District argues releasing legal invoices would irreparably harm its appeal, opposes request to expedite proceedings as legal battle over millions in special-education spending continues.
NEW ROCHELLE, NY (October 19, 2026) — The City School District of New Rochelle has asked a state appellate court to reject a motion seeking the release of legal bills connected to its controversial placement of four students at Shrub Oak International School, arguing that disclosure would cause irreparable harm and potentially render its appeal meaningless. The District also opposes a request to expedite the appeal, maintaining that there is no compelling reason to accelerate proceedings.
In a 17-page affirmation filed Monday with the Appellate Division, Second Department, District attorney Michael E. Liptrot of Ingerman Smith LLP opposed a motion by Talk of the Sound Publisher Robert Cox to vacate or modify an automatic stay preventing enforcement of a court order requiring the District to disclose its legal billing records. The filing comes nearly two weeks after Cox asked the appellate court to lift the stay imposed when the District appealed a September 3 ruling by Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Sheralyn Pulver.
Pulver had ordered the District to release the responsive portions of approximately 381 pages of legal billing records after finding that the District had failed to invoke attorney-client privilege or another statutory exemption during the administrative Freedom of Information Law process. She also awarded Cox $350 in litigation costs. The District appealed October 2, triggering an automatic stay under CPLR 5519(a)(1), a provision that generally protects governmental entities from enforcement of certain court judgments while their appeals are pending. Cox filed his motion challenging the stay October 6, and the Second Department has scheduled the motion for October 26.
A $3.3 Million Controversy With an Unknown Legal Bill
The underlying dispute concerns the District’s expenditure of millions of dollars on four students attending Shrub Oak International School, a private therapeutic school that was not approved by the New York State Education Department for placements recommended by public-school Committees on Special Education. As documented in an October 8 Talk of the Sound investigation, District records establish at least $3,328,452.60 in Shrub Oak-related expenditures, including $2,858,151.70 in tuition and $470,300.90 in transportation costs. The complete cost remains unknown because the available records do not fully account for transportation aides or monitors, legal services associated with the placements, or the subsequent legal battle over disclosure of those services.
NYSED records obtained by Talk of the Sound show that state officials informed New Rochelle in May 2020 that Shrub Oak was not an approved school, that a Committee on Special Education could not recommend placement there, and that no state funding mechanism existed for students placed in a nonapproved school. Nevertheless, District financial records establish that payments connected to Shrub Oak continued into the 2023-24 school year.
The unresolved legal expenses are particularly significant because attorneys were involved in the Shrub Oak controversy by at least April 2020. Legal work continued through subsequent administrative proceedings, and billing statements reviewed by Justice Pulver contained responsive entries spanning more than three years. Cox sought the legal invoices under FOIL on October 8, 2024, but after more than a year of extensions, the District produced approximately 380 pages of heavily redacted billing statements in January 2026.
The production contained only five visible dollar figures identified in Cox’s review, with no disclosed invoice totals or aggregate amount sufficient to establish the District’s legal expenditures related to Shrub Oak. Cox subsequently challenged the redactions in an Article 78 proceeding, eventually obtaining the September 3 judgment now under appeal.
District Says Disclosure Would Make Appeal Meaningless
In Monday’s filing, Liptrot argued that the automatic stay is essential because releasing the disputed invoices would permanently eliminate the confidentiality the District seeks to protect. He contends that once Cox receives the records, the claimed attorney-client privilege cannot be restored, even if the appellate court later reverses Pulver’s decision.
“Vacating the stay would hand Petitioner the very records the appeal concerns and such disclosure cannot be undone,” Liptrot wrote. The District argues that disclosure would effectively make the underlying appeal academic because the information it seeks to protect would already have been released.
The opposition relies on New York appellate decisions addressing the irreversible consequences of disclosure, including cases involving discovery orders and confidential materials. Liptrot also argues that Cox bears the burden of demonstrating why the automatic stay should be disturbed, rather than requiring the District to justify its continued protection. According to the filing, the District is entitled to the stay under state law while the appellate court considers whether Pulver properly ordered disclosure.
