[New post] Second Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Class of One Claim due to Lack of Evidence that the Commission Accorded Preferential Treatment to Other Similarly Situated Properties

 

Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
Associate of Arts in Architecture, LACC
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Repair/Rehab Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO Consultant
CTAC LEED Certification

The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*
630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell

WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com
Resume: http://harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiser.pdf
Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/

IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership http://www.orea.ca.gov/html/fed_regs.shtml#Statement7 Membership in an appraisal organization: A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization, including the appraisal institute.

CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.

 

Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 05:28:16 +0000
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: [New post] Second Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Class of One Claim due to Lack of Evidence that the Commission Accorded Preferential Treatment to Other Similarly Situated Properties


WordPress.com






Patricia Salkin posted: "Appellant Margaret R. Pappas appealed from an order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of appellees Town of Enfield, Town of Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, Anthony DiPace, Jeffrey D. Cooper, James A. Hickey, Jr., and Karen W"





Respond to this post by replying above this line
















New post on LAW OF THE LAND



















Second Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Class of One Claim due to Lack of Evidence that the Commission Accorded Preferential Treatment to Other Similarly Situated Properties
by Patricia Salkin





Appellant Margaret R. Pappas appealed from an order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of appellees Town of Enfield, Town of Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, Anthony DiPace, Jeffrey D. Cooper, James A. Hickey, Jr., and Karen Weseliza on Pappas's class-of-one equal protection claim. Pappas argued that the appellees discriminated against her by denying her subdivision application based on concerns about flooding, traffic safety, neighborhood aesthetics, and community opposition, despite the fact that Pappas's application conformed with all relevant subdivision regulations, and that the Commission had approved all other applications that conformed with those requirements since 1999. The court reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.
As in all class of one claims, where a plaintiff challenges a zoning decision, that standard requires her to identify comparators who are similarly situated to her with regard to the zoning board's “principal reasons” for denying the application. Pappas sought to compare her application to numerous others that, like hers, complied with all of the Town of Enfield's technical requirements for a residential subdivision, but that had won approval from the Commission. However, Pappas failed to introduce any evidence that these comparators were “similarly situated” to hers with regard to any of the considerations that supported the Commission's denial of her subdivision plan, including its concerns about flooding, traffic safety, neighborhood harmony, or community opposition. The court held that unlike a challenge to the merits of a zoning decision, which requires only evidence that the defendants subjected a plaintiff to unlawful treatment, an equal protection claim requires evidence that the defendants singled out the plaintiff for such treatment among others whom they had no legitimate interest in treating differently. Because Pappas failed to establish any similar situated comparators, the dismissal of her class of one claim was affirmed.
Pappas v Town of Enfield, 2015 WL 2146140 (2nd Cir. 5/8/2015)




Patricia Salkin | May 30, 2015 at 1:26 am | Categories: Current Caselaw - New York, Equal Protection
| URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-2ja





Comment
   See all comments
   Like














Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from LAW OF THE LAND.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.


Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

https://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/similarly-situated-second-circuit-court-of-appeals-denies-class-of-one-claim-due-to-lack-of-evidence-that-the-commission-accorded-preferential-treatment-to-other-properties/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com