Matter of Orange Cty. Pub. v. Cty. of Orange

5 Citing cases

  1. Gordon v. Vil. of Monticello

    87 N.Y.2d 124 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 67 times

    . However, where — as here — the court finds that defendants' actions "took place * * * in such a manner as to circumvent the Open Meetings Law quorum requirement" ( see, Public Officers Law 105), that defendants later "stretched credulity" in describing their conduct to the court, that there was good cause shown to void the actions taken (Public Officers Law § 107), and that there had been "obvious prejudice" to plaintiffs as a result of defendants' intentional and deceitful conduct, an award of fees is justified ( Matter of Orange County Publs., 120 A.D.2d 596, 597, supra). This, after all, is not a case where the defendants merely failed to properly post notice of a public meeting ( see, e.g., Matter of Britt v County of Niagara, 82 A.D.2d 65).

  2. Matter of Gordon v. Monticello

    207 A.D.2d 55 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 9 times

    In the event such a session is convened, the public body must identify the subject matter to be discussed (see, Public Officers Law § 105), and it is apparent that this must be accomplished with some degree of particularity, i.e., merely reciting the statutory language is insufficient (see, Daily Gazette Co. v. Town Bd., 111 Misc.2d 303, 304-305). Additionally, the topics discussed during the executive session must remain within the exceptions enumerated in the statute (see generally, Matter of Plattsburgh Publ. Co. v. City of Plattsburgh, 185 A.D.2d 518, supra), and these exceptions, in turn, "`must be narrowly scrutinized, lest the article's clear mandate be thwarted by thinly veiled references to the areas delineated thereunder'" (Weatherwax v. Town of Stony Point, 97 A.D.2d 840, 841, quoting Daily Gazette Co. v. Town Bd., supra, at 304; see, Matter of Orange County Publs. v. County of Orange, 120 A.D.2d 596, lv dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 807). Applying these principles to the matter before us, it is apparent that the Board's stated purpose for entering into executive session, to wit, the discussion of "a personnel issue", does not satisfy the requirements of Public Officers Law § 105 (1) (f).

  3. United Mine Workers of Amer. v. Faerber

    179 W. Va. 77 (W. Va. 1987)   Cited 1 times
    Denying motion to impose damages award for contempt against an executive officer in his personal capacity due to the absence of malice or a willful, knowing disobedience of court order, relying on two cases, Class v. Norton, 505 F.2d 123, 127-28 (2d Cir. 1974);Woolfolk v. Brown, 358 F. Supp. 524, 537 (E.D. Va. 1973) (involving state welfare officials; violation of court orders)

    However, under Hutto, when such an award is made against a public official, he ordinarily is not liable personally to pay the award. The Hutto rationale appears to have general acceptance.E.g., Jackson v. Whitman, 642 F. Supp. 816 (W.D.La. 1986); Thomas v. City of Evanston, 636 F. Supp. 587 (N.D.Ill. 1986); Sebastian v. Texas Dept. of Corrections, 558 F. Supp. 507 (S.D.Tex. 1983); Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 533 F. Supp. 649 (E.D.Pa. 1982); In re Orange County Publications v. County of Orange, 120 A.D.2d 596, 502 N.Y.S.2d 71 (1986); Town of Seymour v. City of Eau Claire, 112 Wis.2d 313, 332 N.W.2d 821 (Wis.App. 1983). The UMWA cites a number of decisions for the proposition that a public official who acts in "bad faith" can be held individually liable for costs and attorney's fees.

  4. Matter of Orange County Pub. v. County of Orange

    68 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. 1986)

    Decided September 9, 1986 Appeal from (2d dept: 120 A.D.2d 596) FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

  5. Matter of Previdi v. Hirsch

    138 Misc. 2d 436 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988)   Cited 6 times

    Accordingly, any actions voted upon by respondents at the March 23 and June 18, 1987 executive sessions with respect to said litigation are voided (Public Officers Law § 107). Petitioner's request for an award of attorney's fees is denied in the exercise of discretion (cf., Matter of Orange County Publs. v County of Orange, 120 A.D.2d 596, 597). The court has considered the parties' remaining contentions and finds them to be without merit.