Sch. Transparency Org. for Parents v. Harpursville Cent. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 28 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2015-1828 |
| Citation | 17 N.Y.S.3d 836,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25326,50 Misc.3d 478 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of SCHOOL TRANSPARENCY ORGANIZATION FOR PARENTS, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v. HARPURSVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (“HCSD”), Board of Education (“School Board”); Joseph Burns, President of the School Board and Melissa Anderson, Robert Blakeslee, Theresa Matts, Sharon Snow and Russell Weist, Each Members of the School Board, Jointly and Severally, Respondents/Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
50 Misc.3d 478
17 N.Y.S.3d 836
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25326
In the Matter of the Application of SCHOOL TRANSPARENCY ORGANIZATION FOR PARENTS, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs
v.
HARPURSVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (“HCSD”), Board of Education (“School Board”); Joseph Burns, President of the School Board and Melissa Anderson, Robert Blakeslee, Theresa Matts, Sharon Snow and Russell Weist, Each Members of the School Board, Jointly and Severally, Respondents/Defendants.
2015-1828
Supreme Court, Broome County, New York.
Sept. 28, 2015.
Advocates for Justice by Laura D. Barbieri, Esq. and Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq., of Counsel, New York, attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
Palmer J. Pelella, Esq., Binghamton, Local Counsel for Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP by Robert H. McKertich, Esq. and Nathan D. Vanwhy, Esq., of Counsel, Binghamton, attorneys for Respondents/Defendants.
Opinion
FERRIS D. LEBOUS, J.
Petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this hybrid Article 78 proceeding/action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief including, among other things: nullifying employment decisions due to violations of the Open Meetings Law; a declaratory judgment enjoining respondents/defendants from violating Real Property Tax Law § 1318 by maintaining operating funds in excess of the statutory maximum of 4%; declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to General Municipal Law § 51 enjoining
respondents/defendants from wasting and otherwise mismanaging school district monies; and a declaratory judgment that respondents/defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by failing to meet their collective and individual fiduciary duties and obligations pursuant to New York Education Law § 1709.
Respondents/defendants oppose the petition/complaint in all respects and move to dismiss as outlined below.1
BACKGROUND
The Harpursville Central School District (hereinafter “the School District”) is located in the Village of Harpursville, Broome County, in the State of New York and is comprised of one elementary school and one high school with approximately 1000 students. The School District is governed by the Board of Education which is comprised of seven elected members which are the named respondents herein.2 Petitioners are an unincorporated member organization of parents and taxpayers from the School District. There
are two main areas in which petitioners allege that respondents have exceeded their authority under the law, namely various employment decisions made in violation of the Open Meetings Law and maintaining budgetary surpluses in excess of the statutory maximum permitted under RPTL § 1318. Additionally, in connection with both of those issues, petitioners allege that respondents have breached their fiduciary duties.
On July 2, 2015, petitioners filed an order to show cause with a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, summons, verified petition and complaint. The court signed the order to show cause on July 14, 2015, striking the temporary restraining order, and making the matter returnable on September 1, 2015.
The verified petition and complaint contain three causes of action, namely: (1) violation of Public Officers Law [Open Meetings Law] Article 7; (2) violation of Real Property Tax Law § 1318 ; and (3) breach of fiduciary duties.
In lieu of answering, the respondents have moved to dismiss on a variety of grounds including CPLR §§ 3211(a)(2), (7), (8), and (10).
The court heard oral argument from counsel on September 1, 2015.
DISCUSSION
The court will address respondents' motion to dismiss which raises a variety of jurisdictional and substantive issues in the context of petitioners' three stated causes of action.
I. VIOLATION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW [OPEN MEETINGS LAW] ARTICLE 7
The first cause of action is stated as a violation of Public Officers Law (Open Meetings Law) Article 7. The provision at the center of petitioners' focus is Public Officers Law § 105 entitled “Conduct of executive sessions” which states, in pertinent part, as follows:
[u]pon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for
the below enumerated
purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public monies ...:
f.[t]he medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person
(Emphases added).
Respondents' move to dismiss this cause of action based upon, among other grounds, failure to join necessary parties and failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7) and (10).
A. Failure to join necessary parties
The first issue that must be addressed in relation to the alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law is respondents' motion to dismiss for non-joinder due to petitioners' failure to name the individuals who are the subject of the employment decisions at issue, namely Lori Bowman, Amy Lucenti, Joshua Quick, and Michael Rollo, as well as Pamela Horton (hired to fill Quick's position) and Kris Conrow (hired to fill Rullo's position).
CPLR § 1001(a) states “[p]ersons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action shall be made plaintiffs or defendants.”
Petitioners' assertion that the joinder of these six individuals is unnecessary because this case is more about the systematic failures of the Board of Education rather than these individual members is disingenuous and misses the point. If petitioners were to obtain their requested relief herein, the livelihood of some of these individuals could be inequitably affected. In this court's view, the livelihood of any person warrants great respect. When an individual's livelihood is threatened they are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard and to be represented by counsel of their choosing. These are concepts of fundamental due process. This court will not lightly cast aside the rights of these individuals and finds that Bowman, Lucenti, Quick, Rollo, Horton and Conrow are necessary parties within the meaning of CPLR § 1001(a) since they may be inequitably affected by a potential judgment herein (Matter of Cybul v. Village of Scarsdale, 17 A.D.3d 462, 792 N.Y.S.2d 349 [2d Dept.2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 712, 806 N.Y.S.2d 163, 840 N.E.2d 132 [2005] ; Matter of Brancato v. New York State
Bd. of Real Prop. Servs., 7 A.D.3d 865, 776 N.Y.S.2d 343 [3d Dept.2004] ; Matter of Baker v. Town of Roxbury, 220 A.D.2d 961, 632 N.Y.S.2d 854 [3d Dept.1995], lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 807, 641 N.Y.S.2d 829, 664 N.E.2d 895 [1996] ).3 On this basis alone, the court grants respondents' motion to dismiss for non-joinder in relation to the First and Third causes of action (Matter of Sahler v. Callahan, 92 A.D.2d 976, 460 N.Y.S.2d 643 [3d Dept.1983] ).4
B. Failure to state a cause of action
Assuming, arguendo, that the court had not dismissed the first cause of action for
failure to join necessary parties, the court will address the merits of respondents' motion to dismiss the first cause of action for a violation of Public Officers Law [Open Meetings Law] Article 7 for failure to state a cause of action.
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), “ ‘the pleading is to be given a liberal construction, the allegations contained within it are assumed to be true and the plaintiff[s][are] to be afforded every favorable inference’.... This liberal standard, however, will not save allegations that consist of bare legal conclusions or factual claims that are flatly contradicted by documentary evidence or are inherently incredible [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]” (DerOhannesian v. City of Albany, 110 A.D.3d 1288, 1289, 975 N.Y.S.2d 188 [3d Dept.2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 862, 983 N.Y.S.2d 493, 6 N.E.3d 612 [2014] ).
Petitioners allege that the following employment actions should be nullified: (1) the removal of assistant principal Lori Bowman; (2) the removal and reassignment of elementary school principal Joshua Quick; (3) the creation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sch. Transparency Org. for Parents v. Harpursville Cent. Sch. Dist.
-
Karam v. Utica City Sch. Dist.
... ... Board of Educ. of Jordan-Elbridge Cent. School Dist., 91 ... A.D.3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2012]) ... 34, 37, ... 62; Matter of School Transparency Org. for Parents v ... Harpursville Cent. Sch. Dist., 50 ... ...