Attorney-Client Privilege at Center of Appeal
Another major issue raised in the opposition concerns whether the District lost the ability to rely on attorney-client privilege by failing to invoke it during the administrative FOIL process. Pulver’s September 3 decision relied on a New York Court of Appeals ruling holding that an agency generally cannot defend a FOIL denial in court using grounds it did not assert during the administrative proceedings.
The District does not dispute that principle but argues that its application to attorney-client privilege raises a separate legal question. “The District’s appeal does not dispute the validity of Madeiros,” Liptrot wrote. “However, as will be more thoroughly addressed in the District’s brief, the District contends that the principles set forth in Madeiros do not strip an agency of its attorney-client privilege.”
Liptrot further argues that the privilege belongs to the Board of Education and raises the question of whether a FOIL officer’s failure to assert it can effectively waive the Board’s privilege. The District characterizes that issue as one with potentially far-reaching implications that deserves appellate review before the records are released.
Pulver’s ruling did not require disclosure of material unrelated to Shrub Oak. Following an examination of the invoices in private, known legally as an in camera review, she directed the District to disclose the responsive portions while permitting wholly unrelated entries to remain redacted. The District argues that the judge’s private review does not eliminate the potential harm associated with public disclosure of material it maintains is privileged.
District Disputes Urgency of Public Disclosure
Liptrot also challenges Cox’s argument that further delay would diminish the public value of the records. In his motion, Cox emphasized that the legal expenses concern millions of dollars in taxpayer expenditures, the District’s handling of special-education placements, and questions that remain relevant as New Rochelle confronts substantial budgetary pressures. The District argues that those considerations do not establish a sufficiently urgent need to override the automatic stay.
Liptrot characterizes Cox’s asserted harm as the diminished “contemporaneous value” of the information for reporting and public scrutiny, noting that the underlying events occurred several years ago. “On Petitioner’s side is a delay of receiving some information, and little else,” Liptrot wrote. The District contends that the potential permanent loss of attorney-client privilege outweighs the consequences of postponing disclosure until the appeal is decided.
The disagreement comes as New Rochelle continues its Vision 2030 planning process, during which school officials are weighing potential changes to facilities and educational programs while confronting significant financial constraints. The original Shrub Oak investigation documented expenditures involving four students that consumed substantial portions of the District’s annual private-school special-education tuition budget during several school years. The legal bills remain one of the principal missing components needed to determine the full taxpayer cost.
District Also Opposes Faster Appeal
Even if the Second Department declines to lift the automatic stay, Cox has asked the court to order the District to perfect its appeal by a specified date and grant the case expedited consideration. Perfecting an appeal generally requires the appellant to submit the appellate record and briefs necessary for the court to consider the case.
Under the ordinary appellate timetable, the District generally has up to six months to perfect its appeal. The case must then proceed through scheduling, consideration and a final decision, a process that could extend beyond the initial six-month period. Liptrot argues that there is no justification for accelerating that timetable.
“The District is entitled to perfect its appeal in the ordinary course, and Petitioner shows no compelling basis to compress that schedule,” he wrote. The District also opposes Cox’s request to modify the stay concerning the $350 in costs awarded by Pulver, arguing that payment should remain suspended pending the appeal.
Finally, the District objects to Cox’s request that the sealed billing records reviewed by Pulver be transmitted to the appellate court, calling that step unnecessary and premature. Liptrot argues that the records can be obtained later under appropriate protective conditions if the appellate court determines they are needed.
What Happens Next?
The latest filing brings the immediate dispute before the Second Department into sharper focus. The District maintains that releasing the records before the appeal is decided would permanently compromise its asserted legal privileges and deprive it of meaningful appellate review. Cox’s motion asks the court to consider the consequences of maintaining the stay after more than two years of efforts to obtain the records.
The Second Department is scheduled to consider the motion on October 26 at 10 a.m. The matter is returnable on submission, without oral argument. The court could leave the automatic stay in place, vacate or modify it, or grant some form of alternative relief concerning the appellate proceedings.
Whatever the court decides, the larger dispute remains unresolved. New Rochelle has already spent at least $3.3 million in documented tuition and transportation costs associated with four students at Shrub Oak, and the final cost of the controversy, including legal expenses, remains unknown. More than two years after Talk of the Sound first requested the legal bills, the District is still fighting to prevent their disclosure.
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.com (preferred) or contact via WhatsApp: +353 089 972 0669.