amended complaint nrp v. brown et al
Post on 16-Oct-2014
3.597 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NRP HOLDINGS LLC and NRP PROPERTIES LLC Plaintiffs, v. Civil No.: 11-CV-00472(WMS) CITY OF BUFFALO, BYRON W. BROWN, STEVEN M. CASEY, DEMONE A. SMITH, RICHARD A. STENHOUSE, BUFFALO JEREMIAH PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC., JOHN DOE 1 – 10, and JOHN DOE COMPANIES 1 – 5. Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
NRP Holdings LLC and NRP Properties LLC (collectively "NRP"), through
their attorneys Webster Szanyi LLP, state as follows:
Introduction
1. This is an action seeking recovery for actual and treble damages
caused by the conduct of the individual defendants who participated in the affairs of the
defendant City of Buffalo ("Buffalo") through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961
et seq. This action also seeks recovery for defendants’ tortious conduct and for Buffalo’s
breach of a contract concerning NRP’s plans to develop, construct and manage (50) units
of single-family homes in the Masten Park and Cold Springs neighborhoods of the City of
Buffalo. Simply put, the individual defendants conspired to kill the project when NRP
refused to comply with their illegal demand to pay monies to Reverend Richard A.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 1 of 29
2
Stenhouse and/or affiliated organizations in order for the Project to proceed. The illegal
demands by the individual defendants are commonly known as a "pay to play" scheme.
Parties
2. Plaintiff NRP Holdings LLC is an Ohio limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Ohio.
3. Plaintiff NRP Properties LLC is an Ohio limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Ohio.
4. Defendant City of Buffalo is a municipal corporation operating under
the laws of the State of New York.
5. Defendant Byron W. Brown ("Brown") is a resident of the State of
New York.
6. Defendant Brown was and is the Mayor of Buffalo.
7. Defendant Steven M. Casey ("Casey") is a resident of the State of
New York.
8. Defendant Casey was and is the First Deputy Mayor of Buffalo.
9. Defendant Demone A. Smith ("Smith") is a resident of the State of
New York.
10. Defendant Smith was and is a member of the Buffalo Common
Council.
11. Defendant Richard A. Stenhouse ("Stenhouse") is a resident of the
State of New York.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 2 of 29
3
12. Defendant Buffalo Jeremiah Partnership for Community
Development, Inc. ("Jeremiah Partnership") is a domestic corporation operating under the
laws of the State of New York.
13. Defendant Stenhouse was and is the president of the Jeremiah
Partnership.
14. Defendants John Doe 1 – 10 and John Doe Companies 1 – 5
represent individuals and entities which plaintiffs believe exist and may have acted
individually, together, and/or in concert with the defendants herein. Defendants John Doe
1 – 10 include both individuals employed by the City of Buffalo and within the private
sector. The allegations set forth below are incorporated as and against each John Doe
and John Doe Company as if fully set forth against him, her, or it.
Jurisdiction and Venue
15. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
16. This Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1332.
17. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391
and 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a).
Factual Background 18. NRP are affiliates of the NRP Group LLC, an Ohio limited liability
company that develops, builds and manages apartments and housing across the United
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 3 of 29
4
States. Among other honors, the National Association of Home Builders named the NRP
Group LLC as the 2009 multifamily development firm of the year.
19. In November 2007, NRP was invited by representatives of Buffalo to
participate in a meeting to discuss affordable housing initiatives within the City of Buffalo.
During this meeting, these representatives expressed their desire to work with NRP and
associated companies to build single family homes within the City of Buffalo.
20. Effective February 21, 2008, NRP entered into agreements with
associated companies to develop, construct and manage fifty (50) homes in the Masten
Park and Cold Springs neighborhoods of the City of Buffalo (the "Project"). (NRP and its
associated companies are hereafter collectively referred to as the "Development Team.").
21. By letter dated February 25, 2008, Buffalo agreed and committed
itself to participate in the Project by, among other things, extending to the Project its usual
Low Income Housing PILOT agreement, providing $1,600,000.00 of its HOME funds to
assist in the construction and, in addition, providing fifty-one (51) buildable vacant lots at
a price no greater than $2,000 per buildable lot, and not to exceed a total price of
$100,000.00.
