Scott E. Mollen
The petitioners/plaintiffs (appellants) are members of the public and residents of a village. They had commenced a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR Art. 78 and an action for declaratory relief against a village Board of Trustees (board). The appellants alleged that the board violated the Open Meetings Law at certain meetings, “by failing to provide proper notice of the meeting, improperly entering into a closed ‘executive session’ and failing to accurately record the minutes of the meeting.” They claimed that the board had “improperly excluded them from portions of certain meetings that should have been open to the public.”
The board had moved to dismiss the petition/complaint for lack of standing. The trial court granted the village’s motion. The trial court held that standing to assert a violation of the Open Meetings Law “required a petitioner/plaintiff to demonstrate ‘some personal damage or injury’ to his or her civil, personal, or property rights as a direct or indirect consequence of the challenged action.” The trial court held that merely “being a member of the general public, a taxpayer, or resident of the municipality, in and of itself, is insufficient to confer standing to raise an alleged Open Meetings Law violation.” The Appellate Division (court) reversed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
