MATTER OF ORANGE COUNTY PUBL'N, DIV. OF OTTAWAY NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. Council of the City of Newburgh
Cases that cite this one
34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools (Minn. 1983)
- Kennedy v. UPPER MILFORD TP. ZHB (Pa. 2003)
- Kennedy v. Upper Milford Township Zoning Hearing Board (Pa. 2003)
- Hi Pockets, Inc. v. Music Conservatory of Westchester, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2002)
- Gordon v. Village of Monticello, Inc. (N.Y. 1995)
- Cherry Hills Resort Development Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Village (Colo. 1988)
- Britt v. County of Niagara (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Sciolino v. Ryan (New York Supreme Court 1980)
- Oneonta Star Division of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Board of Trustees (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
- New York State Nurses Ass'n v. State University (New York Supreme Court 2013)
- Greater New York Taxi Ass'n v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (New York Supreme Court 2013)
- Ramapo Homeowners Ass'n v. Town of Ramapo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Service Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Allan & Allan Arts Ltd. v. Rosenblum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Buffalo News v. City of Buffalo Common Council (New York Supreme Court 1992)
- Goodson Todman Enterprises, Ltd. v. City of Kingston Common Council (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Napolitano v. Town Board of Oyster Bay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Buffalo Evening News, Inc. v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (New York Supreme Court 1986)
- Tri-Village Publishers, Inc. v. St. Johnsville Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Mitchell v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Puka v. Greco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Puka v. Greco (New York Supreme Court 1983)
- Sanna v. Lindenhurst Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Matthes v. East Fishkill Town Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Concerned Citizens Against Crossgates v. Town of Guilderland Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In the Matter of Orange County Publications, Division of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., Respondent,
v.
Council of the City of Newburgh et al., Appellants.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
David F. Jordan, Corporation Counsel (William M. Kavanaugh of counsel), for appellants.
Rodney A. Richards for respondent.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge COOKE concurs in a concurring memorandum.
*949MEMORANDUM.
Order of the Appellate Division to the extent appealed from affirmed, without costs, on so much of the opinion of Mr. Justice SAMUEL RABIN at the Appellate Division relevant to the application of article 7 of the Public Officers Law to meetings of the City Council of the City of Newburgh (see 60 AD2d 409, 411-417). The purpose and intention of the State Legislature in the present context are interpreted as expressed in the language of the statute and its preamble. It is neither appropriate nor necessary to suggest agreement with the legislative policy or to indorse it, a matter exclusively for the Legislature in applying its views to the legislative and executive branches of government.
The fact of the matter is that neither public nor private meetings of governmental bodies are inherently desirable or undesirable. Whichever kind of meeting is permitted or required, there are, as developed in the arguments by the parties to this proceeding, off-setting losses and gains. The evaluation and balancing of the factors are ultimately, within the framework of the present statute and the issues as presented, for the State Legislature and not the courts. Indeed, the legislative reaction to the problems engendered by an "open meetings law" is illustrated to some extent by the existing exemptions permitting the holding of executive sessions (Public Officers Law, § 100).
*950COOKE, J. (concurring).
I, too, vote for affirmance. In view of the definite and broad public policy expressed by the Legislature (Public Officers Law, § 95), I concur on the opinion of Mr. Justice SAMUEL RABIN at the Appellate Division.
Order affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.