22. Buffalo’s agreement and commitment to the Project was subject to
one condition -- the Development Team’s success in securing 2008 Low Income Housing
Tax Credits (“LIHTC”) to complete the Project. (A copy of Buffalo’s February 25, 2008
agreement and commitment is attached hereto at Exhibit "A".)
23. In the February 25, 2008 agreement and commitment letter, Buffalo
stated, among other things, that "[w]e are also supportive of the feature of the
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 4 of 29
5
development, which allows for homeownership conversion at the end of the tax required
compliance period. The lease to own component provides future homeownership
opportunities to residents who are not currently prepared to become homeowners, while
providing them with clean, state-of-the-art housing today."
24. As of February 25, 2008, Buffalo knew that under applicable law, the
tax compliance period referenced in the February 25, 2008 agreement and commitment
was thirty (30) years.
25. By letter dated August 20, 2008, the Development Team received a
commitment from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(“DHCR”) for the necessary LIHTC. The DHCR commitment required "closing on
construction financing sufficient to complete the Project” on or before March 15, 2010."
(A copy of the DHCR August 20, 2008 agreement and commitment is attached hereto at
Exhibit "B".)
26. By letter dated November 5, 2008, the DHCR notified the
Development Team that the amount of the LIHTC was increased from $794,363 to
$922,954. (A copy of the DHCR November 5, 2008 agreement and commitment is
attached hereto at Exhibit "C".)
27. By letter dated November 5, 2008, the New York State Housing Trust
Fund Corporation ("HTFC") notified the Development Team that the HTFC approved a
low interest loan in the amount of $2,200,000.00 in support of the Project. (By letter
dated March 19, 2009, the HTFC issued its agreement and commitment for the loan. A
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 5 of 29
6
copy of the March 19, 2009 agreement and commitment is attached hereto at Exhibit
"D".)
28. After receiving the agreements and commitments from Buffalo and
the DHCR, Buffalo moved forward with its participation in the Project in accordance with
its February 25, 2008 commitment and agreement.
29. For example, Buffalo issued letters in support of the Project and the
application to the DHCR.
30. Buffalo also selected the sites to be used for the single-family homes.
31. In addition, the City of Buffalo Planning Board "approved as
presented", the site plan, design, and elevations submitted by the Development Team.
32. In early 2009, however, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the
Jeremiah Partnership conspired and started demanding that the Development Team
contract with Stenhouse and/or organizations connected to Stenhouse (including the
Jeremiah Partnership) to participate in the Project.
33. On March 10, 2009, City of Buffalo officials responsible for moving
the Project forward met with Brown, Casey and Smith. During the March 10, 2009
meeting, Brown stated that the Project could proceed but with significant stipulations.
One of the stipulations required that the Development Team "find a role for . . . the
Jeremiah Partnership from the East Side."
34. In a subsequent e-mail, these demands were presented to the
Development Team: "Now tomorrow I meet with the Mayor. Would it be possible to get
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 6 of 29
7
something signed that says you folks agree to . . . work with the locally based, not-for-
profit Jeremiah Partnership on this project . . . ".
35. On March 30, 2009, Brown’s office contacted the Development Team
and demanded that it let them know within "the next 1 and ½ hours" whether the
Jeremiah Partnership would be provided a service contract on the project.
36. At the same time, the Development Team was told by Smith that it
needed to "make Stenhouse happy" for the project to proceed.
37. Later that day, Stenhouse sent an e-mail instructing the Development
Team that he required "a contract to provide mwbe and section 3 subcontractors for the
fifty houses. Cost $30,000 and an agreement with [the Development Team] to do
management training for a year for the Jeremiah Partnership. These items would need
to be formally signed before we will sign off." (Emphasis added). Stenhouse
provided no elaboration on the details of what he would provide the Development Team
in exchange for the demanded $30,000.00 fee.
38. Over the course of the next several weeks, Stenhouse issued a
series of escalating demands to the Development Team.
39. As of March 31, 2009, every possible requirement for the NRP
project had been satisfied. That is – every requirement except for the need to find a way
to have Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership "sign off" on the Project.
40. As a result of this one outstanding requirement, the Project was
stalled by Brown’s office.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 7 of 29
8
41. The Development Team began to reach out to others in the
community who could provide assistance moving the Project forward.
