You are here: / / THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN IT CONSULTED...
, , ,

THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN IT CONSULTED WITH ITS ATTORNEY IN A CLOSED SESSION BEFORE DECIDING NOT TO RENEW PLAINTIFF FOOTBALL COACH’S EMPLOYMENT; THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW FOR LEGAL ADVICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff high school football coach was not entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action alleging the school board violated the Open Meetings Law by deciding not to renew plaintiff’s employment after a closed meeting. The Open Meetings Law did not apply to the board’s closed-door consultation with its attorney:

It is well settled that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a] … ). While an executive session may be called to discuss, inter alia, “matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person” (§ 105 [1] [f]), the public body may do so only upon a majority vote of its membership and after “identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered” (§ 105 [1]). However, section 108 (3) clarifies that “[n]othing contained in [the Open Meetings Law] shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to . . . any matter made confidential by federal or state law.” Because “communications made pursuant to an attorney-client relationship are considered confidential under the [CPLR] . . . , communications between a . . . board . . . and its counsel, in which counsel advises the board of the legal issues involved in [a] determination . . . , are exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Law” … .

There is no dispute that, during the closed session … , the Board and the District superintendent met with the District’s counsel seeking legal advice “regarding the [p]laintiff’s legal employment status, employment rights, [and] the process for appointing school employees.” We thus agree with defendants that the attorney-client exemption applies and that the court erred in determining that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Law … . Sindoni v Board of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 00772, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ALLEGED HE STRUCK A FALLEN SIGNPOST WHICH WAS OBSTRUCTING THE SIDEWALK; THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TOWN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE REPAIR OF TOWN SIGNS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS OFTEN ABSENT FROM SCHOOL WARRANTED A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).
CLAIMANTS’ APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
NON-RESPONDENT FATHER’S APPEAL OF THE PLACEMENT OF HIS CHILDREN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES WAS NOT MOOT; THE CHILDREN HAD BEEN PLACED WITH RELATIVES; PLACEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT, AS OPPOSED TO WITH RELATIVES, TRIGGERS THE POSSIBLE FUTURE TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE LEVEL-THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS NOT MANDATORY AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; ON REMAND WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ARE REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT SAW THE VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RAN THE STOP SIGN AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TOO FAST TO STOP; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
WHILE WORKING ON A SIGN AT EYE LEVEL PLAINTIFF SLIPPED OFF A LANDSCAPING ROCK WHICH HE DID NOT NEED TO STAND ON TO DO THE WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT (FOURTH 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

PETITIONER-MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO HAVE THE MALTREATMENT FINDING DEEMED... CLAIMANTS’ APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY...