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

N.Y. Public Officers Law § 107 (2026)

Enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 107. Enforcement. 1. Any aggrieved person shall have standing to
enforce the provisions of this article against a public body by the
commencement of a proceeding pursuant to article seventy-eight of the
civil practice law and rules, or an action for declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief. In any such action or proceeding, if a court
determines that a public body failed to comply with this article, the
court shall have the power, in its discretion, upon good cause shown, to
declare that the public body violated this article and/or declare the
action taken in relation to such violation void, in whole or in part,
without prejudice to reconsideration in compliance with this article. If
the court determines that a public body has violated this article, the
court may require the members of the public body to participate in a
training session concerning the obligations imposed by this article
conducted by the staff of the committee on open government.
  An unintentional failure to fully comply with the notice provisions
required by this article shall not alone be grounds for invalidating any
action taken at a meeting of a public body. The provisions of this
article shall not affect the validity of the authorization, acquisition,
execution or disposition of a bond issue or notes.
  2. In any proceeding brought pursuant to this section, costs and
reasonable attorney fees may be awarded by the court, in its discretion,
to the successful party. If a court determines that a vote was taken in
material violation of this article, or that substantial deliberations
relating thereto occurred in private prior to such vote, the court shall
award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the successful petitioner,
unless there was a reasonable basis for a public body to believe that a
closed session could properly have been held.
  3. The statute of limitations in an article seventy-eight proceeding
with respect to an action taken at executive session shall commence to
run from the date the minutes of such executive session have been made
available to the public.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Gordon v. Vill. of Monticello, Inc., 661 N.E.2d 691 (NY 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gordon v. Vill. of Monticello, Inc., 661 N.E.2d 691 (NY 1995). · cites it 4× “What is challenged is the trial court’s award of costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the statutory provision stating that "costs and reasonable attorney fees may be awarded by the court, in its discretion, to the successful party” (Public Officers Law § 107 [2]). The Appellate…”
Gernatt Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 664 N.E.2d 1226 (NY 1996). “v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [emphasis in original]; see, Public Officers Law § 107 [1]). It is the challenger’s burden to show good cause warranting judicial relief (Matter of New York Univ.”
Sindoni v. Bd. of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 00772 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “Pitts v City of Buffalo , 298 AD2d 1003, 1004 [4th Dept 2002]), we agree with defendants that plaintiff failed to establish that he is entitled to relief under Public Officers Law § 107. It is well settled that "[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general…”
Wilson v. Bd. of Educ. Harborfields Cent. Sch. Dist., 65 A.D.3d 1158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 2× “The petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the resolution of the Board, alleging that its action was void because the meeting at which the resolution was passed had been inadequately noticed pursuant to the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law…”
Max v. Ward, 107 A.D.3d 1597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · cites it 2× “s proceeding on October 5, 2012, asserting as a first cause of action that the redistricting plan was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion, and that the election should therefore be declared invalid and a new election should be held (see CPLR 7803 [3]); as a…”
Michalak v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 286 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Finally, petitioners contend that the failure of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Pomfret to comply with the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art 7; see, Public Officers Law § 107) warrants reversal of the ZBA’s determination.”
New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms v. New York State Senate, 98 A.D.3d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Public Officers Law § 107 (1) provides in relevant part that, when a court determines that a public body failed to comply with the OML, “the court shall have the power, in its discretion, upon good cause shown, to declare that the public body violated [the OML] and/or declare…”
Ctr. Square Ass'n v. City of Albany Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 19 A.D.3d 968 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “v City of Kingston Common Council, 153 AD2d 103, 105 [1990]), because the determination *970 at issue was adopted at a publicized, public meeting and the informal meeting was open to the public and did not include any deliberations or votes, we find that petitioners have not…”
Zehner v. Bd. of Educ. of Jordan-Elbridge Cent. Sch. Dist., 91 A.D.3d 1349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Pursuant to the Open Meetings Law, “costs and reasonable attorney fees may be awarded by the court, in its discretion, to the successful party” (Public Officers Law § 107 [2]). Determining the appropriate remedy for respondent’s actions is thus expressly a matter of judicial…”
Thorne v. Vill. of Millbrook Plan. Bd., 83 A.D.3d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [1978]; Public Officers Law § 107 [1]). The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit.”
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 231 A.D.2d 284 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). “a violation of the Open Meetings Law, we would conclude—given the extensive public input into each stage of the proceeding and the complete dearth of evidence that the PSC intentionally violated the Open Meetings Law—that petitioners failed in their burden of demonstrating good…”
Goodson Todman Enter., Ltd. v. City of Kingston Common Council, 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the record demonstrates that respondent and the Daily and Sunday Freeman had a positive working relationship prior to February 1988.”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— N.Y. Public Officers Law § 107(2) — 5 cases
Matter of Lynch v. New York City Civilian Complaint Review Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 04122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
Chestnut Ridge Assoc., LLC v. 30 Sephar Lane, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 1388 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019).
Matter of Lynch v. New York City Civilian Complaint Review Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 04122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
Matter of Hofstra Univ. v. Nassau Cnty. Plan. Commn., 2024 NY Slip Op 05208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024).
Chestnut Ridge Assoc., LLC v. 30 Sephar Lane, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 1387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019).
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.