Matter of Plattsburgh v. City of Plattsburgh

9 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Gordon v. Monticello

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

    Petitioners thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Board's actions were in violation of the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art 7). Ultimately, after reviewing the parties' respective submissions, Supreme Court granted petitioners' application, and this appeal by respondents followed. As petitioners seek both declaratory and injunctive relief, this matter should not have been commenced as a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and we exercise our authority to convert this proceeding into a declaratory judgment action (see, Matter of Plattsburgh Publ. Co. v. City of Plattsburgh, 185 A.D.2d 518, 519). Respondents initially contend that the reason articulated by the Board for entering into executive session on February 17, 1993 was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Public Officers Law § 105.

  2. Karam v. Utica City Sch. Dist.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50407 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Nor could he. The Board's deliberations in executive session involved sensitive personnel matters and multiple workplace complaints relating to Karam, which Public Officers Law § 105(1)(f) explicitly states may be addressed in executive session (Plattsburgh Pub. Co. v City of Plattsburgh, 185 A.D.2d 518, 519 [3d Dept 1993]). Instead, Karam asserts in his Petition that judicial annulment is necessary because the Board violated certain technical portions of the Open Meetings Law by: (1) "holding private meetings with a quorum of members" in advance of the Board meeting (first cause of action); (2) calling a special meeting "without providing notice one week in advance" (third cause of action); and (3) "entering executive session[s] without a valid reason being provided to the public" (

  3. Gordon v. Vil. of Monticello

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

    The Appellate Division reversed that award as a matter of law, holding that in order for there to be an award of attorneys' fees under the statute, there must be an "indication in the record that [defendant] repeatedly has acted in violation of the Open Meetings Law or that its actions were undertaken in bad faith" ( 207 A.D.2d, at 59 [emphasis added]). In so doing, the Appellate Division extended its dictum in Matter of Plattsburgh Publ. Co. v City of Plattsburgh ( 185 A.D.2d 518, 520) and erroneously engrafted an additional legal requirement onto the statute. The Open Meetings Law, passed in 1976 after the crisis of confidence in American politics occasioned by Watergate, was intended — as its very name suggests — to open the decision-making process of elected officials to the public while at the same time protecting the ability of the government to carry out its responsibilities ( Sciolino v Ryan, 81 A.D.2d 475, 477; Matter of Orange County Publs. v Council of City of Newburgh, 60 A.D.2d 409, 418, affd 45 N.Y.2d 947; see also, Communications Sys. v Federal Communications Commn., 595 F.2d 797, 800 [interpreting 5 U.S.C. § 552b]).

  4. Cutler v. Town of Mamakating

    137 A.D.3d 1373 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 5 times

    Petitioner alternatively argues that because the closed executive session in which the unrecorded vote to abolish his position was taken violated the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law art. 7), Supreme Court had good cause to void the Town Board's action. While a discussion of the abolishment of petitioner's specific position for reasons of economy and efficiency was a proper subject of an executive session (see Matter of Plattsburgh Publ. Co., Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v. City of Plattsburgh, 185 A.D.2d 518, 518–519, 586 N.Y.S.2d 346 1992 ), we agree with petitioner that the Town Board violated the Open Meetings Law by inadequately describing the purpose for entering into the executive session as, simply, “personnel issues” (see Public Officers Law § 1051[f]; Matter of Gordon v. Village of Monticello, 207 A.D.2d 55, 57–58, 620 N.Y.S.2d 573 1994, mod on other grounds 87 N.Y.2d 124, 637 N.Y.S.2d 961, 661 N.E.2d 691 1995 ). We also agree with petitioner that it was improper for the Town Board to vote on its decision without recording the vote in the executive session minutes, even though it did not “appropriate public moneys” (Public Officers Law § 1051; see Public Officers Law § 1062; Matter of Specht v. Town of Cornwall, 13 A.D.3d 380, 381, 786 N.Y.S.2d 546 2004; Town of Moriah v. Cole–Layer–Trumble Co., 200 A.D.2d 879, 881, 606 N.Y.S.2d 822 1994 ).

