IN THE MATTER OF VICTOR W. GORDON ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. VILLAGE OF
MONTICELLO INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
87 N.Y.2d 124, 661 N.E.2d 691, 637 N.Y.S.2d 961
December 7, 1995
3 No. 276 (1995 NY Int. 283)
Decided December 7, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Loran Shlevin, for Appellants.
Martin S. Miller, for Respondents.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
This case raises the issue of the statutory discretion afforded trial
courts to award costs and attorneys' fees under New York's Open
Meetings Law (Public Officers Law §§ 100-111). Given the intentional
and flagrant nature of the Open Meetings Law violations that took
place here, the trial court was fully justified in awarding attorneys'
fees under the statute.
On February 17, 1993, the Board of Trustees of Monticello-- the
governing body of the Village--decided in closed, executive session to
create the new position of full-time Village Attorney and to divide up
by resignation and subsequent appointment various other elected
leadership positions. At a public meeting two weeks later, the Board
passed a resolution, as had been agreed previously, creating the
position of Village Attorney. Within minutes, the elected Village
Justice was appointed to the position of Village Attorney, the
then-Mayor was appointed Village Justice, the then-Deputy Mayor was
appointed Mayor, the Assessor's office was abolished and the
then-Assessor was appointed a Member of the Board. By the end of the
meeting, every supposedly elected position had been redistributed, as
privately prearranged by the Board at the earlier, closed meeting.
Plaintiffs, citizens of Monticello, challenged these actions as
violations of the Open Meetings Law (see, Public Officers Law § 105).
Both Supreme Court and the Appellate Division agreed with plaintiffs,
finding the Board's machinations to be patently illegal and declaring
them null and void (207 AD2d 55, 56-59). The factual and legal
accuracy of those rulings is not even contested on this appeal.
SNIPPETS:
MONTICELLO INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
This case raises the issue of the statutory discretion afforded trial courts to award costs
Given the intentional and flagrant nature of the Open Meetings Law violations that took place
On February 17, 1993, the Board of Trustees of Monticello-- the governing body of the
Both Supreme Court and the Appellate Division agreed with plaintiffs, finding the Board's
The Appellate Division reversed that award as a matter of law, holding that in order for
In so doing, the Appellate Division extended its dictum in Matter of Plattsburgh Publishing
As the Legislature stated in its preamble to the statute: "It is essential to the maintenance
Given this explicit declaration, it is clear that the provisions of the Open Meetings Law are
However, where--as here--the court finds that defendants' actions "took place * * * in such a
Though, as the Appellate Division observed, the fact that a defendant has repeatedly violated
New York was the last state to pass what are commonly referred to as "government in the
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
