WHITE PLAINS, NY (December 15, 2025) — A journalist filed a lawsuit against the city of New Rochelle and its city manager, alleging multiple violations of the New York Freedom of Information Law in the handling of a bid proposal for the redevelopment of Flowers Park.
Robert Cox, publisher of Talk of the Sound and a resident of Dublin, Ireland, submitted the Article 78 petition pro se on Dec. 14, 2025, in Westchester County Supreme Court. The case, captioned Robert A. Cox v. City of New Rochelle et al., was assigned index number 77188/2025. Judge George E. Fufidio was assigned to the case on Dec. 15, 2025.
The petition seeks to compel the city and City Manager Wilfredo Melendez to release a complete, unredacted bid proposal submitted by The Young Companies LLC on Oct. 29, 2025, in response to Bid No. 5820, titled “Request for Master Redeveloper Proposal.”
The city issued the request for proposals on Sept. 12, 2025, for the redevelopment of the public park, which generated significant public controversy, particularly regarding potential eminent domain implications. Only one bid was received, from The Young Companies.
Cox submitted a FOIL request on Oct. 30, 2025, for the full, unredacted proposal, related correspondence and evaluations, assigned record request #25-153. He also made an informal request to Melendez to release the proposal on the city’s website due to public interest.
The city denied both requests, citing exemptions under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(c) for records that “would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining agreements.” The city indicated the proposal would be revisited for release upon award of the bid or termination of the RFP process.
Melendez announced the termination of the RFP on Nov. 13, 2025, eliminating any basis for the § 87(2)(c) exemption.
Cox renewed his FOIL request immediately, emphasizing no pending procurement existed to justify withholding. On Nov. 21, 2025, upon learning The Young Companies had requested the return of its bid documents, Cox restated his demand and submitted a new FOIL request for related emails, memoranda or other records.
The city engaged in weeks of additional stonewalling in email exchanges. On Nov. 25, 2025, Melendez stated: “Proposals were requested to be returned by the requestor. They have been asked to redact items at the request of the FOIL. We are waiting on the redacted version.”
Cox replied: “Are you telling me you returned the bid proposal documents? Are you telling me you are asking the developer to redact the documents and return redacted documents to you so you can then release them? If so, what is the timeline on this?” The city provided no clarification.
On Dec. 2, 2025, Melendez offered: “The proposal was received as per RFP solicitation… Developer requested proposal be returned… Original then returned. FOIL provided. Not manipulated in any way.”
Cox responded that he did not understand the statement and requested a clearer version in complete sentences.
Later that day, Melendez provided: “To clarify the process, the City worked with the proposer to identify the portions they asserted to be trade secrets… The City has maintained a copy of the original, unredacted proposal… At no point was the City’s only copy of the proposal provided to the proposer or replaced by another version.”
Cox replied: “This is quite obviously NOT what you said previously. I will note your new position on this matter in a subsequent article. I will be appealing every redaction soon.”
In the city’s Dec. 4, 2025, denial of Cox’s administrative appeal, an email and letter from Cuddy + Feder, counsel for Bob Young LLC, requested return of the proposal and unspecified “additional materials.” There was no mention of requesting a copy for redactions or identifying trade secrets.
The additional materials would have been responsive to Cox’s FOIL requests but were not provided or acknowledged.
On Dec. 1, 2025, the city produced a heavily redacted version of the proposal, which showed apparent alterations, including pagination discrepancies suggesting a missing page around page 24, containing the site map, and modifications to the site map’s legend obscuring areas implicated in the eminent domain controversy.
City officials confirmed in emails that the city retains a copy of the original, unredacted proposal submitted on Oct. 29, 2025.
On Dec. 3, 2025, Cox filed an appeal to the city manager and a new FOIL request for records related to the return of documents.
Cox exhausted administrative remedies with the Dec. 4, 2025, denial, though the Dec. 3, 2025, FOIL request remains pending.
The petition asserts six causes of action: improper withholding after RFP termination; invalid trade-secret exemption lacking timely assertion of confidentiality, independent agency evaluation and proof of competitive harm, citing cases like Matter of Markowitz v. Serio, 11 NY3d 43 (2008), and Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 NY3d 454 (2007); failure to provide particularized justifications or a Vaughn index, violating Data Tree and Matter of Hofstra Univ. v. Nassau County Planning Commn., 80 Misc 3d 781 (2023); evidence of record tampering, violating Arts and Cultural Affairs Law §§ 57.05, 57.25 and local records retention schedules; failure to transmit the appeal denial to the Committee on Open Government, violating 22 NYCRR § 214.9(e); and entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c).
Cox seeks annulment of the Dec. 4, 2025, determination; production within 10 days of the full, unredacted original proposal; alternative in camera review and disclosure of non-exempt portions; a detailed index of redactions; production of records from the Nov. 21, 2025, request; attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements; and other relief.
The filing included a notice of petition with a return date of Dec. 31, 2025, a request for judicial intervention and exhibits A through O.
Cox paid $360.47 in fees on Dec. 14, 2025 and will pay additional fees to make service.
The petition relies on FOIL precedents emphasizing presumptive openness of public records, strict exemption requirements and agency burdens of proof.
RELATED
Flowers Park RFP – Bob Young Proposal – FOIL Litigation
This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.
Discover more from Talk of the Sound
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.