Dana v. Oak Park Marina, Inc.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
660 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1997)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Oak Park Marina, Inc. (Oak Park) (defendant) owned and operated a marina on the shore of Lake Ontario in upstate New York. The marina consisted of a business office, restrooms, a changing area, and showers. Oak Park installed a number of video surveillance cameras around the premises for the purpose of detecting theft of marina property. Mary Lynn Dana (plaintiff), a patron who used the marina’s ladies changing room and restroom, learned that Oak Park had videotaped her and approximately 150 to 200 other female patrons and guests in various stages of undress without their knowledge or consent. Subsequently, Dana claimed that Oak Park employees viewed the tapes and displayed the tapes to other people. Dana filed a multi-count suit on behalf of herself and other female patrons similarly situated against Oak Park and the company’s individual owners and operators (defendants). Dana asserted causes of action including sex discrimination and reckless infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss Dana's complaint, arguing, among other things, that New York does not recognize a cause of action for reckless infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed Dana's sex-discrimination claim but denied the remainder of the defendants' motion. The defendants appealed to the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Balio, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
