Mahon`s attempt to reject these factual assertions is not available because his denial is itself destructive: “The house has never been used as a multi-family, and its capacity has never been threatened, as in the most spectacular cases of recent news.” (Mahon Aff. II . . . Mahon goes on to say that Suffolk County`s argument is a “classic case of NIMBYISM, a group of narrow-minded elites, officials who have no plan, which is [sic] how to solve this social problem. I didn`t double and triple people in a room, and I never had enough to pay my mortgage and my services. (Id. 8) “NIMBY” seems to be an acronym for “Not In My Backyard.” See THE NEW DICTIONARY OF CULTURAL LITERACY (3d ed. 2002), available at For example, Mr. Mahon admits to having rented the premises to several people, but deplores the city`s policy that prevented him from doing so. The 14th Amendment Equality Protection Clause guarantees the right to be “free from flagrant discrimination in legal classifications and other state activities.” Bernheim/Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 323 (2d Cir. 1996) (quote Harris v.

McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 322 (1980)). “The equality clause means that the government treats all people equal.” Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Village of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 499 (2d Cir. 2001). In order to establish a violation of the same protection on the basis of selective application, Mr. Mahon (1) must demonstrate that he was treated selectively in relation to identical persons; and (2) that such selective treatment was based on inadmissible considerations, such as the intention to obstruct or sanction the exercise of its constitutional rights.

See Lisa`s Party City, Inc. v. Ville Henrietta, 185 F.3d 12, 15-17 (2d Cir. 1999). Mr. Mahon did not have the right of “property” to reinstate his building permit if he had not corrected the code violations. He also had the opportunity to make his case to the city, finally pleaded guilty to the injuries, did not keep the terms of their decision, and did not show that the city of Islip has anyway hindered its ability to keep the city code. These facts prove that there is no basis for a right to merit. On the facts, Mr. Mahon cannot demonstrate that he is clearly entitled to the authorization sought by the City of Islip.

The main obstacle between Mr. Mahon and the success of his right to a proper trial is the fact that he pleaded guilty to the various violations of the code.