  5. In re Kline Sons

    235 A.D.2d 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 16 times
    Holding confidentiality of executive sessions of county board specifically authorized by Open Meetings Law, thereby placing records of those sessions within Freedom of Information Law's (FOIL) exemption of records "specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute"

    of Public Officers Law §§ 105 and 106 ( cf., Matter of Washington Post Co. v New York State Ins. Dept., 61 NY2d 557). We find it significant that petitioner does not contend that any of the four sessions at issue was conducted in violation of the Open Meetings Law; rather, it attempts to access the tape recordings of these sessions as public records. It makes little sense to permit governmental bodies to meet in private under clearly defined circumstances only to subsequently allow the minutes of those private meetings to be publicly accessed under FOIL. Only in the event that action is taken by a formal vote at an executive session do both FOIL and the Open Meetings Law require a public record of the manner in which each Board member voted ( see, Smithson v Ilion Hous. Auth., 130 AD2d 965, 967, affd 72 NY2d 1034). It is uncontradicted that there was no action taken by a formal vote at the subject meetings ( see, Matter of Roberts v Town Bd., 207 AD2d 404, 405, lv denied 84 NY2d 811; Matter of Plattsburg Publ. Co. v City of Plattsburg, 185 AD2d 518, 519). In our view, memorialized discussions at duly convened executive sessions, which do not result in a formal vote, whether consisting of privileged attorney-client communications or otherwise ( see, Public Officers Law § 105), are not the type of governmental records to which the public has to be given access. While the purpose of FOIL is to lift "the cloak of secrecy or confidentiality" (Public Officers Law § 84) from governmental records which are part of the governmental process, where, as here, confidentiality has been specifically sanctioned by Public Officers Law §§ 105 and 106, the records at issue fall within the exemption of Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a) and are to be shielded from public disclosure.

  6. Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc. v. Solid Waste & Recycling Committee of the Warren County Board of Supervisors

    195 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    Citing the exception contained in Public Officers Law § 105 (1) (h), respondents took the position that the topic to be considered at the executive session involved the proposed lease of real property. Before a public meeting may be closed pursuant to the exception relied upon by respondents, however, "it must first be shown that publicity would substantially affect the value of the property" (Matter of Oneonta Star Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v. Board of Trustees, 66 A.D.2d 51, 54). Although respondents claim that publicity would have affected the value of the real property discussed at the meeting, there is no evidence in the record to support such a claim, which is pure speculation. We conclude, therefore, that Supreme Court correctly declared that closure of the meeting at issue violated the Open Meetings Law. The judgment should be modified, however, to convert the CPLR article 78 proceeding into a declaratory judgment action (see, Matter of Plattsburgh Publ. Co., Div of Ottaway Newspapers v. City of Plattsburgh, 185 A.D.2d 518). Weiss, P.J., Mercure and Mahoney, JJ., concur.

  7. Sch. Transparency Org. for Parents v. Harpursville Cent. Sch. Dist.

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25326 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

    So, even if some kind of informal vote was taken in executive session as alleged by petitioners, a formal vote was still taken and validated in the open meeting.The Third Department has found that the absence of minutes of an executive session in which no formal vote was taken, but rather in which the vote was taken in an open meeting does not even amount to a violation (Matter of Plattsburgh Publ., Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v City of Plattsburgh, 185 AD2d 518 [3d Dept 1992]). Finally, petitioners appear to argue they were entitled to discuss and debate any and all decisions with board members.

  8. Sch. Transparency Org. for Parents v. Harpursville Cent. Sch. Dist.

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25326 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

    The Third Department has found that the absence of minutes of an executive session in which no formal vote was taken, but rather in which the vote was taken in an open meeting does not even amount to a violation (Matter of Plattsburgh Publ., Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v. City of Plattsburgh, 185 A.D.2d 518, 586 N.Y.S.2d 346 [3d Dept.1992] ). Finally, petitioners appear to argue they were entitled to discuss and debate any and all decisions with board members.

  9. Sch. Transparency Org. for Parents v. Harpursville Cent. Sch. Dist.

    50 Misc. 3d 478 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    The Third Department has found that the absence of minutes of an executive session in which no formal vote was taken, but rather in which the vote was taken in an open meeting does not even amount to a violation (Matter of Plattsburgh Publ., Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v. City of Plattsburgh, 185 A.D.2d 518, 586 N.Y.S.2d 346 [3d Dept.1992] ). Finally, petitioners appear to argue they were entitled to discuss and debate any and all decisions with board members.