42. By e-mail dated April 15, 2009, one of these individuals advised NRP
that “I am providing a proposal for project management services as we discussed . . . As
I mentioned earlier today, Reverend Stenhouse is ready to place his call to the Mayor
endorsing our approach, provided I can show him an executed agreement with
your firm.” (Emphasis added). As reflected by the e-mail discussion, Stenhouse's
proposal increased the required demand from $30,000.00 to $60,000.00.
43. An e-mail dated April 27, 2009 notes a subsequent conversation
between this individual and Casey. As shown by this e-mail, Casey "had not gotten back
to Stenhouse" and thus it was unclear whether Stenhouse had exercised his apparent
authorization as to whether the NRP project would be permitted to proceed.
44. The Development Team was told that the participation of Stenhouse
was allegedly required in order to assure adequate minority involvement in the Project.
45. The Development Team was specifically instructed by Brown, Casey,
Smith, and/or other employees of Buffalo that it was necessary to "find a role for
Stenhouse" and "make Stenhouse happy" in order for the Project to proceed.
46. Initially, Stenhouse simply indicated an interest to make sure that
there was adequate minority involvement in the Project. Thereafter, Stenhouse
communicated a series of escalating demands. Instead of unofficial input, Stenhouse
then demanded a series of tasks involving ever increasing payments to him and later the
Jeremiah Partnership. Eventually, Stenhouse asked whether he could be a partner on
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 8 of 29
9
the Project similar to the arrangement he had on the Packard project, a previous project
in the City of Buffalo, where he was paid a "developer’s" fee. Stenhouse then demanded
that the Development Team accept his response to a Request for Proposal, discussed
below, even though it was grossly inferior to the bid selected by the Development Team.
47. The Development Team was told that, because Stenhouse did not
have an acceptable contract on the Project, several items promised by the City of Buffalo
were being held up in Brown’s office.
48. The Development Team eventually determined that the demand
being made by numerous City of Buffalo officials that Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership receive a contract was illegal.
49. In late April 2009, the Development Team issued a Request for
Proposal ("RFP") for certain services to be provided on the Project.
50. The RFP advised proposed bidders (including Stenhouse and the
Jeremiah Partnership) that the "Type of Project" was scattered site and concerned the
"development and construction of 50 single family homes and one community building in
the Cold Springs and Masten Park neighborhoods on the east side of Buffalo, Erie
County, New York."
51. The RFP was mailed to over thirty (30) organizations and an
advertisement was placed in the Buffalo News.
52. Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership were advised of the RFP
and invited to respond.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 9 of 29
10
53. The Development Team received three proposals including one from
Stenhouse on behalf of the Jeremiah Partnership.
54. The Stenhouse proposal was inferior in substance and content when
compared to the other two proposals.
55. Amazingly, Stenhouse proposed a total budget of $80,000.00 for his
work and set forth numerous questionable and suspect budget items. For example,
Stenhouse proposed $12,000.00 as a rental fee for twelve meetings that presumably
would take place at Jeremiah Partnership owned locations. Stenhouse proposed
$3,600.00 for refreshments at these twelve meetings and $35,000.00 as an
"administrative fee" for postage, telephone and "Jeremiah involvement." Lastly,
Stenhouse proposed $5,000.00 for undefined "services after completion of the project."
56. Stenhouse’s proposal was facially deficient and, therefore, rejected in
favor of the University of Buffalo proposal dated May 7, 2009, prepared by Dr. Henry
Taylor and James W. Pitts which included a total budget of $40,524.00.
57. During the RFP process, an e-mail dated May 6, 2009, reflected a
conversation concerning comments made by Stenhouse and his response to the RFP.
The email noted that Stenhouse said "the list of deliverables was far greater than what he
anticipated doing for $30k and so his fee would be higher." Stenhouse also noted that
certain items would need to be addressed in an agreement, "assuming he is selected
[pursuant to the RFP] because the Rev. will need to be 'on board'" as a condition for
the Project to proceed. In other words, Stenhouse made it well known that his support of
the Project was still required for it to move forward.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 10 of 29
11
58. On May 12, 2009, the Development Team sent correspondence to
Buffalo Commissioner Reilly and reported that an agreement was reached with the UB
Team based on its superior response to the RFP.
59. As demonstrated by the May 12, 2009 letter, there were no other
outstanding issues concerning the Project. Despite this, the Project remained stalled in
Mayor Brown’s office.
