In Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Village of Wesley Hills, Case No. 08-CV-156, 2011 WL 4445626 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2011), the court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately pled that the four villages and their former officials, acting in their official capacities, violated the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights so as to avoid immunity the defendants might otherwise have under the so-called Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The plaintiffs alleged the villages did this by allegedly discriminatorily enforcing laws against them, as opposed to other non-religious and religious non-Jewish similarly-situated land uses and developments, even where such developments would affect the same purported governmental interests of water, sewer and traffic in a greater fashion. The court found that the plaintiffs, Hasidic Jews, proffered eight comparators similarly situated in all material respects such that a prudent person would think them roughly equivalent. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs must show identical comparators. Because the court concluded that the plaintiffs adequately alleged a selective enforcement claim sufficient to defeat Noer-Pennington immunity, the court also permitted the plaintiffs to go forward with most of their other causes of action premised on free exercise, the Establishment Clause, racial discrimination, equal privileges and immunities, freedom of association and similar state constitutional claims. The court affirmed dismissal of all claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities, claims requiring statutory notice under New York law that had not already been provided, and some other claims.