You are here: / / PETITIONERS, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE, HAD STANDING...
,

PETITIONERS, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VILLAGE BOARD’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, determined petitioners, as members of the public and residents of the Village of Mamaroneck, had standing to challenge an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Law. Petitioners alleged the Village Board did not provide proper notice of the meeting, improperly entered a closed executive session and failed to accurately record the minutes of the meeting:

The purpose of the Open Meetings Law and the intent of the Legislature in enacting that law dictate that the harm or injury is the alleged unlawful exclusion of the public from a municipal meeting. The Open Meetings Law plainly confers upon the public the right to attend certain meetings of public bodies (see Public Officers Law § 100). Consistent therewith, the harm or injury of being excluded from municipal meetings that should be open to the public is sufficient to establish standing in cases based upon alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law … . If the analysis and determination of the Supreme Court were allowed to stand, a petitioner/plaintiff would have to demonstrate an additional personal damage or injury to his or her civil, personal, or property rights in order to assert a violation of the Open Meetings Law. This would, in effect, interject a counterintuitive restriction upon the general citizenry’s access and participatory freedoms to attend certain meetings of a public body. Such a requirement or condition would undermine, erode, and emasculate the stated objective of this statute, which was designed to benefit the citizens of this state and the general commonweal, assure the public’s right to be informed, and prevent secrecy by governmental bodies. Matter of McCrory v Village of Mamaroneck Bd. of Trustees, 2020 NY Slip Op 00864, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

You might also like
ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION OR A MALICIOUS OR TORTIOUS ACT, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AS AGENTS OF THE CLIENTS AND ALLEGEDLY ADVISING THEIR CLIENTS TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFFS (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND CONTROL TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD IN THIS LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Pursuant to the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor, Seller of Home Was Not Obligated to Disclose Information About the Possibility of the Incursion of Golf Balls from the Neighboring Golf Course
ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IT WAS REQUIRED TO VACATE THE CONVICTION; DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE REJECTED A PLEA OFFER WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO LIFE IN PRISON AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AFTER TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AFTER FINDING DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SECOND DEPT).
Warrantless Entry Into Defendant’s Backyard Constituted a Search/Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in His Backyard
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
FORMER SISTERS-IN-LAW WHO LIVED ONE MILE APART AND SAW EACH OTHER FREQUENTLY FOR 30 YEARS HAD AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WHICH SUPPORTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR... ALTHOUGH THE LEASE DID NOT IMPOSE A DUTY ON THE TENANT TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK,...