impermissible standard in New York

1997To establish such a claim, a litigant must show that the law was enforced with both an "unequal hand” and an "evil eye”; "to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification” (Matter of 303 W. 42nd St. v Klein, 46 NY2d 686, 693 ; see, Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 373-374 ).

1996Corp. v Klein ( 46 NY2d 686, 693 [1979]), the Court set forth the two-prong selective prosecution test, which requires that a moving defendant demonstrate: (1) that the law was not applied to others similarly situated; and (2) that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification.

2024To establish that he was the victim of the unconstitutional selective enforcement of the Penal Law, defendant had the [*2]"heavy burden" of showing "that the law was enforced with both an 'unequal hand' and an 'evil eye'; 'to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification' " ( People v Blount , 90 NY2d 998, 999 [1997]; see People v Welch , 2 AD3d 1354, 1358 [4th Dept 2003], lv deni

2023To establish a claim of selective enforcement, "a litigant must show that the law was enforced with both an 'unequal hand' and an 'evil eye'; 'to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification'" ( People v Blout , 90 NY2d 998, 999 , quoting Matter of 303 W. 42nd St.

1997To establish such a claim, a litigant must show that the law was enforced with both an "unequal hand” and an "evil eye”; "to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification” (Matter of 303 W. 42nd St. v Klein, 46 NY2d 686, 693 ; see, Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 373-374 ).

1989As enunciated more than a century ago in Yick Wo v Hopkins ( 118 US 356, 373-374 ), it forbids a public authority from applying or enforcing an admittedly valid law 'with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances’. * * * To invoke the right successfully, however, both the 'unequal hand’ and the 'evil eye’ requirements must be proven — to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately bas

2026Baptist Church of Newburgh , 93 AD3d 685, 686 ).

2023Instead, resolution of those issues would "necessarily involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice" ( id. ; see Eltingville Lutheran Church v Rimbo , 174 AD3d 856 , 858-859 [2d Dept 2019], appeal dismissed 34 NY3d 1024 [2019]).

1996First, defendant does not allege, much less prove, that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted for perjury and that the application of the law to him was " 'deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification’ ” (Matter of Agnello v Corbisiero, 177 AD2d 445, 446 [quoting Matter of 303 W. 42nd St.

1995With respect to his claim of selective prosecution, "the burden is on * * * [defendant] to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success in proving 'not only * * * that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification’ ” (Matter of Agnello v Corbisiero, 177 AD2d 445, 446 , lv denied 79 NY2d 758 , quoting Matter of 303 W. 42nd St.

2014In this proceeding, petitioners' claims are likewise nonjusticiable, as they cannot be resolved based on neutral principles of law, but involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice ( id. at 286-287 ; see Sieger v Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. & Can. , 1 AD3d 180, 182 [1st Dept 2003]).

2014In this proceeding, petitioners’ claims are likewise nonjusticiable, as they cannot be resolved based on neutral principles of law, but involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice (id. at 286-287; see Sieger v Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. & Can., 1 AD3d 180, 182 [1st Dept 2003]).

2024To establish that he was the victim of the unconstitutional selective enforcement of the Penal Law, defendant had the [*2]"heavy burden" of showing "that the law was enforced with both an 'unequal hand' and an 'evil eye'; 'to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification' " ( People v Blount , 90 NY2d 998, 999 [1997]; see People v Welch , 2 AD3d 1354, 1358 [4th Dept 2003], lv deni

2011Defendant’s asserted equal protection claim is tantamount to a claim of selective prosecution, which would require “not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification” (People v Blount, 90 NY2d 998, 999 [1997]; People v Welch, 2 AD3d 1354 [4th Dept 2003], Iv denied 2 NY3d 747 [2004]).

2024To establish that he was the victim of the unconstitutional selective enforcement of the Penal Law, defendant had the [*2]"heavy burden" of showing "that the law was enforced with both an 'unequal hand' and an 'evil eye'; 'to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification' " ( People v Blount , 90 NY2d 998, 999 [1997]; see People v Welch , 2 AD3d 1354, 1358 [4th Dept 2003], lv deni

2011Defendant’s asserted equal protection claim is tantamount to a claim of selective prosecution, which would require “not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification” (People v Blount, 90 NY2d 998, 999 [1997]; People v Welch, 2 AD3d 1354 [4th Dept 2003], Iv denied 2 NY3d 747 [2004]).

2002Corp. v Klein, 46 NY2d 686, 693 ; see also, Snowden v Hughes, 321 US 1, 8 ; Kalikow 78179 Co. v State of New York, 174 AD2d 7, 12-13 ).

1979To invoke the right successfully, however, both the "unequal hand” and the "evil eye” requirements must be proven — to wit, there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification (Matter of Di Maggio v Brown, supra, pp 290-291; Oyler v Boles, 368 US 448, 456 ; Snowden v Hughes, 321 US 1, 8 ).

2023Corp. v Klein , 46 NY2d 686, 693 ; see Bower Assoc. v Town of Pleasant Val. , 2 NY3d 617, 631 ; Matter of Kings Point Holdings, LLC v Kings Point Vil.

2022This also constituted an impermissible waiver of rent stabilization rights ( Drucker v Mauro , 30 AD3d 37, 38 [1st Dept 2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 844 [2006]).

2022Citing Kent , this Court reversed, determining that the stipulation was not void as an impermissible waiver of rent stabilization rights, since Mr. Jazilek had no legal status as a tenant when he entered into the stipulation ( Jazilek , 41 AD3d 124, 125 [1st Dept 2007]).

2021Moreover, we reject his claim that he was denied his constitutional right to equal protection of law based upon selective prosecution inasmuch as he "failed to demonstrate that the law was not applied to others similarly situated and that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification" ( People v Brown , 52 AD3d 943, 945 [2008] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 11 NY3d 735 [2008]).

2016However, damages need not be demonstrated at the pleading stage as long as the possibility of damages may reasonably be inferred (see Caruso, Caruso & Branda, P. C. v Hirsch, 41 AD3d 407, 410 [2d Dept 2007]).

2016However, damages need not be demonstrated at the pleading stage as long as the possibility of damages may reasonably be inferred ( see Caruso, Caruso & Branda, P.C. v Hirsch , 41 AD3d 407, 410 [2d Dept 2007]).

2012Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. v Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church of Buffalo, 185 AD2d 693, 694-695 [1992]).

2012The Referee’s reiteration of that condition in the prior order “clearly does not constitute an impermissible requirement of participation in therapy as a condition to applying for visitation” (Zafran v Zafran, 28 AD3d 753, 756 [2006]; see Family Ct Act § 251 [a]; cf. Shuchter v Shuchter, 259 AD2d 1013 [1999]).