|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
Aron Law PLLC Prevailed In Similar Suffolk County FOIL Case; Firm Has Filed BusPatrol FOIL Cases Statewide
By Tina Traster
A Brooklyn attorney who has successfully sued New York municipalities to produce FOIL documents pertaining to contractual relationships with BusPatrol has filed a lawsuit in Rockland County for the same reason.
Joseph Aron of Aron Law PLLC filed an Article 78 lawsuit on March 13 in Rockland County Supreme Court after the county failed to comply with FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) by “unjustifiably withholding responsive records to Petitioner’s FOIL requests related to the County’s school-bus stop-arm camera enforcement program.”
Anyone who seeks information from a public entity and is denied has standing to bring a case.
The suit says programs like the one BusPatrol operates have been plagued by systemic issues, including reliability of camera footage, adequacy of notice and questions about motorist fault. RCBJ since December has published a series of stories that shed light on both the practical and economic efficacy of the BusPatrol program.
Following a Jan. 6 FOIL request, Rockland County obstructed RCBJ’s ability to review the terms of the contract between the county and BusPatrol, a private company based in Lorton, Virginia, which equips school buses with stop-arm cameras. The county produced a heavily redacted version of the contract, blacking out every reference to how the finances work on the 2023 contract. The FOIL response includes boilerplate language but omits the administrative and technology fees the county pays (per bus) from its share of citation revenue. It also blacks out the revenue sharing split, though the county has claimed that the division is 55/45 percent in BusPatrol’s favor.
RCBJ filed an appeal with the county, which was denied. The county FOIL Appeals Officer Aney Paul, who is also vice-chairwoman of the County Legislature, upheld the county’s decision to withhold the terms of the contract, saying the contract amounts to “trade secrets” and if disclosed “would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise.”
“Having reviewed the record concerning your FOIL request, I find that the RAO correctly applied the test set forth… Specifically, in discussions with BusPatrol, the RAO has learned that the information contained in the redacted sections of the records constituted “trade secrets,” Paul wrote.
Paul also wrote: “The redacted information contains formulas, other financial information, and proprietary information about BusPatrol’s hardware and software. BusPatrol informed the RAO that it keeps this information confidential, limiting access to such information to select individuals in its organization. The RAO determined that this information has commercial value to BusPatrol’s competitors and if disclosed, would enable a third party to glean a competitive advantage over BusPatrol, which could significantly impinge BusPatrol’s ability to continue its operations effectively, enter into new contracts as well as disclose proprietary formulas and technology.”
The County is standing behind this “trade secret” exemption though many versions of BusPatrol contracts from other jurisdictions in New York are publicly available.
Petitioner Aron Law PLLC independently submitted two separate Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) requests to Rockland County on June 27, 2025, seeking Rockland County’s contract with BusPatrol. On Oct. 29, Aron filed an administrative appeal, citing the redactions were improper because government contracts are presumptively public and the county failed to demonstrate “particularized and specific demonstration of actual competitive injury required under FOIL.”
The appeal said the response was incomplete because the county had failed to conduct a coordinated, department-wide search and failed to provide a privilege or exemption log identifying each withheld or redacted portion together with the applicable statutory basis and a record-specific explanation of the asserted harm.
The administrative appeal was denied on Nov. 14.
In his lawsuit, Aron argues the New York Legislature has made it unequivocally clear that FOIL’s purpose is to ensure open government and public accountability and that the agency, in this case, Rockland County, bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls within a specific statutory exemption. The lawsuit says the county has “not met its burden under FOIL to justify the withholding or redaction of the…records.”
The lawsuit acknowledges that FOIL law permits an agency to withhold records that are trade secrets, or those that if disclosed, would cause substantial competitive injury. But he claims Rockland County cannot rely on a trade secret exemption and merely asserts, in conclusory fashion, that disclosure of certain contractual provisions could provide BusPatrol’s competitors with a competitive advantage.
