Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
New York University v. Whalengreen2 sentences2023A court has "the [*2]power, in its discretion, upon good cause shown," to void any action taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law § 107 [1]; see Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen , 46 NY2d 734, 735 [1978]), but "[a]n unintentional failure to fully comply with the notice provisions . . . shall not alone be grounds for invalidating any action taken at a meeting of a public body" (§ 107 [1]; see Matter of Fichera v New York State Dept. of Envtl. 2015Although “courts are empowered, in their discretion and upon good cause shown, to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the [the Open Meetings Law],” “not every breach of the [Open Meetings Law] automatically triggers its enforcement sanctions” (Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [1978] [emphasis omitted]). | 8 | 18 |
Roberts v. Town Board of Carmelgreen2 sentences2001Courts are empowered, in their discretion, and upon good cause shown, to declare any act taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law void in whole or in part (see, Public Officers Law § 107; Matter of Roberts v Town Bd., 207 AD2d 404 ). 1997Courts are empowered, in their discretion, and upon good cause shown, to declare any act taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law void in whole or in part (see, Public Officers Law § 107; Matter of Roberts v Town Bd., 207 AD2d 404 ). | 2 | 5 |
Cunney v. Board of Trusteesgreen2 sentences2019In furtherance of that objective, the Legislature has granted the courts the discretionary power, upon good cause shown, to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law ( see Public Officers Law § 107[1]; Matter of Krauss v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections , 153 AD3d at 1213 ; Matter of Cunney v Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Grand View, N.Y. , 72 AD3d 960, 961-962 ). 2013In Matter of Perez v City Univ. of N.Y. ( 5 NY3d 522 [2005]), the Court of Appeals stated: “In enacting the Open Meetings Law, the Legislature sought to ensure that ‘public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy’ (Public Officers Law § 100).” ( 5 NY3d at 528 .) In order to ensure compliance with the Open Meetings Law, “[t]he Legislature has granted the courts the discretionary | 2 | 3 |
MATTER OF SANNA v. Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ.green2 sentences1995The "courts are empowered, in their discretion and upon good cause shown, to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the mandate of this legislation” (Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [emphasis in original]) and will scrutinize the propriety of executive sessions, "lest the * * * mandate be thwarted by thinly veiled references to the areas delineated thereunder” (Daily Gazette Co. v Town Bd., 111 Misc 2d 303, 304 ; accord, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 107 Misc 2d 267, 268-270 , mod on other grounds 85 AD2d 157 , affd 58 NY2d 626 ). 1988SANCTIONS Whether to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law is a matter left to the court’s discretion to be exercised upon good cause shown (see, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 58 NY2d 626, 627 ; Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 ). | 1 | 4 |
Sanna v. Lindenhurst Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2001Fixing the appropriate remedy for the Board of Education’s actions is expressly a matter of judicial discretion (see, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 85 AD2d 157 , affd 58 NY2d 626 ). 1995The "courts are empowered, in their discretion and upon good cause shown, to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the mandate of this legislation” (Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [emphasis in original]) and will scrutinize the propriety of executive sessions, "lest the * * * mandate be thwarted by thinly veiled references to the areas delineated thereunder” (Daily Gazette Co. v Town Bd., 111 Misc 2d 303, 304 ; accord, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 107 Misc 2d 267, 268-270 , mod on other grounds 85 AD2d 157 , affd 58 NY2d 626 ). | 1 | 3 |
Gordon v. Village of Monticello, Inc.green1 sentence2019Moreover, in a proceeding commenced pursuant to Public Officers Law § 107, "costs and reasonable attorney fees may be awarded by the court, in its discretion, to the successful party" (Public Officers Law § 107[2]; see Matter of Gordon v Village of Monticello , 87 NY2d 124, 126 ). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Fostergreen1 sentence2015Here, even accepting as *846 true all of the allegations of Open Meetings Law violations set forth in the petition (see Matter of Brown v Foster, 73 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]), the petitioners failed to allege facts that would establish good cause to annul the ZBA’s determinations (see Matter of Cunney v Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Grand View, N.Y., 72 AD3d 960, 961-962 [2010]; Matter of Griswald v Village of Penn Yan, 244 AD2d 950, 951 [1997]; Matter of Roberts v Town Bd. of Carmel, 207 AD2d 404, 405 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Mono v. Longamoregreen1 sentence2015Here, even accepting as *846 true all of the allegations of Open Meetings Law violations set forth in the petition (see Matter of Brown v Foster, 73 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]), the petitioners failed to allege facts that would establish good cause to annul the ZBA’s determinations (see Matter of Cunney v Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Grand View, N.Y., 72 AD3d 960, 961-962 [2010]; Matter of Griswald v Village of Penn Yan, 244 AD2d 950, 951 [1997]; Matter of Roberts v Town Bd. of Carmel, 207 AD2d 404, 405 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Malone Parachute Club, Inc. v. Town of Malonegreen1 sentence1996However, it is well settled that not every breach of the Open Meetings Law automatically triggers its enforcement sanctions (Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734 [1978]; see also, Matter of Malone Parachute Club v Town of Malone, 197 AD2d 120 [3d Dept 1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Sanna v. Lindenhurst Board of Educationgreen1 sentence1995The "courts are empowered, in their discretion and upon good cause shown, to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the mandate of this legislation” (Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [emphasis in original]) and will scrutinize the propriety of executive sessions, "lest the * * * mandate be thwarted by thinly veiled references to the areas delineated thereunder” (Daily Gazette Co. v Town Bd., 111 Misc 2d 303, 304 ; accord, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 107 Misc 2d 267, 268-270 , mod on other grounds 85 AD2d 157 , affd 58 NY2d 626 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ireland v. