Leff v. Our Lady of Mercy Academy
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
150 A.D.3d 1239 (2017)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
E.L. (plaintiff) was a high-school student at Our Lady of Mercy Academy (academy) (defendant). An unknown person widely circulated an intimate photograph of E.L. that showed a naked portion of her body to the academy’s students and parents and identified E.L. as the subject of the photograph. As a result of the mass dissemination of the photograph, E.L. allegedly had to leave the academy to avoid expulsion and suffered extreme emotional distress. Through her mother (plaintiff), E.L. filed a petition pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 3102(c) for presuit discovery from the academy regarding the names of anyone who sent the photograph to the school or who identified E.L. in the photograph. E.L. and her mother did not request any other information, such as material regarding the academy’s investigation of the matter. E.L. and her mother’s petition stated their intent to pursue a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress against the person or persons responsible for disseminating the photograph and identifying E.L. The academy opposed the petition, claiming that E.L. and her mother did not identify a viable cause of action. The supreme court ordered the academy to provide E.L. and her mother with the relevant information. The academy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
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.