Daniel T. Warren commenced this action to challenge the budget purportedly adopted by the Erie County Legislature. This action initially challenged the adopted budget and proposed sales tax increase on two theories: 1) the vote taken on the proposed budget was not taken as required by the County Charter; 2) the vote on the budget and the proposed sales tax increase was in violation of the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law Article 7) and should be declared null and void. The challenges to the budget was resolved in another proceeding commenced at same time by two other plaintiffs. What remains of this action is the Open Meetings Law violations that have been repeatedly violated. The relief currently sought is a declaration the various meetings were held in private by a quarum of the Erie County Legislature since December 8, 2004 and request for a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from violating the Open Meetings Law.

The Open Meetings or "Sunshine" Law gives the public the right to attend meetings of public bodies, listen to the debates and watch the decisionmaking process in action.

A meeting is defined as "the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business". Since the law applies to official meetings, chance meetings or social gatherings are not covered by the law. Also, the law is silent with respect to public participation. Therefore, a public body may permit you to speak at open meetings, but is not required to do so.

The Open Meetings Law, passed in 1976 after the crisis of confidence in American politics occasioned by Watergate, was intended--as its very name suggests--to open the decisionmaking process of elected officials to the public while at the same time protecting the ability of the government to carry out its responsibilities ( Sciolino v Ryan , 81 AD2d 475, 477; Matter of Orange County Publications v Council of City of Newburgh , 60 AD2d 409, 418, aff'd 45 NY2d 94; see also, Communications Systems v FCC , 595 F2d 797, 800 [interpreting 5 USC § 552b]). Thus, the statute provides generally that "[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public" (Public Officers Law § 103[a]). As the Legislature stated in its preamble to the statute: "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" (Public Officers Law § 100). Given this explicit declaration, it is clear that the provisions of the Open Meetings Law are to be liberally construed in accordance with the statute's purposes ( Matter of Orange County Publications v Council of City of Newburgh , 45 NY2d 94, 950 [Cooke, J., concurring]; Matter of Holden v Board of Trustees of Cornell University , 80 AD2d 378, 381).

The State Legislature, by enacting the Open Meetings Law, intended to affect the entire decision-making process and not merely formal vote taking as it is the "deliberative process which is at the core of the Open Meetings Law" (Matter of Orange County Publs. v Council of City of Newburgh, 60 A.D.2d 409, 414, affd 45 N.Y.2d 947). Public bodies may not escape public view by claiming that they did not formally convene when, in fact, a meeting took place at which business of public interest was discussed (Matter of Oneonta Star Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v Board of Trustees, 66 A.D.2d 51, 54).

• Complaint
• Order to Show Cause
• Affidavit in Support of TRO and Preliminary Injunction
• Memorandum of Law in Support of TRO and Preliminary Injunction
• Affidavit of Albert DeBenedetti dated December 27, 2004
• Defendants' Memorandum of Law in support of their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
• Affidavit of Anthony J. Colucci, III submitted in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
• Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment
• Affidavit of James Tuppen submitted in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
• Exhibit "O" attached to the Affidavit of James Tuppen
• Judge Lane's decision and order dated January 21, 2005
• Defendants Answer to the Complaint
• Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint
• Defendants' Amended Verified Answer to the Amended Verified Complaint
• Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
• Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
• Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in support of their Cross-motion for Summary Judgment
• Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law and Affidavit in oppsition to Defendants' Cross-motion for summary judgment and in support of Plaintiff's motion.
• Affidavit of Albert DeBenedetti dated June 30, 2005
• Letter from Defendants' counsel informing court that it will not be submitting any further evidence dated July 27, 2005
• Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint.
• Defendants' papers in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint.
• Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of law in Support of the motion for leave to amend complaint.

Justice Lane issued a Decision and Judgment in this action that declares that the meetings on December 7 & 8, 2004 in the Liberty Building and February 14, 2005 at Medaille as being in violation of the Open Meetings Law. Click here to read the Decision and Judgment!