Nomi I. Lowy

Ms. Lowy focuses her practice on First Amendment and media issues. She serves as Co-General Counsel to, and lobbyist for, the New Jersey Press Association and works closely with various news organizations and newspapers on a variety of legal issues affecting the media. She has been involved in numerous cases in which the media has intervened as amicus in significant matters before the New Jersey Supreme Court and Appellate Division. As part of her work for the Press Association, Ms. Lowy reviews bills introduced by the New Jersey Legislature, to identify those affecting the media, and makes recommendations to the Press Association on positions to be taken with regard to such proposed legislation. She routinely drafts position papers to be submitted to legislative committees considering bills affecting the media, meets with legislators on such bills, and has testified before the Legislature regarding same. Also as part of her work for the Press Association, Ms. Lowy receives and responds to hotline inquiries from Press Association members on issues relating to, among others: access to public records; open public meetings; access to courts; court procedures; law enforcement procedures; defamation; legal newspaper qualifications; public notices and legal advertising; invasion of privacy; New Jersey Shield Law; and electronic devices in the courtroom.

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Ms. Lowy was involved in, among others, the following cases before the New Jersey Supreme Court in which the New Jersey Press Association intervened as amicus:

• Petro-Lubricant Testing Labs, Inc. v. Adelman, 233 N.J. 236 (2018)
• Paff v. Galloway Tp., 229 N.J. 340 (2017)
• Ginsberg v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 227 N.J. 7 (2016)
• Nuwave Inv. Corp. v. Hyman Beck & Co., Inc., 221 N.J. 495 (2015)
• North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst, et al. (2017): This case dealt with access to the names of the officers involved in a fatal shooting and copies of the Use of Force Reports (UFRs), dash-cam videos, activity logs, various investigative reports, and other related items. The court held, in relevant part, that because UFRs are required by an Attorney General Directive to be made, maintained, or kept on file, they fall outside of the “criminal investigatory exemption” contained in OPRA. This decision is a major victory for media entities, as it stands for the proposition that records that are required to be made, maintained, or kept on file by an Attorney General Directive, Guideline, or Policy fall outside of the “criminal investigatory exemption” and must be disclosed unless they fall within another exemption from access under OPRA.
• WJA v. DA, 210 N.J. 229 (2012): The New Jersey Supreme Court held that presumed damages continue to play a role in New Jersey’s defamation jurisprudence in private plaintiff cases that do not involve matters of public concern. Where a plaintiff does not proffer any evidence of actual damage to reputation, the doctrine of presumed damages permits him/her to survive a motion for summary judgment and to obtain nominal damages if successful at trial. The court provided, however, that in order to receive compensatory damages, a plaintiff must prove actual harm to his or her reputation.
• Durando v. The Nutley Sun, 209 N.J. 235 (2012): The New Jersey Supreme Court confirmed that – absent clear and convincing evidence of actual malice – an admittedly incorrect “teaser headline” that refers readers to an accurate headline and story cannot be the basis of a defamation claim where a public figure or matter of public concern is at issue. By strictly adhering to this actual malice standard, the court has reaffirmed the commitment of the state of New Jersey to protect speech regarding public figures and public matters, even erroneous speech, from the expense and chill of protracted litigation, by disposition of lawsuits at the summary judgment stage.
• Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group et al., 201 N.J. 500 (2010): The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the fair report privilege attaches to first filed pleadings. This decision means that as long as a news story “fully, fairly and accurately” reports on the contents of a first filed court pleading, such as a complaint, there is an absolute privilege afforded to the newspaper/reporter for that report against suits for defamation – regardless of whether the reporter believed the contents of the pleading to be true or false.

Ms. Lowy was involved in the redistricting arena at the congressional, legislative, and local levels. She has lectured and provided guidance and legal advice to legislators, commissioners, and others involved in the redistricting process after the 2000 decennial census. Ms. Lowy successfully argued the matter of Steelman v. Legislative Apportionment Commission on behalf of the Apportionment Commission at the trial level – a decision that was ultimately upheld by the Appellate Division of New Jersey and upon which the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied certification (176 N.J. 71 (2003)). Ms. Lowy co-authored an article on congressional redistricting, which was published by the Seton Hall Law Review.

In addition to practicing in the areas of First Amendment and media law, Ms. Lowy has represented corporate and governmental entities in complex commercial and construction litigation, as well as individual clients in other areas of litigation. She has extensive trial experience and has practiced in federal and state courts in New Jersey, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

Representative Cases

North Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. Tp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (2017)

W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229 (2012)

Durando v. Nutley Sun, 209 N.J. 235 (2012)

G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275 (2011)

Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group Inc., 201 N.J. 500 (2010)

Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469 (2008)

In re Venezia, 191 N.J. 259 (N.J. 2007)