Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner lacked standing to challenge any of the actions which allegedly violated the Open Meetings Law, including the respondent's determination to redistrict the students (see Public Officers Law § 107 [1]). In any event, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent violated this statute. There is no merit to the petitioner's claim that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.