Finger v. Omni Publications International
New York Court of Appeals
77 N.Y.2d 138 (1990)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Omni Publications International, Ltd. (Omni) (defendant) ran an article in its magazine titled “Caffeine and Fast Sperm.” The article discussed medical research indicating that in vitro fertilization success rates were potentially higher if the sperm were exposed to high concentrations of caffeine. The article also featured a photograph of Joseph and Ida Finger (plaintiffs) surrounded by their six children. Under the photograph, the article explained the results of the study; it did so, however, without naming the Fingers or expressly stating that their children were conceived using in vitro fertilization. In fact, the Fingers never used in vitro fertilization to conceive, nor did they participate in the medical study that was the subject of the Omni article. The only connection between the subject of the study and the Fingers was the article itself. In response, the Fingers sued Omni for invasion of privacy under §§ 50 and 51 of the New York State Civil Rights Law. Omni moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the photograph was not used for trade or advertising and was instead newsworthy as a matter of public interest. The trial court granted Omni’s motion, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed. The Fingers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alexander, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
