the district court route that river rose in pride of the hudson or not roughly equivalent and stated the following quote the only alleged benefit that the pride of the hudson received from the city is help in finding doc space but point of still not a legit they requested such assistance from the city and were denied respectfully this is a fundamentally erroneous construction of the complaint at paragraph eighty one of the amended complaint the ga twenty complaint makes clear that river rose has consistently sought assistance from the city with respect to dock space which the city in fact with respect to river rose had obliged itself to provide in two very concrete forms through extension of court judge the absence of a contract and i'm guessing that ga one thirty four between pride of the hudson and the city as quote sinking an interesting term given the case the rough equivalency analysis we ask specifically alleges that the city of newburgh assisted in facilitated the pride of the hudson which the complaint explains is a vessel similar in function in use to the river rose system and what respect is what is comparatively is providing space you say you had a plan a contract that you wired into dual and they didn't do it we didn't we didn't the city didn't provide just so it's clear the city didn't provide my a enterprise which was plainly within the city's interest that is developing the waterfront the city the complaint alleges did everything contrary to that to stop my client from making constructive use of the waterfront my client did itself build and finance a dock on the city's waterfront after that the city was to take certain steps which would facilitate the use of that dock on the waterfront and didn't that season pride of the hudson was an entity that was attempting to run river cruises like my client and needed dock space one would expect that the antecedent user my client without the malicious which the complaint explains toward my client would have received from the city cooperation and making that same operation possible the opposite was true at every turn when the city was obliged to do and i think the obligation to the city strengthens as there is no doubt that the city pride of the hudson in some ways differently from the way the new but this isn't the same as saying that disagree i think that it is comparable and i think that the fact that they read different stages of the relationship with the city does not make the incomparable with the fact of the matter is that absent from your client but i goes beyond that because the breach had gone on for a period of time before the city showed favoritism comparable comparability require some sort of contractual relationship with the other and that was comparable to you the situation is you have one entity which is trying to do business on the waterfront because my client that entity has certain needs which it has articulated and explained to the city repeatedly the city refuses categorically to meet those needs out of the hostility which is played in the complaint you have another user who's doing the same thing they're running tours out of the waterfront from the city who they want to with respect to that use or the city and again i said it's a somewhat different level of telepresence question suggests the city is doing everything it can to facilitate that entities use of the waterfront so with regard to that they're absolutely comparable to entities and the fact that they are gauged in somewhat different somewhat different than roughly equivalent as the standard that this record accepted the fact that they're engaged in somewhat different needs with respect to the city at a particular point in time does not dissuade the comparison legally it should be understood because if you have a different  now and what happens here in fact is that the city is able to effectively out of this motive yet my client in a very disadvantaged position as to a new another new entity which is doing precisely the same thing it's doing so there is a there is a rough equivalence the fact that one has a contract frankly iran or the way i view the situation only makes that more acute not less acute because the city in order to engage in the favoritism against the other entity has to sensually reject the contract with regard to my client and reject the provision of services which are essential for my clients believe that summarizes the argument thank you morning honors david posner for the city of newburgh and your honour's are aware we presented two arguments and in this court as well judge the district court in granting our motion to dismiss on the grounds that  equal protection claim was not adequately pled determine that there was no need to revisit reach the statue limitations issue which we also advanced i would like to just very briefly address that statute of limitations issue which can resolve this this case just as easily as affirming judge harris on the merits of his decision what happened here is the city entered into an agreement with m via this lease was ultra vires violated its charter and violated the public benefits concept they needed a state referendum state approval they needed a public referendum so they business with them but in terms of a license mr pennzoil at that point because the statute limitations when the party has reason to know that something is going on they don't like there being harm at that point when the city rescinded there or they had six years to bring a contract action in state court that's the point you're making because well i think you know your honor actually equal protection claim acquires more wires a comparative and so that's why you his allegation were sound on the comparatives side i think we would be looking at the compound or the existence of the comparative to determine whether or not there is an equal protection claim well he could have from the plaintiffs well i can only tell you i mean i could tell you a little bit about what i know about what's alleged in a complaint what can you tell i can tell you that the complaint alleges that the city of newburgh assisted that's the word used in obtaining those of that's the exact phrase assisted it in painting dot space it doesn't say even where the dock space is whether it's on city property or not doesn't say how they assisted him what they did it doesn't indicate that  prior to the hudson needed any permits needed any improvements or was just renting a dock paying a fee for service docsis boat pays fifty bucks or whatever the permit fee is for that docking the complain alleges nothing about pride of the hudson owners are asking that question on me because the complaint tells you absolutely nothing about pride of the hudson is this where as river rose needed  approvals which the state litigation which is certainly before your honor's the state courts determined that it was pride of the hudson that i'm sorry it was river rose plaintiff who was in violation of  contract in the city's obligations to perform and provide these utilities to the dock had not yet materialized because all the conditions proceeded in the contract they had they the plaintiff had not performed that's the job mark in the appellate division decision in two thousand and nine which a firm summary judgment dismissing joan marks state court litigation against the city saying they're in breach of contract so the claims from in the complaint or advance to you today that the city had done everything it could to put impediments in the way of of joe mark simply is belied by the the record the earlier state court litigation  more they would have had to allege that their entity went through sailed through the permian process got whatever improvements it needed this complaint to suggest that pride of the hudson went through any type of approval process it just says it was assisted in getting dock space that could be hey ralph i got a customer for  hudson over maybe they'll talk at your dock i mean the complaint is a mystery as to what it alleges the city did for pride of the hudson and it cannot possibly be considered a comparative or to suggest that it was treated the way river rose was treated which by everybody's acknowledgement wanted utilities out on the dock needed approvals and licenses and and we know from the state litigation that it was their fault that they didn't get them and it was affirmed in the second second department so and then and then the city did what it did in two thousand and ten and river rose just keep saying we want the original agreement in force you have to comply with this original agreement and you know we don't think there's an equal protection claim he there were up through august two thousand and four our complaint makes clear what happened thereafter in terms of the invidious but let me let me address specifically the comparative point because again i think this depends on the level of generality specificity that you need and believe you need at a pleading stage obviously it's not a summary judgment the heart of this matter is that the city of newburgh took a position antithetical in every way according the well pled allegations which are multifarious there is also it's of things explained in the complaint but what they did and didn't do to put obstacles in the way of my client my client had a boat the boat was docked through his efforts at the city he needed certain assistance from the city to materialize the city's unobjective a better using its waterfront which is the the neutral principle here that i see from an arlington heights point of view with regard to the other user paragraphs eighty one eighty two eighty three ninety one ninety two of the complaint explained that there was another vessel the other vessel had the same exact purposes my vessel came to the city the city a city in situ asli assisted as the language used it in finding and utilizing appropriate dock space in other words one had this whole group of people opposing it not explained that extensively in the complaint the other did not and had business silent on that one doing the same thing that one has resisted assiduously by the city the other is strenuously assisted by the city so when you say that what more is needed there and when you say what's the motive the motive the motive is explain extensively with regard to the one who they're treating negatively and if the pride of the hudson want to herman's if they had built dock and then sought to have the city take it over and then they would lease it back for for the payments we don't know any of those things and about pride of house because because that's not that's not what we experience and if you're on a pointed out with regard to pride of the hudson we would counsel is arguing the statue of limitations point that the pride of the hudson did not materialize in the city cording to complain to fourteen fifteen i understand but and implicitly in the complaint they did not ask for the same things we understand that but the point is one was treated in a manner which