Court rules district must answer for stonewalling public records request
WHITE PLAINS, NY (April 28, 2026) — A Westchester County Supreme Court judge today rejected the New Rochelle City School District’s attempt to kill a lawsuit over its handling of public records tied to Shrub Oak International School, ruling that the core claim in the case must proceed.
Acting Supreme Court Justice Sheralyn Pulver denied the District’s motion to dismiss the central claim in the case — that the District buried legally required disclosures under a mountain of unexplained redactions. The ruling, issued today, means the District will now have to file a formal answer and defend in court why it blacked out so much of the legal billing records connected to its dealings with Shrub Oak.
The case was brought by Robert Cox under New York’s Freedom of Information Law after he submitted three records requests in October 2024 seeking invoices for legal services, email communications, and transportation aide payment records — all related to the District’s relationship with Shrub Oak International School dating back to 2019.
The District’s response was slow by any measure. More than a year passed before it produced a single substantive response to any of the three requests. When it finally turned over the legal invoice records in January 2026, Cox complained that the documents were so heavily redacted — with no explanation or legal justification offered — as to be effectively useless.
Cox appealed that response on January 14, 2026. The District never answered. Under state law, the FOIL appeals officer had ten business days to respond. The clock ran out, the District stayed silent, and under the law that silence counts as a denial — meaning Cox had exhausted every available administrative remedy and was entitled to go to court.
That is the conclusion the court reached as to the legal invoices claim. The judge rejected the District’s arguments for dismissal as to that claim, including its documentary evidence and mootness arguments. The dispute over redactions moves forward.
The District has until May 20 to file its answer. Cox may reply by June 3.
Two other claims in the case — related to email communications and aide payment records — were dismissed on procedural grounds, as Cox had not completed the administrative appeal process on those specific issues before filing suit. Those dismissals do not affect the legal invoices claim moving forward.
The case centers on a question that goes to the heart of open government: when a public school district writes checks to lawyers using taxpayer money, does the public have a right to know what it’s paying for? The District’s position, so far, has been to hand over documents so thoroughly blacked out that the answer might as well be no.
Today’s ruling ensures that question will finally have to be answered in court.
This article was prepared with the assistance of AI tools under the direction and editing of Robert Cox.
Have information about this story? Email robertcox@talkofthesound (preferred) or contact via WhatsApp: +353 089 972 0669.
RELATED