Majority
Defendants’ conduct in producing and televising a show depicting the medical care provided at defendant hospital that included a pixilated image of plaintiffs’ decedent, who was not identified, was not so extreme and outrageous as to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115 , 121 [1993]; Phillips v New York Daily News, 111 AD3d 420 , 421 [1st Dept 2013]).
Nor can plaintiffs maintain an action against defendant doctor or defendant hospital for breach of the duty not to disclose personal information, since no such information regarding plaintiffs’ decedent was disclosed (cf. Randi A. J. v Long Is. Surgi-Center, 46 AD3d 74 [2d Dept 2007]).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ additional arguments.
Concur — Friedman, J.P, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30116 (U).]
Cases cited
- Howell v. New York Post Co. 81 NY2d 115 at 121 p. 488
- Randi A.J. v. Long Island Surgi-Center 46 AD3d 74 p. 488