Professional Staff Congress/CUNY v. City Univ. of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Professional Staff Congress/CUNY v. City Univ. of N.Y.

129 A.D.3d 472, 11 N.Y.S.3d 574, 2015 NY Slip Op 04774, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4687

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 2015

Docket151021/12 15352 103414/12 15351

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.3d 472 (Professional Staff Congress/CUNY v. City Univ. of N.Y.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Professional Staff Congress/CUNY v. City Univ. of N.Y., 129 A.D.3d 472, 11 N.Y.S.3d 574, 2015 NY Slip Op 04774, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered February 24, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered February 28, 2014, denying the petition for, among other things, an order declaring that respondents violated the Open Meetings Law, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the settlement agreement *473 that defendants are alleged to have breached does not extend to the faculty the exclusive power to formulate university-wide academic admissions and accreditation policies such as the “Pathways to Degree Completion Initiative” approved by respondent Board of Trustees in the June 27, 2011 resolution. The settlement agreement attached a resolution reaffirming Board bylaws stating that the “faculty shall be responsible” for the formulation of academic policy relating to curriculum, credits and granting of degrees (current Board bylaws § 8.5); referencing the University Faculty Senate’s responsibility for formulating policy relating to university-level educational and instructional matters; and setting forth the Board’s resolution that “such policies will then be considered by the Board ... in making policy decisions relating to educational matters.”

Petitioners failed to assert a viable claim of violation of the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law § 100). They allege that respondents improperly charged the college presidents, who are not public bodies whose actions are subject to the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]), rather than the college faculty senates, which are public bodies subject to the Open Meetings Law, with formulating plans to implement the “Pathways to Degree Completion Initiative” (see Matter of Perez v City Univ. of N.Y., 5 NY3d 522 [2005]). This is a claim that respondents violated Board of Trustees bylaws or college governance plans so as to sidestep the Open Meetings Law; it does not state a direct claim under the Open Meetings Law.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered February 24, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered February 28, 2014, denying the petition for, among other things, an order declaring that respondents violated the Open Meetings Law, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the settlement agreement *473 that defendants are alleged to have breached does not extend to the faculty the exclusive power to formulate university-wide academic admissions and accreditation policies such as the “Pathways to Degree Completion Initiative” approved by respondent Board of Trustees in the June 27, 2011 resolution. The settlement agreement attached a resolution reaffirming Board bylaws stating that the “faculty shall be responsible” for the formulation of academic policy relating to curriculum, credits and granting of degrees (current Board bylaws § 8.5); referencing the University Faculty Senate’s responsibility for formulating policy relating to university-level educational and instructional matters; and setting forth the Board’s resolution that “such policies will then be considered by the Board ... in making policy decisions relating to educational matters.”

Petitioners failed to assert a viable claim of violation of the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law § 100). They allege that respondents improperly charged the college presidents, who are not public bodies whose actions are subject to the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]), rather than the college faculty senates, which are public bodies subject to the Open Meetings Law, with formulating plans to implement the “Pathways to Degree Completion Initiative” (see Matter of Perez v City Univ. of N.Y., 5 NY3d 522 [2005]). This is a claim that respondents violated Board of Trustees bylaws or college governance plans so as to sidestep the Open Meetings Law; it does not state a direct claim under the Open Meetings Law.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 472, 11 N.Y.S.3d 574, 2015 NY Slip Op 04774, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/professional-staff-congresscuny-v-city-univ-of-ny-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack