Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Cornell’s Motion to Dismiss

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Cornell’s Motion To Dismiss

Limited Circumstances

Prevailing laws states that when it comes to rezoning challenges, not all the properties owners within the parameters of the rezoning need to be on the lawsuit.  This is because rezonings can sometimes have hundreds of properties within the rezoned area, making it almost impossible to commence a lawsuit, if all property owners are to be a part of the lawsuit.  Therefore, only owners who fall under “limited circumstances” need to be on the lawsuit.  These would be property owners who obtained some type of permit or permission in regards to the new zoning laws, and/or is the applicant of the rezoning application etc..

Relation-Back Doctrine
There is also something called the relation-back doctrine which states that if a property owner is suppose to be on the lawsuit but has a relationship with a party that is on the lawsuit and these two parties rise and fall together, (having the same interest), then the property owner who is not on the lawsuit does not have to be on it.  The other party who is already on the lawsuit is exercising the rights of both parties.

To deal with these two prevailing concepts of law “limited circumstances” and “relation-back” , Cornell stated that they sold the properties during the middle of the rezoning process and thus they have no further relation and were no longer affiliated with any of the properties and they had no more interest regarding the rezoning itself.  Cornell also made the claim that CP VI was the new applicant on the rezoning application after the application itself was certified and Cornell was removed off of the application.

Petitioners in their paper show that there is whole host of contradictory evidence, based upon documents obtained from the government and sworn testimonies during the ULURP hearings by Cornell’s Lawyers, which show that the above position of Cornell isn’t true.

1. Cornell Realty Management LLC never owned any of the properties so it was impossible for them to sell them during the rezoning.
2. Cornell Realty was represented by their lawyer at each of the hearings during the entire ULURP process, thus they maintained their interest in this rezoning all the way to the end.
3. Cornell Realty stated that new property owners CP VI were their agent.
4. Both Cornell Realty and CP VI had the same attorney representing them during the ULURP process, which shows their shared interest.
5. Cornell stated that the final price of the sale of the property to CP VI was contingent upon the rezoning passing. If it passed they would be able to make another 18.5 million dollars. This proves that Cornell interest remained until the end of this rezoning.
6. All the official documents continued to list Cornell as the applicant of record, even now the documents state it was Cornell’s application.