Petitioners Response in Further Support for Discovery and to Amend Caption
Cornell failed to provide any further proof of the many contradictory statements and evidence that was presented. They simply attached prior evidence to make it appear as if they were adding something new to the case when in fact they were not.
Petitioners point out that the City’s evidence of the succession of CP VI onto the ULURP application is defective in that this application was never officially received by DCP’s Intake Department, never given a number and never have been a part of the official records of the rezoning application. Below is an example of CP VI Uncertified Application and a copy of a Certified Rezoning Application.
It is also noted that without the affixed date stamp there is no proof that this application and the letter that came with it, wasn’t simply produced after this lawsuit was filed.
The City also produce the Doing As Business form for CP VI, who’s application wasn’t entered into the system or certified, but refused to provide Cornell’s who’s application was entered into the system and was certified. This proves that this information is purposely being hidden from the Court and the Petitioners.
The City also produced a FOIL denial for the EAS that was performed in 1991 Community plan, making the assumption that because one out of the seven government entities which stated they couldn’t find the EAS should prevent the Court from requesting the EAS. Especially in light of the fact that by law these records are to be maintained within the governments’ files and should be available for review.
Petitioner assert that this information is purposely being denied for it would show exactly how high a development may go based upon the City’s calculations and analysis, before any damage is done to BBG.
This is important because the Courts as a rule do not attempt to assess or to judge the studies conducted by the City.. The are taken at face value. Therefore, the City’s studies would prove or disprove that Cornell’s studies were defective.
Copies of Certified and Uncertified Rezoning Application
Copy of CP VI’s Uncertified Application
Copy of a Certified Application 
The City Charter, which is the law that has created and empowered the ULURP process states clearly that only a certified application may proceed through the ULURP process.
Other Minor Objections
Cornell also made objections to minor issues that have occurred within the paperwork, but are merely mistakes that the law allows to be corrected. Petitioners believe this is done to simply waste time and make Petitioners expend time and energy having to defend against minor errors that can be easily corrected and no prevailing case laws that will allow a case to be dismissed. This includes not including their full name on the caption; not presenting all of the reliefs within one document, making the claim that service was not performed on them, despite an affidavit of service being filed, their attorneys showing up at each hearing and court appearance and their owner, Mr Hager stating that he didn’t give permission to his attorney to accept service.
0 Comments