Puka v. Greco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Puka v. Greco

104 A.D.2d 362, 479 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19832

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

DecidedAugust 6, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 362 (Puka v. Greco) 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

Puka v. Greco, 104 A.D.2d 362, 479 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to invalidate the 1983/1984 budget of the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, as adopted in violation of the “Open Meetings Law”, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered August 18,1983, which, inter alia, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, it is clear that a violation of the “Open Meetings Law” (Public Officers Law, § 95 et seq.) did occur as a matter of law (see Matter of Orange County Pub. v Council of City of Newburgh, 60 AD2d 409, affd 45 NY2d 947).

[363]*363However, we affirm the judgment since petitioner failed to make the required showing of good cause, which would entitle him to the discretionary remedy of invalidation (see Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734; Matter of Concerned Citizens to Review Jefferson Val. Mall v Town Bd., 83 AD2d 612). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to invalidate the 1983/1984 budget of the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, as adopted in violation of the “Open Meetings Law”, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered August 18,1983, which, inter alia, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, it is clear that a violation of the “Open Meetings Law” (Public Officers Law, § 95 et seq.) did occur as a matter of law (see Matter of Orange County Pub. v Council of City of Newburgh, 60 AD2d 409, affd 45 NY2d 947).

[363]*363However, we affirm the judgment since petitioner failed to make the required showing of good cause, which would entitle him to the discretionary remedy of invalidation (see Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734; Matter of Concerned Citizens to Review Jefferson Val. Mall v Town Bd., 83 AD2d 612). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 362, 479 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puka-v-greco-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack