| Matter of Wilson v Board of Educ. Harborfields Cent. SchoolDist. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06561 [65 AD3d 1158] |
| September 15, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Janet C. Wilson, Respondent, v Board ofEducation Harborfields Central School District, Appellant. |
—[*1] Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Terence M. O'Neil, Howard M. Miller,and Lauren J. Darienzo of counsel), for respondent. Jay Worona and Kimberly A. Fanniff, Latham, N.Y., for New York State School BoardsAssociation, Inc., amicus curiae.
In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of theBoard of Education of the Harborfields Central School District dated June 24, 2007, whichdeclined to extend the petitioner's employment contract, the Board of Education of theHarborfields Central School District appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, SuffolkCounty (Costello, J.), dated June 4, 2008, which granted the petition, annulled the determination,and awarded an attorney's fee to the petitioner.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, thedetermination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
At a meeting on June 24, 2007, the Board of Education of the Harborfields Central SchoolDistrict (hereinafter the Board) passed a resolution declining to extend the petitioner'semployment contract. The petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to reviewthe resolution of the Board, alleging that its action was void because the meeting at which theresolution was passed had been inadequately noticed pursuant to the Open Meetings Law(see Public Officers Law §§ 104, 107 [1]). Even if there had been atechnical violation of the Open Meetings Law, the petitioner failed to establish that there wasgood cause to annul the Board's action (see Public Officers Law § 107 [1];Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 NY2d 734, 735 [1978]; Matter of Specht v Town of Cornwall,13 AD3d 380, 381 [2004]; Matter of Roberts v Town Bd. of Carmel, 207 AD2d404, 405 [1994]; Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ., 85 AD2d 157, 160-163[1982], affd 58 NY2d 626 [1982]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in annullingthe resolution. In light of the petitioner's failure to establish bad faith on the part of the Board orprejudice to the public, the Supreme Court also erred in awarding an attorney's fee to thepetitioner pursuant to Public Officers Law § 107 (2) (see Matter of Gordon v Villageof Monticello, 87 NY2d 124, 127-128 [1995]; Matter of Roberts v Town Bd. of Carmel,207 AD2d [*2]404, 405 [1994]; Matter of GoodsonTodman Enters. v City of Kingston Common Council, 153 AD2d 103, 106 [1990]). Rivera,J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.