The determination does not identify what specific information allegedly constitutes a trade secret, how that information has commercial value to competitors, or how disclosure would cause substantial competitive injury, the lawsuit says.
The suit goes on to say that Rockland County has not submitted any affidavits from BusPatrol or other evidentiary showing supporting the claim of competitive harm, Instead, it relies on BusPatrol’s assertion that portions of the agreements are proprietary, and does not specify how the information meets the statutory definition of a trade secret.
Aron prevailed in another court proceeding testing the same theory.
In January, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Liccione rejected an attempt by that county based on similar conclusory assertions of trade secrets and competitive harm, ordering production of responsive FOIL documents. In that case, BusPatrol in an affidavit asserted that disclosure of certain program materials would provide competitors with “an exact blueprint of how the system works.” The court held that such a conclusory assertion, without specific factual evidence demonstrating trade secret status or substantial competitive injury, was insufficient to sustain the exemption.
Aron has similar FOIL litigation pending against Dutchess County for its refusal to provide responsive FOIL documents regarding its contract with Bus Patrol. The Article 78 Petition was filed in Dutchess County Supreme Court in February. The County’s response is due on May 8th.
Litigation is also pending against the Lawrence Union Free School District #15 in Nassau County Supreme Court for its refusal to comply with FOIL regarding the BusPatrol program.
In 2023, Rockland County partnered with BusPatrol to equip school buses countywide with stop-arm cameras. The majority of the collected revenue — 55 percent — goes to BusPatrol, with 45 percent to the county, according to a county spokesperson, a split that cannot be verified without documents.
The county covers costs incurred by the Rockland County Sheriff’s Office to review thousands of videos submitted to decide which ones to charge and to the County Attorney’s Office to cover hearings when drivers contest liability. Every school district in Rockland County is participating in the program, but they do not share any of the revenue from the citations. The county also pays an undisclosed “per bus” fee each month (about $1 million annually) for every one of the over one thousand buses equipped with stop-arm cameras.
Elected leaders nationwide and local news reports have been shedding light on the system that BusPatrol installs and profits from, citing unreliable ticketing due to technology limitations and human error, long delays in setting hearings for those who contest tickets, ticketing on four- to six-lane roads that make stopping for buses difficult and often dangerous, and punitively high fines often adversely affecting low-income residents. Some local leaders in Rockland County who spoke off the record say they are concerned with the program. Others say that “hot-spots” for ticketing (dangerous locations) are ignored, favoring revenue over student safety.
Rockland County officials say the program, which began late 2023, led to the issuance of more than 45,000 violations in less than two years, but recorded a 30 percent decrease in offenses from 2024 to 2025. In 2024, there were 24,986 citation issued in the county. In 2025, there have been 19,563 to date, a 23 percent decrease year-over year, according to the county.
It is difficult to assess how much the county rakes in on the taxpayer-funded program — and at what point it might be under water if the number of tickets issued continues to dramatically decrease year over year. Also many motorists ignore the tickets. The county refuses to answer any questions related to extra technology and administrative fees. It will not reveal what it costs to have the sheriff’s department evaluate the AI videos and the amount of time required for county attorneys to prosecute the citations in traffic court.
Although some Rockland County data is available through a 2024 state report BusPatrol filed with the New York State Assembly, which RCBJ reviewed, the county refuses to make public the contract details, asserting the terms of the agreement are protected by “trade secrets.” However, the terms of agreements between a host of other towns and school districts with BusPatrol is readily accessible through Google searches. A review of five contracts reveals the language from contract to contract is nearly identical, though the revenue splits vary, as do the administrative and technology fees.
The contracts reviewed contain a “confidentiality clause” BusPatrol uses to shield its contract terms from public disclosure. However under New York State FOIL, a company does not have the right to designate what’s considered public information — that’s a matter for the courts. This challenge was tested and rejected in Pennsylvania by LehighValleyNews under the “Right To Know” clause, which is similar to New York’s FOIL.
Rockland County must respond to Aron’s petition by April 29th.
