religious land use; (See, e.g., id. at 7-8 (noting that Local Law 2 of 2007 for the first time allowed single-family residents to be used as houses of worship, as requested by ultra-Orthodox, Hasidic communities).) Taken together, though, in the light most favorable to the non-movant Plaintiffs, ,and given the unique burden the Challenged Laws place on Plaintiffs, there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the Challenge Laws were passed with a discriminatory purpose. b. Discriminatory Effect Plaintiffs also allege that the Challenged Laws had a discriminatory effect on them. In establishing discriminatory effect, Plaintiffs are not “obligated to show' a better treated, similarly situated group of individuals.” Pyke v. Cuomo, 258 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the cases “recognize[ ] that a
holding that a plaintiff who alleges that a facially neutral statute or policy with an adverse effect was motivated by diseriminatoiy animus   is not obligated to show a better treated similarly situated group of individuals of a different race in order to establish a claim of denial of equal protection holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated holding that black residents failed to state an equal protection claim where they did not allege the existence of a similarly situated group of white residents who were treated differently holding that a presentence defendant is not similarly situated with a postsentence convict and denial of sentence credit does not violate equal protection holding equal protection under the federal constitution applies to similarly situated persons