60. As of May 2009, the City of Buffalo issued site plan approval and a
permit ready letter for the Project.
61. As of May 2009, the DHCR issued environmental and plan approvals
for the Project.
62. As of May 2009, the Development Team had incurred considerable
expense and performed all tasks necessary to move forward with the Project.
63. The Development Team’s efforts included the selection of the UB
Team to satisfy the requests for additional minority participation and involvement in the
Project.
64. Likewise, the City of Buffalo’s Departments and Agencies and the
DHCR were also performing their necessary functions for the Project to proceed.
65. However, after selecting the UB Team and rejecting the proposal
submitted by Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership, the Development Team’s efforts
to proceed with the Project were ultimately killed by the defendants.
66. In May 2009, the Development Team retained another individual to
intervene with the City of Buffalo concerning the Project. As reflected in an e-mail dated
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 11 of 29
12
May 26, 2009, the Development Team’s representative advised NRP that he "heard back
from [Deputy Mayor] Casey who said the deal is dead without Stenhouse."
67. Another member of the Development Team received the same
message from City of Buffalo officials. As reflected in a contemporaneous e-mail, this
person was told "that everything was ready to go on Tuesday until Stenhouse called
and said he was not happy."
68. These statements are further reflected in an e-mail dated May 29,
2009, which noted that Brown and Casey delivered the message to this same member of
the Development Team in a face to face meeting. "They stated the same tag line they
have for a while now, if Stenhouse is not happy, it is not going anywhere and
seemed pessimistic about the chances of this going forward."
69. In April – June, 2009, yet another representative of the Development
Team spoke with Brown directly on several occasions in an effort to move the Project
forward. During these conversations, Brown informed the representative "If you do not
hire the right company, you do not have my support for the project."
70. Brown also stated "Make Stenhouse happy or the deal will not go
through" and that he was "sick of seeing those fucking white developers on the
East Side with no black faces represented."
71. In another conversation following the selection of the UB Team,
Brown stated "I told you what you had to do and you hired the wrong company."
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 12 of 29
13
72. As reflected above, Brown, Casey, Smith, and/or Stenhouse stated
to at least six different individuals that the Project would not proceed unless Stenhouse
"signed off" or "was made happy."
73. Stenhouse’s approval, of course, depended on monetary payments
for services that Development Team member Belmont was clearly able to provide and,
particularly so, after the Development Team engaged the services of the UB team.
74. After supporting the Project for over eighteen months, Brown, Casey,
Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership used their positions and influence to
cause Buffalo to breach its February 25, 2008 agreement and commitment to the Project
by, among other things, individually taking action to prevent completion of the Project and
by directing City Departments, Agencies, and employees to either stop working on the
Project or to take action to prevent the Project from proceeding forward.
75. Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership
conspired to cause Buffalo to breach its agreement and commitment to the Project
because the Development Team refused to comply with the illegal demand that they pay
monies to Stenhouse and/or affiliated organizations in order for the Project to proceed.
76. All of the defendants made certain statements in furtherance of their
illegal scheme, to each other and others, by U.S. mail, wire, telephonic, e-mail, and/or
other electronic means.
77. Upon information and belief, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership demanded a role on the Project because of their past endorsement of Brown
as Mayor and in consideration for their future endorsement of Brown.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 13 of 29
14
78. Upon information and belief, Brown and the other defendants
intended to reward Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership for their past endorsement
and support and, because of their position in the community, viewed the continuing
endorsement by Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership as integral to Brown’s re-
election efforts in 2009.
79. Calendar year 2009 was an election year for Brown.
80. The illegal schemes developed and implemented by Brown, Casey,
Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership are commonly known as a "pay to play"
and "pay for votes" scheme.
81. Upon information and belief, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and
the Jeremiah Partnership conditioned Buffalo’s support for other development projects
that proceeded within the City of Buffalo on those projects finding a role for and/or the
payment of monies to Stenhouse, the Jeremiah Partnership, and/or companies
associated with Stenhouse.
82. Upon information and belief, in situations where development
projects found a role for Stenhouse and/or the Jeremiah Partnership on their teams,
Buffalo honored its agreements and commitments on those projects.
