In 2006, the Town of Woodbury (hereinafter the town) and the Village of Woodbury (hereinafter the village) merged and began operating as one entity. In 2010 and 2011, a resolution was passed by a majority of the village trustees authorizing the sending of a home rule message to the New York State Legislature seeking, inter alia, the abolition of the ability to create any future villages within the town’s borders. The consideration of this home rule message has yet to make it out of committee. The plaintiff, United Fairness, Inc. (hereinafter United) is a New York for-profit corporation that professes to represent a group of Hasidic Orthodox Jewish property owners whom live in the western part of the town/village. These property owners oppose the home rule message because, if it is passed, they will not be able to create their own village which they say is necessary to protect them from religious persecution. They maintain, among other things, that “the zoning code adopted by the Village imposes an unequal burden on the plaintiff’s ‘members’ in that all residences are required to be built on lots of not less than two acres, whereas property owners in other sections of the Town and Village are not similarly situated…;” and that their “community has unmet needs for affordable housing and higher density zoning that are not being provided for in the zoning code adopted by the Village.” Further, the plaintiffs allege that they are in need of a special zoning district but no demand has been made to the Village out of the belief that such action would be futile. The plaintiffs also allege that the ZBA has no members who represent their community, and that the Village has maintained a policy of exclusing members of their community from appointment to the Board.
United brought this action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against defendants the town, the village, and the State of New York. United argues that the home rule message is deficient as to its form and substance and “seeks a declaration declaring the home rule message a nullity.” Both the town and the village have filed motions to dismiss. Both argue that: (1) United does not have standing; and (2) the claims are not justiciable because the New York State Legislature has not taken any action on the home rule message. The State has not responded to this suit.
The Court lays out three ways a plaintiff can claim standing: (1) as an individual; (2) as individuals seeking class action status; or (3) “as part of the stated purposes of a not-for-profit corporation formed pursuant to the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL). United does not fit into any of these categories nor did it offer the Court any manner of authority which would support the suggestion that a for-profit corporation can engage in this kind of advocacy. The Court also discusses the apparent opposition between the complaint and United’s certificate of incorporation. The Court notes that the complaint never mentions that United was formed to promote the pecuniary interests of its shareholders. Rather, the complaint appears to be more akin to a not-for-profit advocating on behalf of its “members.” Despite these appearances, United is a for-profit corporation formed under the Business Corporation Law and not a not-for-profit corporation formed under the N-PCL.
The Court also notes that United does not claim any injury to itself but only to its shareholders. Though there are a few shareholders whom identify themselves as real estate investors and submitted affidavits to the court, there are no facts alleged that would bind them to the context of the for-profit enterprise. The fact that they agree with United and its mission or goals does not give United the right to represent them in court. The Court also discusses the three part test from Rudder v. Pataki, holding that United fails this test because its broad allegations of discrimination require individual members to substantiate the allegations with specific facts.
The Court holds that United lacks standing and dismisses the complaint. The Court does not rule or comment on any of the specifics of the complaint.
United Fairness, Inc. v. Town of Woodbury, 932 N.Y.S.2d 895 (Sup. Ct. Orange County, 11/15/2011)
This opinion can be accessed at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10121095863015912134&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
