Administrative Appeal of Denial of FOIL Request for Records Related to Bid Number 5820 – Request for Master Redeveloper Proposal Submitted by The Young Companies LLC

Dear City Manager Melendez

This letter constitutes my administrative appeal, pursuant to Public Officers Law (POL) § 89(4)(a), of the City of New Rochelle’s denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request dated October 30, 2025, and subsequent renewed and expanded requests dated November 13, 2025, and November 21, 2025. For the reasons set forth below, the City’s withholding and redaction of the requested records are unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious. I demand the immediate production of the unredacted original records, along with a detailed justification for any prior withholdings or redactions.

Background and Procedural History

On October 29, 2025, bids were due for Bid Number 5820, titled “Request for Master Redeveloper Proposal,” for the redevelopment of a public park in New Rochelle—a project that generated significant public controversy, particularly regarding potential eminent domain implications. A single bid was submitted by The Young Companies LLC (hereinafter “The Young Companies”).

On October 30, 2025, I submitted a FOIL request to the City for a complete, unredacted copy of The Young Companies’ bid response (the “Proposal”), as well as any related correspondence or evaluations. I also made a parallel informal request to your office, as City Manager, to proactively release the Proposal on the City’s website given the high level of public interest in this controversial matter. The City denied both requests, citing exemptions under POL § 87(2)(c) (records that “would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining agreements”) and related provisions, but indicated that the Proposal would be revisited for release upon the award of the bid or termination of the RFP process.

On November 13, 2025, you publicly announced the termination of the RFP process. At that point, any exemption under POL § 87(2)(c) plainly ceased to apply, rendering the Proposal fully subject to disclosure under FOIL, subject only to the narrow exemptions enumerated in POL § 87(2). I immediately renewed my FOIL request for the unredacted Proposal, emphasizing that no pending procurement existed to justify withholding.

Despite this, the City engaged in weeks of additional stonewalling, providing no substantive response. On November 21, 2025, upon learning that The Young Companies had requested the return of its bid response documents, I restated my demand for the Proposal and submitted a new FOIL request for all emails, memoranda, or other records related to The Young Companies’ request for return of the documents, including any communications between the City and The Young Companies regarding the Proposal’s handling, redaction, or retention.

On December 1, 2025, the City produced a heavily redacted version of the Proposal. This production raises serious concerns about the integrity of the original record, including apparent alterations (e.g., discrepancies in pagination suggesting a missing page around page 24, which contains the site map, and modifications to the map’s legend that conveniently obscure areas implicated in the eminent domain controversy). Moreover, your recent statements appear to confirm that the City retains an original, unredacted version of the Proposal as submitted on October 29, 2025. Despite this, the City has failed to produce it, instead deferring to post hoc redactions apparently directed by The Young Companies.

Legal Grounds for Appeal

The City’s actions violate FOIL on multiple, independent grounds. FOIL mandates broad disclosure of government records to ensure public accountability, with exemptions construed narrowly in favor of disclosure (POL § 89(4)(a); see also Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 NY3d 454, 460 (2007)).

1. No Basis for Post-Termination Withholding or Redaction Under POL § 87(2)(c)
   Upon termination of the RFP on November 13, 2025, the Proposal lost any protection under POL § 87(2)(c). New York courts have consistently held that this exemption applies only to “present or imminent” procurement processes (Matter of Katz v. NYC Health & Hosps. Corp., 94 AD3d 433, 435 (1st Dept 2012)). With no ongoing evaluation or award process, the entire Proposal became a public record subject to immediate release. The City’s continued withholding thereafter was unlawful.
2. Improper Delegation of Redaction Authority to a Private Party and Potential Destruction/Alteration of Public Records
   The redactions in the produced document appear to originate not from an independent City determination, but from directions provided by The Young Companies after it requested return of the Proposal. This procedure is impermissible. Agencies may not delegate FOIL redaction decisions to record submitters (Committee on Open Government Advisory Opinion FOIL-AO-19117 (2016); see also Matter of Orange County Publs. v. Kiryas Joel Union Free Sch. Dist., 139 AD2d 294, 301 (2d Dept 1988)). Moreover, providing the Proposal (original or copy) to The Young Companies for redaction—or worse, returning the only copy—constitutes an unlawful delegation and risks violating the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law §§ 57.05 and 57.25 (prohibiting destruction or mutilation of public records) and the Local Government Records Law (requiring retention of procurement records).
   The apparent alterations (e.g., pagination issues around page 24 and modifications to the site map legend) further suggest potential tampering with a public record, which demands immediate investigation and disclosure of the unaltered original.
3. No Valid Exemption for “Proprietary” or “Confidential” Information Absent Contemporaneous Designation
   Any redactions purporting to protect “proprietary” or “confidential” information fail under POL § 87(2)(d), which exempts only “trade secrets” or material that “if disclosed could result in substantial injury to the competitive position” of the submitter. Courts require: (i) specific identification of exempt material at the time of submission (e.g., by marking sections “Confidential – Trade Secret” and providing a supporting letter); (ii) independent agency evaluation; and (iii) a showing of actual competitive harm (Matter of Markowitz v. Serio, 11 NY3d 43, 51 (2008); Matter of Verizon NY, Inc. v. Mills, 60 AD3d 150, 155 (3d Dept 2009)).
   To my knowledge, the original Proposal submitted on October 29, 2025, contained no such contemporaneous designations. Retroactive claims by The Young Companies (or the City) cannot retroactively create an exemption. “Confidential” is not a catch-all; it applies only to statutorily protected personal privacy information under POL § 87(2)(b) (e.g., Social Security numbers), not mere commercial sensitivity. Without evidence of original markings and a detailed justification, all redactions are presumptively invalid.
4. Failure to Provide a Detailed Explanation or Vaughn Index
   The City’s production lacks any index or explanation identifying the claimed exemption for each redaction, as required for meaningful appeal (POL § 89(4)(a); Matter of Data Tree, supra, at 464). This alone warrants reversal and full disclosure. A Vaughn Index is an itemized document an agency prepares in a Freedom of Information lawsuit to justify its withholding of information. It correlates each withheld document (or portion) with the specific FOIA exemption it falls under and provides a justification for the withholding, while also noting any reasonably segregable information that has been released.

Relief Requested

Within ten (10) business days, as required by POL § 89(4)(a), I demand:

1. Production of the original, unredacted Proposal as submitted by The Young Companies LLC on October 29, 2025, in its entirety, without alterations.
2. Production of all records responsive to my November 21, 2025, FOIL request, including but not limited to:
   – All emails, memoranda, or correspondence between the City and The Young Companies regarding the Proposal’s return, redaction, or handling (November 13, 2025, to present).– Any City evaluations, notes, or internal discussions concerning the Proposal.
3. A detailed Vaughn-style index specifying, for each redaction in the December 1, 2025, production: the precise location (page/section), the claimed exemption under POL § 87(2), the factual basis (including evidence of contemporaneous designation), and an explanation of why disclosure would cause substantial competitive injury or other harm.
4. A sworn certification from the City’s Records Access Officer (or you, as custodian) confirming: (i) the City retains the original unredacted Proposal; (ii) no copies were returned to or altered by The Young Companies; and (iii) the integrity of all public records related to Bid 5820 has been preserved.
5. Disclosure of any other records relating to the RFP process, including the termination announcement and public controversy.

Failure to fully comply will compel me to seek judicial review via an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, Westchester County, where I will request the full relief above, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under POL § 89(4)(c) (as the denial lacks a “reasonable basis in law”). The public has a right to scrutinize this controversial project, and the City’s actions undermine FOIL’s core purpose of government transparency.

I am available to discuss this appeal and encourage prompt resolution. Please contact me.

Sincerely,

Robert Cox

+353 (89) 972 0669

Publisher and Managing Editor

Talk of the Sound

Member, New York Press Club

Web Site: www.talkofthesound.com

X: @talkofthesound

Facebook Page: facebook.com/talkofthesound

instagram: @talkofthesound

Vimeo: vimeo.com/robertcox

YouTube: youtube.com/c/talkofthesound

LinkIn: linkin.bio/talkofthesound