83. Upon information and belief, the role of Stenhouse and/or the
Jeremiah Partnership in certain other development projects was essentially a "no show"
job where Stenhouse and/or the Jeremiah Partnership added little or no value to the
projects.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 14 of 29
15
84. Upon information and belief, Stenhouse did not have development
experience. As a result, the Mayor’s office often directed City employees to work directly
with Stenhouse at City expense to provide the expertise that he lacked and to perform
services that Stenhouse was being paid to perform on these other development projects.
85. Upon information and belief, the Packard project, commenced in or
about 2006, is another example where the individual defendants conspired to demand a
role for Stenhouse as a condition for approving a development project in Buffalo. In the
Packard project, Stenhouse became a "partner" on the development project and earned a
developer’s fee despite his lack of qualifications as a developer. Indeed, upon
information and belief, Stenhouse provided no services of value to the Packard project.
86. Upon information and belief, East Side Housing Opportunities, Phase
I is another example of where the individual defendants conspired to demand a role for
Stenhouse and/or his affiliated companies as a condition for approving a development
project in Buffalo. NRP was not involved in this Phase I project but has learned that
Stenhouse’s participation in the project added little to no value. Despite the lack of any
meaningful contribution to this project, Stenhouse was paid a significant fee at the
insistence of the defendants.
87. Prior to filing this complaint, NRP submitted a Freedom of
Information Law request to Buffalo requesting, among other things, documents in
Buffalo’s possession concerning Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership. This request
was intended to determine the precise involvement of Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership concerning other development projects in Buffalo.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 15 of 29
16
88. In response, Buffalo first delayed and then failed and refused to
produce documents in its possession concerning Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership.
89. Discovery is necessary to determine the full extent of the precise role
played by Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership in the Packard project, East Side
Housing Opportunities Phase I, and other development projects in Buffalo.
90. Upon information and belief, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and/or the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York are currently
investigating one or more of the defendants’ conduct with respect to the Project and/or
other development projects in Buffalo.
91. As a direct and proximate result of the tortious and illegal conduct of
Buffalo, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse, and the Jeremiah Partnership, NRP was no
longer able to claim the benefits of their agreements with members of the Development
Team, the DHCR, the HTFC and others who issued loan commitments and, in turn, the
City of Buffalo.
92. Buffalo, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership have failed to offer any good faith or legitimate reason for causing Buffalo to
breach its agreement and commitment to the Project.
93. Like their conspiracy to kill the Project, defendants conspired to
contrive an identical story to defend their illegal conduct in this case. Each defendant
claims that he did not support the project because: (1) the houses were scattered
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 16 of 29
17
throughout the selected neighborhoods; and (2) the 30 year rent-to-own period was too
long.
94. Defendants’ objection to scattered site housing is meritless because
the City selected the sites for the homes.
95. Defendants’ objections are also nonsensical because the rent-to-own
aspect of the project was well known to them since 2008.
96. In fact, the City of Buffalo endorsed the rent-to-own feature in the
February 25, 2008 agreement stating "We are also supportive of the development, which
allows for homeownership conversion at the end of the tax required compliance
period. This lease to own component provides future homeownership opportunities to
residents who are not currently prepared to become homeowners, while providing them
with clean, state of the art housing today."
97. The Development Team met with Brown personally on June 24, 2008
– almost one year before he began making demands that the Development Team find a
role for Stenhouse on the Project. At this meeting, Brown was advised of the precise
details of the Project including the tax credits that would be used and the rent-to-own
requirement to use the tax credits.
98. At the June 24, 2008 meeting, Brown voiced no objection to this type
of Project. Nor did he object to the scattered sites.
99. Both before the Project and since, the City endorsed similar projects
using the same type of tax credits and compliance periods that were to be used here.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 17 of 29
18
100. Following the June 2008 meeting, Buffalo and Brown communicated
their support for the Project and requested an award of the low income housing tax
credits from the DHCR.
101. In August 2009, when Brown raised a question about the length of
the tax compliance period for the first time, his question was quickly addressed by the
DHCR which agreed to reduce the required period to fifteen years. The fact that this
reduction did not satisfy Brown revealed his true motivations for killing the project.
102. Brown’s objections are also flatly contradicted by the City’s own
programs and plans created apart from the Project in conjunction with developing a
strategy for dealing with the City’s deficient housing supply.
103. Likewise, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership fabricated
objections to the Project. In March 2009, these defendants vigorously pursued a role in
the Project. Their expressed desire was to ensure adequate minority hiring. They never
objected to the scattered sites or the rent-to-own feature of the Project.
104. Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership later submitted a proposal
in response to the RFP. In its introduction, the proposal stated: "Jeremiah Partnership is
pleased to submit the following proposal to East Side Housing II, L.P. in association with
Belmont Shelter Corp. and the NRP Group LLC to provide professional outreach
resources for the construction of 50 single family homes and one community
building in the Cold Spring and Masten Park neighborhoods on the east side of
Buffalo."
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 18 of 29
19
105. Stenhouse’s objections to the Project came only after it was made
clear that neither he nor his affiliated companies would be contracted for any purpose.
106. Simply put, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership conspired to tortiously and illegally kill the Project because the Development
Team refused to comply with the illegal demand that it pay Stenhouse and/or the
Jeremiah Partnership money as a condition for their role in determining whether Buffalo
would honor the February 25, 2008 agreement and commitment.
107. A notice of claim was filed and served upon the municipal defendants
on June 14, 2010, and more than 30 days have passed since the filing of the notice of
claim with the municipal defendants failing to adjust or otherwise pay for the damages
identified within the notice of claim. A copy of the notice of claim is attached as Exhibit
"E."
108. On November 18, 2010 the municipal defendants conducted the
examination of plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the General Municipal Law.
109. Plaintiffs have satisfied all conditions precedent under the General
Municipal Law for commencing an action against the municipal defendants.
110. Upon information and belief, the limitations of liability set forth in
Article 16 of the CPLR do not apply to this action.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 19 of 29
20
COUNT I
Breach of Contract Against Buffalo
111. NRP repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 110 above.
112. NRP is the assignee of all rights and benefits concerning the
February 25, 2008 agreement and commitment.
113. The February 25, 2008 agreement and commitment is an
enforceable contract between Buffalo and NRP.
114. The Development Team satisfied the one condition precedent in the
February 25, 2008 agreement and commitment when they secured the 2008 LIHTC to
complete the Project.
115. Buffalo breached the February 25, 2008 Agreement by, among other
things, failing to: perform the tasks required of it to move the Project forward, extend to
the Project its usual Low Income Housing PILOT agreement, provide $1,600,000.00 of its
HOME funds to assist in the construction of the Project and provide fifty-one buildable
vacant lots by the Project deadline of March 15, 2010.
116. Consequently, NRP is entitled to recover compensatory and other
damages in excess of $450,000.00 together with prejudgment interest.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 20 of 29
21
COUNT II
Promissory Estoppel Claim Against Buffalo, Brown, Casey, and Smith
117. NRP repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 116 above.
118. As set forth above, defendants Buffalo, Brown, Casey, and Smith
made clear and unambiguous promises to participate in the Project by, among other
things, extending to the Project its usual Low Income Housing PILOT agreement,
providing $1,600,000.00 of its HOME funds to assist in the construction and, in addition,
providing fifty-one (51) buildable vacant lots at a price no greater than $2,000 per
buildable lot, and not to exceed a total price of $100,000.00.
119. NRP reasonably and foreseeably relied upon the municipal
defendants’ promises and has been damaged as a result of their negligent and wrongful
failure to perform as promised.
120. Consequently, NRP is entitled to recover compensatory and other
damages in excess of $450,000.00 together with prejudgment interest.
COUNT III
Tort Claims Against Buffalo, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership
121. NRP repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 120 above.
122. NRP is a party to agreements with associated companies concerning
the development, construction and management of homes in connection with the Project.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 21 of 29
22
123. NRP is the assignee of all rights and benefits concerning the
agreements and commitments that are attached hereto at Exhibits "A" – "D".
124. Buffalo, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership knew or should have known of the agreements secured by the Development
Team in order to perform the Project.
125. Buffalo, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership employed an unlawful and improper "pay to play" scheme and otherwise
engaged in wrongful and illegal conduct set forth above designed to interfere with the
Development Team’s rights under the agreements attached hereto at Exhibits "A" – "D",
other agreements to be entered into in connection with the Project, and the economic
advantages that would have been realized under all such agreements.
126. Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership
intentionally procured Buffalo’s breach of the agreement attached as Exhibit "A" and all
defendants expected and understood that all other contracts referenced herein would not
be performed as a result of their intentional and wrongful conduct set forth in detail above,
all without justification.
