Law,, the Wetlands Law was passed at a time when there was intense focus.on the proposed rabbinical college but when no studies or analysis had been conducted of the needs, or nature, of wetlands in the Village. The juxtaposition of these facts supports Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants adopted the Wetlands Law as a pre-textual means to unlawfully target Plaintiffs’ land use-plans for the Subject Property. Second, in addition to some of the suggestive comments described above, a number of arguably discriminatory comments made by Village officials and community members prior to the passage of the Challenged Laws suggest animus towards the Hasidic Jewish community. See Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim Radin Inc. v. Vill. of New Hempstead by its Bd. of Tr., 98 F.Supp.2d 347, 355 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). These statements are undisputed as described
holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that discriminatory comments by the mayor  present grounds for allowing a jury to judge the credibility and motivation of the mjayor  as well as the motivation that can be attributed to the vjillage itself in passing the disputed provisions holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses recognizing that although the question of the credibility of witnesses is one for the jury alone such rule does not mean that the jury is at liberty under the guise of passing upon the credibility of a witness to disregard his testimony when from no reasonable point of view is it open to doubt holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony