Forcucci v. Board of Educ. of Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist.
151 A.D.3d 1660
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Catherine Schrauth Forcucci was a member of the Hamburg Central School District Board and faced removal under Education Law § 1709(18).
- The Board conducted a removal hearing and closed the first three days of the proceeding to the general public.
- Forcucci sued, alleging the Board violated her First Amendment right of public access by closing those days (second and fourth causes of action).
- Supreme Court denied Forcucci’s motion for summary judgment on those First Amendment claims and denied the Board leave to amend its answer to assert lack of standing.
- Forcucci appealed the denial of summary judgment (Appeal No. 1); the Board cross-appealed the denial of leave to amend (Appeal No. 2).
- The Appellate Division affirmed: it held the Board had waived a standing defense but affirmed denial of summary judgment because Forcucci failed to establish, as a matter of law, that § 1709(18) removal hearings carry a First Amendment right of public access; it also upheld denial of the Board’s motion to amend due to prejudice to Forcucci.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board waived a standing defense by failing to raise it in its verified answer or pre-answer motion | Forcucci: Board waived standing by not pleading it timely | Board: Standing defense could be asserted later via amendment | Court: Board waived standing by omission, but this did not decide the summary judgment motion's merits |
| Whether removal proceedings under Education Law § 1709(18) are subject to a First Amendment public-access right | Forcucci: Removal hearings are public and historical practice and public oversight create a right of access | Board: No established historical tradition or demonstrated significant public role to trigger Press-Enterprise test | Court: Forcucci failed to show as a matter of law that such hearings are historically open or that public access plays a significant positive role; summary judgment denied |
| If a right of access exists, whether closure of the first three days was justified by specific on-the-record findings narrowly tailored to higher values | Forcucci: Closure was not justified; no proper findings | Board: Closure was necessary for higher values (e.g., confidentiality, fair process) | Court: Not reached on the merits because Forcucci didn’t establish the right of access as a matter of law |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying the Board leave to amend its answer to assert standing | Board: Amendment should be allowed | Forcucci: Amendment would prejudice her (delay, change in position) | Court: Denial affirmed; amendment would prejudice Forcucci and court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public and press access to criminal trials fosters integrity and quality of proceedings)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., County of Riverside, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (two-part test for First Amendment right of access and requirement for on-the-record findings to close proceedings)
- Matter of Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. Melino, 77 N.Y.2d 1 (1990) (application of Press-Enterprise access test to professional disciplinary hearings)
- Matter of Fossella v. Dinkins, 66 N.Y.2d 162 (1985) (failure to raise defenses in a timely pleading can constitute waiver)
- Matter of Santoro v. Schreiber, 263 A.D.2d 953 (1999) (waiver principles where unpleaded defenses are not timely raised)