descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Auburn Publishers, Inc. v. Netti

Citations: 229 A.D.2d 988; 645 N.Y.S.2d 204; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9040

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 12, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Order reversed unanimously, with costs awarded, and case remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. The petitioner appealed the denial of its application for attorney’s fees under Public Officers Law § 107(2). The court originally denied the application based on a misunderstanding that attorney’s fees could only be awarded for repeat or egregious violations of the Open Meetings Law. This interpretation was found to be incorrect, referencing the precedent set in *Gordon v. Village of Monticello*, which clarifies the applicable standard for awarding attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court is instructed to reevaluate the application in line with the standard established in the cited case.

Legal Issues Addressed

Awarding of Attorney's Fees under Public Officers Law § 107(2)

Application: The court initially denied the application for attorney's fees based on a misinterpretation that such fees could only be awarded for repeat or egregious violations of the Open Meetings Law. This decision was reversed, with instructions to apply the correct standard.

Reasoning: The court originally denied the application based on a misunderstanding that attorney’s fees could only be awarded for repeat or egregious violations of the Open Meetings Law.

Precedent in Awarding Attorney's Fees

Application: The case cited *Gordon v. Village of Monticello* as the precedent for determining the correct standard for awarding attorney's fees, highlighting that the previous interpretation by the court was incorrect.

Reasoning: This interpretation was found to be incorrect, referencing the precedent set in *Gordon v. Village of Monticello*, which clarifies the applicable standard for awarding attorney’s fees.

Remittal for Reevaluation by Supreme Court

Application: The case is remitted to the Supreme Court to reevaluate the application for attorney's fees using the correct legal standard established by precedent.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court is instructed to reevaluate the application in line with the standard established in the cited case.