N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Public Officers / ARTICLE Open Meetings Law
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Officers Law § 105 (2026)

Conduct of executive sessions

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 105. Conduct of executive sessions. 1. Upon a majority vote of its
total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion
identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be
considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below
enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal
vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
  a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
  b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement
agent or informer;
  c. information relating to current or future investigation or
prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law
enforcement if disclosed;
  d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
  e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil
service law;
  f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a
particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment,
employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or
removal of a particular person or corporation;
  g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
  h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the
proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities
held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially
affect the value thereof.
  2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member
of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: Gernatt Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 664 N.E.2d 1226 (N.Y. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gernatt Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 664 N.E.2d 1226 (N.Y. 1996). · cites it 2× “In the answer to the petition, verified by a current Board member who attended the executive session, the Town asserted that discussion at the executive session was limited to obtaining legal opinions and advice from the Town’s Counsel about the adoption of the proposed…”
Gordon v. Vill. of Monticello, Inc., 207 A.D.2d 55 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1994). · cites it 8× “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. We cannot agree.”
Wm. J. Kline & Sons, Inc. v. Cnty. of Hamilton, 235 A.D.2d 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1997). · cites it 5× “The question before us involves the interpretation of Public Officers Law §§ 105 and 106 and the extent to which these provisions preclude public access to tape recordings of executive sessions under FOIL.”
Matter of Ballard v. New York Saf. Track LLC, 126 A.D.3d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015). · cites it 2× “Generally, “[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 [Public Officers Law § 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]).”
Roberts v. Town Bd. of Carmel, 207 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1994). · cites it 3× “—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to comply with the provisions of the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law § 105 [1]), and declaring certain actions taken by the respondent void, the petitioners appeal from so much of a judgment of the…”
Orange Cnty. Publications v. Cnty. of Orange, 120 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1986). · cites it 5× “— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to direct the respondents to comply with Public Officers Law § 105, which proceeding was converted, in part, by Supreme Court, sua sponte, pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), into an action for a declaratory judgment, the…”
Perez v. City Univ. of New York, 840 N.E.2d 572 (N.Y. 2005). “Neither of the two meetings had moved into executive session, though had the Senate or the Executive Committee needed to discuss confidential matters it could have done so (see Public Officers Law § 105). Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing that the…”
Lancaster v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport, 1 N.E.3d 302 (N.Y. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Open Meetings Law prohibits public bodies from conducting business in executive session outside the view of the public (Public Officers Law § 103). An exception exists for “discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation” (Public Officers Law § 105 [1] [d]).”
Plattsburgh Publ'g Co. v. City of Plattsburgh, 185 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1992). · cites it 3× “that this latter subject was not properly one that could be had in executive session under Public Officers *519 Law § 105, petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding, styled as a CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking injunctive relief and a declaration that this action and…”
Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v. Vill. of Pomona, 280 F. Supp. 3d 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “N.Y. Public Officers Law § 105 . When pressed during oral argument about which exception is applicable here, Defendants had no answer.”
Support Ministries for Persons With Aids, Inc. v. Vill. of Waterford, 808 F. Supp. 120 (N.D.N.Y. 1992). “Although the board did not declare its purpose for this session as required by the Open Meetings Law, N.Y. Public Officers Law § 105 (1) (McKinney 1988), it is clear that it was to devise a change to the village’s zoning laws that would prevent Support Ministries from opening a…”
Matter of Cutler v. Town of Mamakating, 137 A.D.3d 1373 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016). · cites it 2× “of Ottaway Newspapers v City of Plattsburgh, 185 AD2d 518, 518-519 [1992]), we agree with petitioner that the Town Board violated the Open Meetings *1375 Law by inadequately describing the purpose for entering into the executive session as, simply, “personnel issues” (see Public…”
Show all 42 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.