Memorandum of Law for Petitioners’ Motion for Discovery

Memorandum of Law for Petitioners Motion For Discovery

As a result of very contradictory statements made by Cornell and the City to get this case dismissed, Petitioners have requested Discovery to determine what is fiction and what is fact.

Case laws state that when there is a discrepancy in facts pertaining to a Motion to Dismiss, the issues of a fact must first be settled before the Motion To Dismiss can be decided.

Discovery Requests

•  LLC’s Information

Detailed Information regarding the LLC’s membership, to determine how Cornell Realty is connected to the any of the 16 property lots contained within the rezoning.

• Procedures of DCP and CPC.

Procedures and protocols of the Department of City Planning and City Planning Commission regarding succession (changing of applicant) of Certified ULURP application along with the requirements of applicants regarding private rezoning application.  (Petitioners believe that this rezoning is actually unlawful because Cornell Realty Management LLC never owned any of the properties).

• CP VI Certified Application

The Certified application of CP VI being the new applicant on the ULURP application.  (All that has been given to Petitioners is an uncertified, unaccepted, unnumbered rezoning application, and the laws states only certified application may be processed via the ULURP process.)

• Doing Business As Form

Doing Business Database Form for Cornell Realty. This form gives more information about who are the owners of the LLC and their connection with the City, to expose conflict of interest issues. (The City gave CP VI’s but refused to give Cornell’s)

• Arms Length Agreement

Arms-Length Business Agreement between Cornell Realty and CP VI for the sale of one of the 16 lots contained within the rezoning parameters. An arms-length agreement denotes that the parties are separate entities and are not working on behalf of each other or for one party.  However, Cornell stated that CP VI was its agent, and if that is true then the arms-length agreement would be unlawful.

• 1991 EAS and Studies

The Full EAS and the studies for the Community Plan of 1991.  The City has stated that the Department of City Planning can not find this EAS, however, 6 other government entities were given a copy, for it went through the ULURP process and the law states that these records must be maintained.

• Community Agreement

The fully executed Community Agreement Plan that Councilwoman Laurie Cumbo stated on the record, was done in regards to this rezoning. (Currently Petitioners simply have a list of promises on a letterhead, with no signatures attached.)

Respondents Objection to Petitioners Request for Discovery

Both the City and Cornell have objected to the Petitioners request for discovery. They simply stated that the court should only review the documents in the middle of the rezoning application, when CP VI became the owners of one of the properties.

The City also suggests that the court should only review when the CP VI became the owner of one of the properties. The City also produced an uncertified, undocumented, unnumbered rezoning application, as “proof” that Cornell was replaced on the rezoning application  by CP VI.  However, they never stated which agency did this act, nor produced a certified application.