V. Urban Development Corporation, Convention Center Development Corporation, and State of New York

Second Circuit

V. Urban Development Corporation, Convention Center Development Corporation, and State of New York

734 F.2d 468, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22670

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1984

Docket775, Docket 83-7828

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 734 F.2d 468 (V. Urban Development Corporation, Convention Center Development Corporation, and State of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

V. Urban Development Corporation, Convention Center Development Corporation, and State of New York, 734 F.2d 468, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22670 (2d Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

General Camera Corp. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thomas P. Griesa, J., awarding defendantappellee State of New York $4,000 in attorney’s fees. Judge Griesa found that plaintiff-appellant’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was “entirely groundless” and that, as a result, appellee was entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

We accept Judge Griesa’s conclusion that appellant’s section 1983 action was frivolous. Thus, following Harbulak v. County of Suffolk, 654 F.2d 194, 198 (2d Cir.1981), in which we held that the defendant should be awarded attorney’s fees where the plaintiff’s section 1983 action was “unreasonable and groundless, if not frivolous,” and Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14-16, 101 S.Ct. 173, 178-179, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam), in which the Supreme Court reversed an award of attorney’s fees on the grounds that the section 1983 action was neither “groundless” nor “without foundation,” we find that the award of attorney’s fees here was proper, even though the district court made no finding on whether appellant brought its action in bad faith. See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937 n. 2, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (dictum); Kostiuk v. Town of Riverhead, 570 F.Supp. 603, 612 (E.D.N.Y.1983); Munshi v. New York University, 528 F.Supp. 1088, 1093 (S.D.N.Y.1981).

[469]*469We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

General Camera Corp. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thomas P. Griesa, J., awarding defendantappellee State of New York $4,000 in attorney’s fees. Judge Griesa found that plaintiff-appellant’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was “entirely groundless” and that, as a result, appellee was entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

We accept Judge Griesa’s conclusion that appellant’s section 1983 action was frivolous. Thus, following Harbulak v. County of Suffolk, 654 F.2d 194, 198 (2d Cir.1981), in which we held that the defendant should be awarded attorney’s fees where the plaintiff’s section 1983 action was “unreasonable and groundless, if not frivolous,” and Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14-16, 101 S.Ct. 173, 178-179, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam), in which the Supreme Court reversed an award of attorney’s fees on the grounds that the section 1983 action was neither “groundless” nor “without foundation,” we find that the award of attorney’s fees here was proper, even though the district court made no finding on whether appellant brought its action in bad faith. See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937 n. 2, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (dictum); Kostiuk v. Town of Riverhead, 570 F.Supp. 603, 612 (E.D.N.Y.1983); Munshi v. New York University, 528 F.Supp. 1088, 1093 (S.D.N.Y.1981).

[469]*469We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 F.2d 468, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/v-urban-development-corporation-convention-center-development-ca2-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack