Howell v. New York Post Co. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A psychiatric patient was photographed without consent for a newsworthy story. The court held that because the publication was legally privileged as “newsworthy,” it could not support claims for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and the newsgathering method was not outrageous enough for IIED.
Legal Significance: Establishes that legally privileged conduct, such as publishing a newsworthy photograph, cannot form the basis for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in New York, effectively preventing IIED from being used to circumvent limitations on other torts like invasion of privacy.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Pamela Howell was a patient at a private psychiatric facility. A New York Post photographer trespassed onto the facility’s grounds and, using a telephoto lens, photographed Howell walking with another patient, Hedda Nussbaum. Nussbaum’s case was a matter of intense public interest following the death of her “adoptive” daughter. The Post published the photograph on its front page alongside an article about Nussbaum’s recovery. Although Howell was not named, her face was clearly visible. Howell sued the Post for, among other things, invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), alleging the publication revealed her confidential psychiatric treatment and caused severe emotional distress.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a plaintiff recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the publication of her photograph when the publication is legally privileged under the newsworthiness exception to New York’s statutory right to privacy?
No. The publication of the photograph was privileged as newsworthy and therefore Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqui
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can a plaintiff recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the publication of her photograph when the publication is legally privileged under the newsworthiness exception to New York’s statutory right to privacy?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the "newsworthiness" exception in New York's privacy law and, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
Legal Rule
In New York, the right to privacy is governed exclusively by Civil Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id e
Legal Analysis
The court first addressed the statutory invasion of privacy claim. It affirmed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipis
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- NY’s statutory right to privacy is not violated by publishing a