90 A.D.3d 807
N.Y. App. Div.2011Background
- Plaintiff alleges she was forced to leave a restaurant because the establishment refused to permit her service dog inside.
- Plaintiff, not blind, requires the service dog to assist with balance.
- On August 28, 2009, the Supreme Court found violations of ADA, NYC Human Rights Law, and NY Civil Rights Law § 47-b.
- Court noted no evidence of discrimination against other disabled customers and that plaintiff had previously dined there without incident.
- Court found no entitlement to compensatory damages and ordered a $250 NY state fine and compliance with laws permitting service dogs.
- Plaintiff sought attorney’s fees and costs; Supreme Court denied the motion, and plaintiff appealed; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is a prevailing party under ADA/HRA. | Plaintiff prevailed by injunctive relief altering defendant's conduct. | Prevailing status should be limited or not justify substantial fees. | Plaintiff prevailed under ADA/HRA. |
| Whether Civil Rights Law § 47-b permits attorney’s fees. | CRL authorizes fee-shifting where applicable. | CRL § 47-b does not provide for attorney’s fees here. | No attorney’s fees under Civil Rights Law § 47-b. |
| Whether the requested attorney’s fees were reasonable. | Fees are reasonable given success and work performed. | Fees were excessive or not well-supported. | Fees denied as reasonable under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (prevailing party status not guaranteed fee recovery; framework for fee reasonableness)
- Abrahamson v Board of Educ. of Wappingers Falls Cent. School Dist., 374 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2004) (defining prevailing party and relief on merits)
- Pino v. Locascio, 101 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 1996) (reasonableness of attorney’s fees; degree of success as key factor)
- Jian Ren Chen v City of New York, 64 A.D.3d 542 (1st Dept. 2009) (precedent on fee considerations in civil rights actions)
- Matter of Shah v DeBuono, 257 A.D.2d 256 (1999) (fee considerations in civil rights remedies)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983) (multiplicity of factors guiding reasonableness of fee awards)
- McGrath v Toys "R" Us, Inc., 3 N.Y.3d 421 (2004) (NYC Human Rights Law fee considerations)