127. The defendants intended to and did in fact cause an actual breach of
the contracts and/or non-performance thereof and NRP sustained damages as a result.
128. Through their course of dealing with NRP and the Development
Team, the defendants were all aware that prospective contractual and business
relationships were reasonably certain by and between plaintiffs and Buffalo and third-
parties, and with this awareness interfered with the business relationships with the sole
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 22 of 29
23
purpose of harming NRP or by means that were unlawful or improper. Specifically,
defendants Buffalo, Brown, Casey, and Smith represented to NRP that NRP would be
selected to complete future housing projects within the City of Buffalo. Moreover,
defendants Buffalo, Brown, Casey, and Smith were certainly aware of the existence of the
agreements attached as Exhibits "B" through "D" and the agreements entered into
between NRP and other members of the Development Team.
129. Each defendant, in pursuance of a common plan or design to commit
a tortious act, actively took part in it, or furthered it by cooperation or request, or provided
aid and encouragement to each of the other defendants, or ratified and adopted each of
the other defendant’s acts done for their benefit, and are therefore liable with each of the
defendants. Each defendant acted tortiously and one or more of the defendants
committed an act in pursuance of the common plan, design or agreement which
constitutes a tort.
130. The wrongful and illegal actions and conduct of Buffalo, Brown,
Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership described in detail above are
actionable under the common law theories of tortious interference with contract and/or
prospective contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage and/or economic relations, and concerted action theory and/or civil conspiracy.
131. Buffalo is not responsible for the claims set forth in paragraph 130
above concerning the agreement attached at Exhibit "A" because it is a party to that
agreement. However, Defendants Brown, Casey, and Smith are responsible for the
claims set forth in paragraph 130 above concerning the agreement attached as Exhibit
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 23 of 29
24
"A" because, as detailed above, defendants Brown, Casey and Smith failed to act in good
faith and committed independent torts and predatory acts directed at NRP for personal
pecuniary gain and/or for wrongful purposes. Buffalo is responsible for the claims set
forth in paragraph 130 above concerning the agreements attached hereto at Exhibits "B"
through "D" and the agreements entered into between NRP and other members of the
Development Team. Buffalo is also responsible for the wrongful conduct of Brown,
Casey, Smith, and its other employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.
132. Consequently, NRP is entitled to recover compensatory damages of
at least $1,000,000.00 as permitted by law against Buffalo, Brown, Casey, Smith,
Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership.
133. The conduct described herein was reckless, wanton, and carried out
in total disregard for the rights of NRP. As a result, NRP is entitled to recover punitive
damages against Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership in an
amount to be determined.
COUNT IV
RICO Claims Against Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse, and the Jeremiah Partnership
134. NRP repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 133 above.
135. As described above, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the
Jeremiah Partnership conspired in various respects including to illegally demand a role
for Stenhouse on certain projects and later to decide whether to cause Buffalo to breach
its agreements and commitments for land development projects depending on whether
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 24 of 29
25
the subject land developer complied with their unlawful and illegal demands to pay
monies to Stenhouse and/or affiliated organizations in order for such projects to proceed.
136. Pursuant to the RICO, the "enterprise" is Buffalo.
137. Pursuant to the RICO, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the
Jeremiah Partnership committed multiple acts of "racketeering activity," as set forth
above, in furtherance of the illegal scheme. Such activities, as described in detail above,
involved interstate commerce and include, but are not limited to, violations of the Hobbs
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and New York Penal Law §
200 et seq.
138. Pursuant to the RICO, the illegal activities of Brown, Casey, Smith,
Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership constitute a pattern of racketeering activity as a
closed ended and/or open ended continuity and/or because they were used on NRP and,
upon information and belief, other developers involved in certain other projects that
proceeded within the City of Buffalo.
139. Even if the "pay to play" or "pay for votes" practice has ended,
Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership developed and
implemented this practice against NRP and, upon information and belief, others through
numerous threats and demands over a period of more than two years.
140. The illegal activities of Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the
Jeremiah Partnership constitute a pattern of racketeering activity because, left
unchecked, it is reasonable to expect that such acts were the regular manner in which
such persons exercised their authority within the enterprise and implied a threat of
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 25 of 29
26
continuing improper activity. Moreover, left unchecked, the illegal activities of defendants
are likely to occur in the future.
