New York Law Review

Tag: Orange County Publications

  • Orange County Publications v. Council of Newburgh, 45 N.Y.2d 947 (1978): Interpretation of Open Meetings Law

    Orange County Publications, Division of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Council of the City of Newburgh, 45 N.Y.2d 947 (1978)

    The purpose and intention of the State Legislature in enacting an open meetings law are interpreted as expressed in the language of the statute and its preamble.

    Summary

    This case concerns the interpretation of New York’s Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law, Article 7). Orange County Publications sought access to meetings of the City Council of Newburgh. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, which held that the City Council was subject to the Open Meetings Law. The court emphasized that the Legislature’s intent is to be gleaned from the statute’s language and preamble, leaving the evaluation of the policy’s merits to the Legislature itself.

    Facts

    Orange County Publications, a newspaper, sought to attend meetings of the City Council of the City of Newburgh. The City Council argued that certain meetings were not subject to the Open Meetings Law. The newspaper contended that all meetings should be open to the public as per Article 7 of the Public Officers Law.

    Procedural History

    The case originated in a lower court, where Orange County Publications likely sought a writ of mandamus or similar order to compel the City Council to comply with the Open Meetings Law. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of Orange County Publications, holding that the Open Meetings Law applied to the City Council. The City Council appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Article 7 of the Public Officers Law (the Open Meetings Law) applies to the meetings of the City Council of the City of Newburgh, requiring such meetings to be open to the public.

    Holding

    Yes, because the Legislature’s intent, as expressed in the language and preamble of the Open Meetings Law, is that such governmental bodies conduct their meetings openly.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order based on the reasoning outlined in Justice Samuel Rabin’s opinion at the Appellate Division. The Court stated that the interpretation of the Open Meetings Law should be based on the expressed intent of the Legislature in the statute itself and its preamble. The court explicitly avoided endorsing or criticizing the policy behind the law, stating that such evaluations are the exclusive domain of the Legislature. The court acknowledged that there are potential drawbacks and benefits to both open and closed meetings, but that the balancing of these factors is a legislative, not a judicial, function. The court also noted the existence of exemptions within the Open Meetings Law itself (executive sessions), illustrating the Legislature’s ongoing consideration of the practical implications of the law. Judge Cooke concurred, emphasizing the broad public policy expressed by the Legislature in Public Officers Law § 95.