Opinion
2012-03-22
George KRALIK, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. 239 EAST 79TH STREET OWNERS CORP., Defendant–Respondent.
Finder Novick Kerrigan LLP, New York (Thomas P. Kerrigan of counsel), for appellants. Rosenberg & Pittinsky, LLP, New York (Laurence D. Pittinsky of counsel), for respondent.
Finder Novick Kerrigan LLP, New York (Thomas P. Kerrigan of counsel), for appellants. Rosenberg & Pittinsky, LLP, New York (Laurence D. Pittinsky of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered December 17, 2011, which denied plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
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 A.D.2d 431, 613 N.Y.S.2d 634 [1994], lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 813, 623 N.Y.S.2d 181, 647 N.E.2d 453 [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 A.D.3d 135, 766 N.Y.S.2d 838 [2003]; Jacreg Realty Corp. v. Barnes, 284 A.D.2d 280, 727 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2001] ).
In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address the other grounds urged in support of affirmance.