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
THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).
SILENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WAIVER; HERE THE NONPARTY DID NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE THE COMMON INTEREST, WORK PRODUCT OR TRIAL PREPARATION PRIVILEGES WITH RESPECT TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS (FIRST DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
42 USC 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED.
THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS FROM BRINGING A JUDICIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; THE AVAILABLE CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES WERE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.
A Misrepresentation Which Is the Subject of a Provision in a Contract May Be the Basis for a Distinct Fraud Cause of Action Which Is Not Duplicative of the Breach of Contract Cause of Action
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE (ROSNER) WHICH WERE NOT DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ROSNER’S EMPLOYMENT OR TO FURTHER TOMS’ BUSINESS (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...