141. In addition, the illegal activities of Brown, Smith, Stenhouse and the
Jeremiah Partnership constitute a pattern of racketeering activity based on the escalating
demands concerning the role of Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership on the Project
and other development projects in Buffalo. Such escalating demands implied a threat of
continuing criminal activity.
142. Pursuant to the RICO, Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the
Jeremiah Partnership participated in the affairs of the enterprise through the pattern of
racketeering activity described above.
143. By reason of NRP’s refusal to comply with the illegal demands and
"pay to play" scheme employed by Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah
Partnership, NRP has been injured in its business and property in the amount of at least
$1,000,000.00.
144. By reason of the foregoing, NRP is entitled to a judgment against
Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership for their monetary
damages, plus treble damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements
incurred in prosecuting this action.
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 26 of 29
27
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. §1983 Against Buffalo, Brown, Casey, and Smith
145. NRP repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
– 144 above.
146. Buffalo had and/or has an official custom or policy established by
Brown, Casey, and/or Smith that required NRP to comply with the illegal demand to pay
monies to Stenhouse and/or affiliated organizations in order for the Project to proceed.
147. In applying this official custom or policy to NRP, Buffalo, Brown,
Casey, and Smith were acting under color of state or local law and were "policymakers"
responsible for the custom or policy.
148. Application of this official custom or policy to NRP resulted in
depriving them of their rights protected by the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses
of the United States Constitution.
149. NRP was treated differently than other developers of projects in
Buffalo. When other developers found a way to pay monies to Stenhouse and/or
affiliated organizations, Buffalo, Brown, Casey, and Smith allowed their projects to
proceed to completion. Because NRP refused to make such payments, Buffalo, Brown,
Casey, and Smith maliciously and in bad faith intended to injure NRP and actively took
steps to kill the Project.
150. NRP had a federally protected property right. As alleged above, as
of May 2009, NRP had a binding agreement and commitment from Buffalo and, in
addition, fulfilled all necessary conditions and expended considerable sums, time and
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 27 of 29
28
resources included but not limited to architectural drawings, engineering and
environmental reviews etcetera in order for the Project to proceed. Likewise, as of May
2009 there were no outstanding issues concerning the Project when defendants Buffalo,
Brown, Casey, and Smith used their positions and influence to stall and ultimately kill the
Project. As a result, NRP was denied due process solely because it refused to comply
with the illegal demand to pay monies to Stenhouse and/or affiliated organizations.
151. The above actions of Buffalo, Brown, Casey, and Smith have
resulted in a denial of NRP’s rights under federal law pursuant to the Equal Protection
and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution.
152. By reason of the foregoing, NRP is entitled to recover compensatory
damages in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00 and attorney’s fees against Buffalo,
Brown, Casey, and Smith, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined against
Brown, Casey, and Smith.
PRAYER AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, NRP respectfully requests that the Court:
a) On Count I: Enter judgment on behalf of NRP against Buffalo for
compensatory damages in excess of $450,000.00 together with prejudgment interest;
b) On Count II: Enter judgment on behalf of NRP against Buffalo,
Brown, Casey, and Smith for compensatory damages in excess of $450,000 together with
prejudgment interest;
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 28 of 29
29
c) On Count III: Enter judgment on behalf of NRP against Buffalo,
Brown, Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership for compensatory
damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 and punitive damages;
d) On Count IV: Enter judgment on behalf of NRP against Brown,
Casey, Smith, Stenhouse and the Jeremiah Partnership for compensatory damages in
excess of $1,000,000.00 together with prejudgment interest, an award of treble damages
and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the RICO;
e) On Count V: Enter judgment on behalf of NRP against Buffalo,
Brown, Casey, and Smith for compensatory damages in excess of $1,000,000.00,
attorney’s fees and punitive damages;
f) Awarding NRP its costs, disbursements, interest, and attorneys’ fees;
and
g) Awarding NRP such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE, for a trial by Jury.
Dated: December 23, 2011 WEBSTER SZANYI LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By: s/ Thomas S. Lane
Thomas S. Lane Nelson Perel 1400 Liberty Building Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 842-2800 tlane@websterszanyi.com nperel@websterszanyi.com
Case 1:11-cv-00472-WMS Document 22 Filed 12/23/11 Page 29 of 29
top related