Village of Great Neck Plaza v. Nassau County Rent Guidelines Board, 69 AD2d 528, 418 NYS2d 796 (2nd Dept. 1979) – County Rent Guidelines Board did not violate the Open Meeting Act during its review of tenancy policies. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v Public Service Commission, 231 AD2d 284, 659 NYS2d 563 (3rd Dept. 1997) – Since the decision concerned OML, the Court rejected the argument that the absence of debate before a vote must necessarily lead to the conclusion that private sessions were held; there is no indication of a quorum in discussions between PSC members and staff; The Court found that there had been substantial public participation at every stage of the proceedings and that even if a violation of the OML were found, there would be no valid ground for invalidity. Malone Parachute Club, Inc. v City of Malone, 197 AD2d 120, 610 NYS2d 686 (3rd Dept. 1994) – A minor case in which it was found that a discussion held in violation of the OML prior to a measure in open session would “no longer” constitute valid grounds for invalidity of the action. Oshry v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Lawrence, 276 AD2d 491, 713 NYS2d 564 (2nd Dept. 2000) – Found that ZBA “violated the Open Meetings Law.
by not voting in open court when approving the requests for exemption concerned`; The decision was announced “without a vote or discussion by ZBA members.” Even if “a violation of the law on public assemblies alone is not sufficient to invalidate the conclusion of the ZBA… “if, as in the present case, there are other doubts as to the procedures followed in granting the derogations, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion in setting aside the decision as a precautionary measure”. See Cipriano; NYU against whales. A written statement filed in court or an appeal that explains a party`s legal and factual arguments. All shares of ownership of the debtor at the time of bankruptcy. The estate technically becomes the temporary legal owner of all of the debtor`s assets. Parents on Watch v. Education Board of the New Paltz Central School District, Supreme Court, County Ulster, 22. September 1982 – A school board adjourns its public meeting until noon the next day on the condition that the meeting resume later in the day. The Court held that the Open Meeting Act does not require that the calling of a meeting include a proposed agenda and concluded that the second meeting was a “mere continuation” of the meeting called the day before, thus eliminating the need for a separate notice for the next session.
Although the school board violated the Public Assembly Act by not appearing for the executive session by a majority decision of the board, the court decided not to impose sanctions. Becker v. City of Roxbury, Supreme Court, Chemung County, 1. April 1983 – City Council meets in executive session to consider the continuation of the City Guard Post on the basis of a motion to discuss “personnel matters,” reach consensus, and later reach a resolution in public; The Court ruled that the motion did not adequately describe the issue under discussion and that a discussion of abolishing a position should have been discussed publicly; For this and other unrelated reasons, the measures taken were declared null and void and legal costs were awarded. See also Daily Gazette v. Town of Cobleskill. To define a legal term, enter a word or phrase below. Koerner v.
Board of Education, Deer Park Union Free School District, 61 AD2d 796, 401 NYS2d 865 (2nd Dept. 1978) – Weekly planning meetings of the Education Committee are meetings within the meaning of the Open Meeting Act; to the extent that certain matters fall within the scope of section 100 of the Public Employees Act, the board of directors is authorized to hold executive meetings. Jones v. Common Council of the City of Norwich, Supreme Court, County of Chenango, August 13, 1980 – The discussion of real property acquisition at the executive session was inappropriate because the council “had no control over the minimum amount that should be offered for the property”; actions taken during the public session to conclude a contractual agreement were declared null and void due to previous violations of the law; committee subject to the law; The Court cited the Committee`s memorandum on amendments to the Open Meetings Act; Taxable costs and expenses were awarded to the applicant. Downtown Press v. NYS Banking Board, 170 Misc.2d 684, 657 NYS2d 275 (1996) – The executive session prior to the meeting was found to be illegal, but that there was a “demonstration of prejudice on the part of. Wound. sets out the important grounds necessary for the action to be set aside. French, which means “on the bench”. All the judges of a court of appeal sit together to hear a case, contrary to the usual decision of the three-judge chambers.
In the Ninth Judicial Circuit, a bench jury consists of 11 randomly selected judges. Hart v. Trumansburg Board of Trustees, 41 AD3d 1025, 838 NYS2d 246 (3rd Dept. 2007) – The case involved an attempt to remove members of the village board of directors under section 36 of the Public Officers Act. Revocation under section 36 is a “drastic remedy” that is “reserved for malicious and corrupt acts in relation to minor breaches of duty, administrative errors and violations of the law.” Here, it was stated that “the alleged misconduct . is essentially that council returns to the public meeting after the executive meeting and does not adequately inform the public of the changed date of a meeting.