Case Name: AYDM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF PAMELIA, Lawrence C. Longway, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-08
Citations: 692 F. App'x 78
Docket Number: 16-3269-cv
Parties: AYDM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF PAMELIA, Lawrence C. Longway, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: José A. Cabranes, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges. Kiyo A. Matsumoto, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 78–80

Head Matter:
AYDM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF PAMELIA, Lawrence C. Longway, Defendants-Appellees.
16-3269-cv
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 8, 2017
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Peter G. Barber, Murphy, Burns, Barber & Murphy, LLP, Albany, NY., L. Michael Mackey, Feeney Centi <& Mackey, Albany, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: David H. Walsh, Barth Sullivan Behr, Syracuse, NY.
PRESENT: José A. Cabranes, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges. Kiyo A. Matsumoto, District Judge.
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant AYDM Associates, LLC appeals the September 8, 2016 judgment of the district court, granting summary judgment to the Town of Pamelia and Lawrence C. Longway.
On appeal, AYDM asserts that the district court erred in holding that Emerald Acres and Liberty were not "similarly situated" for the purposes of a "class of one" claim or a "selective enforcement" claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also argues, among other things, that the district court erred in rejecting its substantive and procedural due process claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's well-reasoned opinion, we hold these claims to be without merit. We have considered all of the arguments raised by the parties on appeal and, upon our independent review of the record, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
. AYDM brought several claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 below, including: (1) procedural and substantive violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) conspiracy to deprive AYDM of its constitutional protections. AYDM also brought a claim for tortious interference with a contract in violation of state law,