WHITE PLAINS, NY (August 18, 2026) — A Westchester County Supreme Court judge has partially granted and partially denied the New Rochelle school district’s request to keep portions of its Shrub Oak International School legal invoices hidden from her own review, ruling that any material the district labels privileged must be turned over to the court in full, while allowing the district to continue withholding entries it separately deems “entirely unrelated to and unresponsive” to the underlying records request.
Acting Supreme Court Justice Sheralyn Pulver issued the ruling in a Court Notice filed August 18, 2026, amending her August 13 directive in the Article 78 proceeding brought by Robert Cox, publisher of Talk of the Sound and Words in Edgewise, against the City School District of New Rochelle. A second notice filed the same day corrected a typographical error in the first, fixing the deadline for the district’s in camera submission at August 24, 2026.
The District’s Request
The amended ruling came three days after Ingerman Smith LLP, outside counsel for the district, asked the court on August 15 to modify its original directive requiring an unredacted submission of the disputed invoices for in camera review — a process in which a judge examines withheld material privately to assess whether it was properly shielded from disclosure. In an August 14 letter, attorney Michael Liptrot argued that the invoices, described as monthly billing statements, contain entries “wholly unrelated” to Cox’s FOIL request and asked the court to let the district leave those portions redacted before submission, while agreeing that any entries specifically concerning legal services related to Shrub Oak would be fully unredacted for the court’s inspection.
Cox opposed the request in a letter filed the same day, arguing that allowing the district to pre-screen the records before the court ever saw them would defeat the purpose of in camera review, since the court “cannot assess the propriety of a redaction … if it never sees the material in the first place.” Cox also asked that, if the court were inclined to modify its directive, he be permitted to submit a memorandum of law on the scope of the review before any change was made.
The Court’s Ruling
The court’s August 18 order did not adopt either party’s position in full. It rejected the district’s request as to any material claimed to be privileged: those portions “must be unredacted in their entirety” for the court’s review, with no self-redaction permitted. But the order did allow the district to continue redacting, before submission, those entries it independently determines are “entirely unrelated to and unresponsive” to Cox’s FOIL request, which sought all invoices and legal payments related to Shrub Oak from 2019 to the present.
Cox responded the same day with a letter asking the court to direct the district to accompany its August 24 submission with a log or index identifying, by date and biller, each entry redacted under the “unrelated and unresponsive” designation, without revealing the redacted content itself. The letter states the request is intended to allow the court to confirm the designation “has been applied narrowly,” and specifies that Cox does not intend the request, or his compliance with the court’s directive, to waive his position on the proper scope of that category going forward.
Background
The dispute is part of a broader Article 78 proceeding, Cox v. City School District of New Rochelle, Index No. 57316/2026, arising from FOIL requests Cox submitted in October 2024 for legal invoices, emails, and aide payment records connected to the district’s placement of students at Shrub Oak, a private therapeutic school in Mohegan Lake not on New York State’s list of approved special education schools. The district produced roughly 380 pages of legal invoices in January 2026 that Cox has said were redacted so extensively that only five dollar figures were visible in the entire production, with no totals disclosed anywhere. Justice Pulver rejected the district’s motion to dismiss the invoices claim on April 28, and the district’s May 20 Verified Answer asserted the redactions were necessary to protect attorney-client privilege, without including a privilege log or supporting affidavit.
The matter remains pending before Justice Pulver, with the district’s in camera submission due August 24, 2026.
RELATED
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.