Majority
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Dia
The motion court did not abuse its discretion in denying the prevailing plaintiffs attorneys’ fees pursuant to Real Property Law § 234 because the cooperative’s position was justified by the state of the law when the action was commenced (see Wells v East 10th St. Assoc., 205 AD2d 431 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 813 [1995]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, courts have discretion to deny such fees based on equitable considerations and fairness (see Solow Mgt. Corp. v Lowe, 1 AD3d 135 [2003]; Jacreg Realty Corp. v Barnes, 284 AD2d 280 [2001]).
In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address the other grounds urged in support of affirmance. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.
Cases cited
- Wells v. East 10th Street Associates 205 AD2d 431 p. 570
- Solow Management Corp. v. Lowe 1 AD3d 135 p. 570