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1995It is discretionary with a court, however, whether to nullify any action taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law when good cause is established (see, Public Officers Law § 107 [1]; Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 ; Matter of Ireland v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 169 AD2d 73, 76 , lv dismissed 79 NY2d 822 ). 1994Although a violation of the Open Meetings Law does not automatically trigger injunctive relief, it is well settled that courts are empowered, as a matter of discretion and for good cause shown, to void any action taken by a public body in violation of Public Officers Law article 7 (see, Public Officers Law § 107 [1]; Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 ; Matter of Ireland v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 169 AD2d 73, 76 , lv dismissed 79 NY2d 822 ). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Sobel v. Higgins
green
2 sentences1995It is discretionary with a court, however, whether to nullify any action taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law when good cause is established (see, Public Officers Law § 107 [1]; Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 ; Matter of Ireland v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 169 AD2d 73, 76 , lv dismissed 79 NY2d 822 ). 1994Although a violation of the Open Meetings Law does not automatically trigger injunctive relief, it is well settled that courts are empowered, as a matter of discretion and for good cause shown, to void any action taken by a public body in violation of Public Officers Law article 7 (see, Public Officers Law § 107 [1]; Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 ; Matter of Ireland v Town of Queensbury Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 169 AD2d 73, 76 , lv dismissed 79 NY2d 822 ). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
People v. Abner
green
1 sentence2019In furtherance of that objective, the Legislature has granted the courts the discretionary power, upon good cause shown, to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law ( see Public Officers Law § 107[1]; Matter of Krauss v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections , 153 AD3d at 1213 ; Matter of Cunney v Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Grand View, N.Y. , 72 AD3d 960, 961-962 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Perez v. City University of New York
green
2 sentences2013In Matter of Perez v City Univ. of N.Y. ( 5 NY3d 522 [2005]), the Court of Appeals stated: “In enacting the Open Meetings Law, the Legislature sought to ensure that ‘public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy’ (Public Officers Law § 100).” ( 5 NY3d at 528 .) In order to ensure compliance with the Open Meetings Law, “[t]he Legislature has granted the courts the discretionary 2013In Matter of Perez v City Univ. of N.Y. ( 5 NY3d 522 [2005]), the Court of Appeals stated: “In enacting the Open Meetings Law, the Legislature sought to ensure that ‘public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy’ (Public Officers Law § 100).” ( 5 NY3d at 528 .) In order to ensure compliance with the Open Meetings Law, “[t]he Legislature has granted the courts the discretionary | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia
green
1 sentence1996Although courts are empowered "in their discretion and upon good cause shown, to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the mandate of this legislation” (Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [emphasis omitted]), it is the challenger’s burden to show good cause warranting judicial relief (see, Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 686 , supra; Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, supra, at 735). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Town of Moriah v. Cole-Layer-Trumble Co.
green
1 sentence1996Petitioners have not met their burden of establishing that the SIDA board members carried out public business in private (see, Town of Moriah v Cole-Layer-Trumble Co., 200 AD2d 879, 881 ), or that they attempted to circumvent the provisions of the Open Meetings Law (see, Incorporated Vil. of Philmont v X-Tyal Intl. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Daily Gazette Co. v. Town Board
green
1 sentence1995The "courts are empowered, in their discretion and upon good cause shown, to declare void any action taken by a public body in violation of the mandate of this legislation” (Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [emphasis in original]) and will scrutinize the propriety of executive sessions, "lest the * * * mandate be thwarted by thinly veiled references to the areas delineated thereunder” (Daily Gazette Co. v Town Bd., 111 Misc 2d 303, 304 ; accord, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 107 Misc 2d 267, 268-270 , mod on other grounds 85 AD2d 157 , affd 58 NY2d 626 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In re Thomson
green
1 sentence1988As in White ( 79 AD2d 880 , supra) the record at bar strongly suggests that respondents’ violations were not "unintentional” (see, Public Officers Law § 107 [1]), but calculated to minimize public awareness of respondents’ sensitive political decision to attempt settlement of a highly publicized matter. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
MFY Legal Services, Inc. v. Toia
green
1 sentence1979(See, generally, Comment, New York Open Meetings Law: A Critical Evaluation, 41 Albany L Rev 329, 353-354.) "Judicial relief is warranted only upon a showing of good cause. (§ 102, subd 1.) Since appellants have failed to meet this burden, their petition was properly dismissed.” A similar conclusion was reached in Matter of MFY Legal Servs. v Toia ( 93 Misc 2d 147 ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.