| Matter of Chenkin v New York City Council |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03233 [72 AD3d 548] |
| April 22, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Michael Chenkin, Appellant, v New YorkCity Council, Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Norman Corenthal of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered January 31,2008, which denied the petition to vacate the appointment or reappointment of Commissioners tothe New York City Planning Commission, and dismissed this CPLR article 78 proceeding,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner claims good cause to void respondent's February 1, 2007 appointment orreappointment of Nathan Leventhal, Betty Y. Chen, Richard W. Eaddy and Alfred Cerullo III tothe Planning Commission, arguing that he was prevented from attending a hearing the previousday before the Council's Committee on Rules, Privileges and Elections, at which it wasrecommended that the appointees be approved by respondent, in violation of the Open MeetingsLaw (Public Officers Law art 7). Petitioner does not claim a failure to comply with the noticeprovisions under Public Officers Law § 104. Rather, he contends that upon his arrival atthe hearing room prior to the scheduled time for the commencement of the hearing, he found thedoor closed, and a sign posted nearby that read "Council Members and Staff Only." Uponmaking inquiry, he was allegedly misinformed by a police officer that the meeting had beenrescheduled to a later hour. Even if accurate, these claims fail to demonstrate a violation of theOpen Meetings Law, and do not establish good cause for judicial intervention under PublicOfficers Law § 107 (1). The petition does not directly allege that petitioner wasintentionally excluded from the hearing (cf. Matter of Goetschius v Board of Educ. ofGreenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist., 244 AD2d 552 [1997]), or indicate theexistence of official action designed to circumvent the Open Meetings Law (see Matter ofThomas v New York Temporary State Commn. on Regulation of Lobbying, 83 AD2d 723,724 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 656 [1982]). At most, it shows inadvertence or slightnegligence on the part of public officials, which is not a [*2]sufficient ground upon which to invalidate respondent's action(see Matter of Roberts v Town Bd. of Carmel, 207 AD2d 404, 405 [1994], lvdenied 84 NY2d 811 [1994]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, McGuire andMoskowitz, JJ.