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
“Detained Sex Offender,” Under Article 10, Applies Equally to Lawfully and Unlawfully Detained Sex Offenders
ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE HOME AND THEREFORE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ARREST WARRANT, THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION BECAUSE THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME WITH CONSENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED THE POLICE DID NOT GET A WARRANT TO DELAY THE ATTACHMENT OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND PROCURE STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROTECT HER FROM SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A FELLOW STUDENT; THE FACT THAT THE STUDENT COULD NOT BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR THE ASSAULT BECAUSE OF HIS AGE DID NOT PRECLUDE REVIVAL OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT; IN OTHER WORDS THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT APPLIES TO REVIVE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION EVEN IF THE UNDERLYING SEXUAL ASSAULT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS CONCERNING WHETHER DEFENDANT BREACHED THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED FACTS; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
FIVE-DAY EXTENSION FOR A RESPONSE TO AN ANSWER SERVED BY MAIL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SENDER’S 60-DAY PERIOD TO MOVE TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST THE DIOCESE; PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A PRIEST WHEN HE WAS 15 TO 16 (SECOND DEPT). ​
Seizure of Evidence from the Pocket of the Defendant After a Pat-Down Search on the Street Not Justified Under the “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to the Warrant Requirement—the Doctrine Does Not Apply to “the Very Evidence Obtained in the Illegal Search”—A Justification for the Search and Seizure Not Relied Upon by the People Below Can Not Be Raised on Appeal
EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER (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 © 2026 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,...