James H. Brady v. Barbara Underwood, Attorney General of New York

Petitioner went to Federal Court seeking a mandatory injunction to compel New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to protect the Offering Plan contract description of Petitioner's Manhattan commercial co-op "12th Floor and Roof Unit" apartment as it was promised and described in the Amended Offering Plan registered in the Office of the Attorney General in 1980. This request for a mandatory injunction in Federal Court was necessary because the Attorney General refused to investigate or even take a report after Appellate Division, First Department judges and the Justices of the New York State Court of Appeals permitted a lower court judge to unlawfully rewrite Petitioner's Offering Plan contract and a higher Court decision in order to void the $70-90 million dollars worth of air rights the parties to the contract agreed were contractually appurtenant to Petitioner's apartment persuant to these pieces of material evidence. The District Court dismissed the complaint stating that Petitioner had no constitutional standing and the Court of Appeals affirmed rehearing and En Banc review was denied. Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law give Petitioner standing for the protection of his contract by the Attorney General after it was shown in black and white that every one of the 40 words of the contract that defined his rights were unlawfully replaced by a New York State Court judge with 70 different words that voided the $70-90 million dollars worth of air rights that were appurtenant and promised contractually to be appurtenant to his 12th Floor and Roof Unit Apartment?