Can a plaintiff advance an invasion-of-privacy claim based on a hidden camera, without offering proof of an actual recording, using the “intrusion upon seclusion” argument?

In Friedman v. Martineza civil case over a janitor planting a secret camera in an office building women’s bathroom, the state Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and reinstated a summary judgment dismissal against one group of plaintiffs, holding that although they had to show some proof that they were in the restroom or vicinity, they did not have to show proof of being recorded.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]