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
PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE INSURER.
Criteria for a Valid Warrantless Search of a Home Pursuant to the Emergency Exception Described—The Court Noted that One of the Criteria, i.e., that the Police Not Be Primarily Motivated by Intent to Arrest and Seize Evidence, No Longer Applies to Claims Under the US Constitution and May Only Apply to Claims Under the New York Constitution
Verdict Finding Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Injury Set Aside as Against the Weight of the Evidence—Criteria Explained
THE GRAND LARCENY TOOK PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND IS NOT A “RESULT OFFENSE;” THEREFORE NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS REQUIRED; HERE THE BANK FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT SENT RPAPL 1304 NOTICES ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY TO DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
AN INFORMAL JUDICIAL ADMISSTION BY PLAINTIFF BANK’S FORMER COUNSEL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LOAN HAD BEEN MODIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ARRESTING OFFICER OBSERVED SOME INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS BY THE DEFENDANT AT A LOCATION KNOWN FOR DRUG ACTIVITY, THE OFFICER DID NOT SEE ANY PROPERTY OR CURRENCY CHANGE HANDS AND DID NOT FIND ANY DRUGS OR CURRENCY ON THE DEFENDANT OR THE TWO MEN WITH HIM ON THE STREET; THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE HEROIN SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND IN THE POLICE CAR AND DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE HAD “DITCHED” THE DRUGS IN THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW GUARDS, THE DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL WINDOW GUARDS; THEREFORE THE CONDOMINIUM COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER’S FALL FROM THE WINDOW UNDER THE FAILURE-TO-INSTALL THEORY; HOWEVER, THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE CONDOMINIUM’S FAILURE TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF THE CITY’S WINDOW-GUARD REQUIREMENT SURVIVED THE DISMISSAL MOTION (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,...