You are here: / / MEETINGS OF NYC SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS...

MEETINGS OF NYC SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the exclusion of a retired teacher from meetings of New York City School Leadership Teams (SLT’s} violated the Open Meetings Law:

By regulation, respondent New York City Department of Education (DOE) has implemented this mandate through the establishment of SLTs in every school … . SLTs have between 10 and 17 members, made up of school parents, teachers, staff, and administrators, and may also include “representatives of Community Based Organizations” … . The school principal, president of the parent association, and chapter leader of the teachers’ union must be members. At least two student members are also required for each high school … . SLTs must meet at least once a month “at a time that is convenient for the parent representatives” … . Notice of this meeting must be provided in a manner “consistent with the open meetings law” … . * * *

As the IAS court properly found … SLTs qualify as a public body performing governmental functions, and, therefore, are subject to the Open Meetings Law. Matter of Thomas v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2016 NY Slip Op 06989, 1st Dept 10-25-16

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (MEETINGS OF NYC SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW)/SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS (MEETINGS OF NYC SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW)/OPEN MEETINGS LAW (MEETINGS OF NYC SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW)

You might also like
7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY TERMINATED DEFENDANT’S SELF-REPRESENTATION DURING THE TRIAL BASED ON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECLINED TO EXCUSE A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, SAID HE DID NOT WANT TO CONTINUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM A MATIERAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE DISCUSSED HIS MENTAL CONDITION WITH COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
PURCHASER OF UNSOLD SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE BOUND BY A STIPULATION TO WHICH PURCHASER WAS NOT A PARTY; STIPULATION RESTRICTED THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS WHO COULD BE ELECTED BY HOLDERS OF UNSOLD SHARES.
RESPONDENT FELL USING A WALKER TO GET OFF A BUS, HER INJURY RESULTED FROM USE OR OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROPERLY AWARDED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION THE A-FRAME LADDER SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, NOTWITHSTANDING DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S OPINION THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT). ​
STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).
Questions of Fact Re: Whether School Owed Duty of Care to Student Struck by a Car While Playing Tag Five Minutes Before School Began and Whether a Breach of that Duty Proximately Caused the Injury
APPELLANT, 16, IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENY PROCEEDING, WAS BEING INTERROGATED ABOUT A ROBBERY WHEN HE DRANK WATER FROM A DISPOSABLE CUP; THE INTERROGATING OFFICER SENT THE CUP FOR DNA ANALYSIS; THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATORY PURPOSE FOR THE DNA COLLECTION; APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS... FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, REVERSAL REQUIR...