Gordon v. Village of Monticello, Inc., 87 N.Y.2d 124 (1995)
A trial court has discretion to award attorney fees under New York’s Open Meetings Law when violations are intentional and flagrant, serving to encourage private citizens to enforce the law and promote government transparency.
Summary
This case concerns the awarding of attorney’s fees under New York’s Open Meetings Law. Citizens challenged the Village of Monticello Board of Trustees’ actions of secretly pre-arranging the redistribution of elected positions at a closed meeting, claiming it violated the Open Meetings Law. The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to the citizens, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the trial court was justified in awarding attorney’s fees due to the intentional and flagrant nature of the violations.
Facts
The Board of Trustees of Monticello held a closed, executive session where they decided to create a full-time Village Attorney position and redistribute other elected leadership positions. At a subsequent public meeting, the Board enacted a resolution to create the Village Attorney position. The elected Village Justice was then appointed Village Attorney, the Mayor became Village Justice, the Deputy Mayor became Mayor, and the Assessor was appointed to the Board, effectively redistributing every elected position as pre-arranged in the closed session.
Procedural History
Citizens of Monticello sued, alleging violations of the Open Meetings Law. The Supreme Court agreed, declaring the Board’s actions illegal and void. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision but reversed the trial court’s award of costs and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s decision regarding attorney’s fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs under Public Officers Law § 107(2) given the Board of Trustees’ violation of the Open Meetings Law.
Holding
Yes, because the trial court was justified in awarding attorney’s fees given the intentional and flagrant nature of the Open Meetings Law violations; the Court of Appeals found that the Appellate Division erroneously imposed an additional legal requirement onto the statute.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the purpose of the Open Meetings Law: to ensure that public business is conducted openly and that citizens are informed about the actions of their elected officials. The Court noted that the statute should be liberally construed to achieve this purpose, quoting the legislative preamble which states, “It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the 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.”
The Court distinguished this case from those involving technical, non-prejudicial infractions or unintentional violations of the Open Meetings Law. Here, the Board of Trustees intentionally circumvented the law to redistribute positions. The Court found the violations to be intentional and deceitful causing obvious prejudice to the plaintiffs. The court stated that “defendants’ actions ‘took place * * * in such a manner as to circumvent the Open Meetings Law quorum requirement’…that defendants later ‘stretched credulity’ in describing their conduct to the court, that there was good cause shown to void the actions taken…and that there had been ‘obvious prejudice’ to plaintiffs as a result of defendants’ intentional and deceitful conduct, an award of fees is justified”.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the Appellate Division’s requirement of repeated violations or bad faith, stating that the possibility of recovering costs and attorneys’ fees encourages private citizens to bring meritorious lawsuits, thus advancing the statutory policy of government transparency. The court said, “In fact, it is very often the possibility of recovering costs and attorneys’ fees that gives private citizens like plaintiffs the impetus they need to bring meritorious lawsuits to enforce the Open Meetings Law thus advancing the statutory policy of keeping New Yorkers better apprised of the actions of their elected officials.”