New York University v. Whalen

New York Court of Appeals

New York University v. Whalen

386 N.E.2d 245, 46 N.Y.2d 734, 413 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2441

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by70 cases

This text of 386 N.E.2d 245 (New York University v. Whalen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New York University v. Whalen, 386 N.E.2d 245, 46 N.Y.2d 734, 413 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2441 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It is the policy of this State as expressed in its "Open Meetings Law” (Public Officers Law, §§ 95-106) 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.” (§ 95.) In furtherance of this objective of public accountability, 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. (§ 102.) Inclusion by the Legislature of this language vesting in the courts the discretion to grant remedial relief makes it abundantly clear that not every breach of the "Open Meetings Law” automatically triggers its enforcement sanctions. (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.

Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke concur in a memorandum; Chief Judge Breitel and Judge Fuchsberg taking no part.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It is the policy of this State as expressed in its "Open Meetings Law” (Public Officers Law, §§ 95-106) 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.” (§ 95.) In furtherance of this objective of public accountability, 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. (§ 102.) Inclusion by the Legislature of this language vesting in the courts the discretion to grant remedial relief makes it abundantly clear that not every breach of the "Open Meetings Law” automatically triggers its enforcement sanctions. (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.

Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke concur in a memorandum; Chief Judge Breitel and Judge Fuchsberg taking no part.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 N.E.2d 245, 46 N.Y.2d 734, 413 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-university-v-whalen-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack