The opinion of the court was delivered by: KEENAN
AMENDED OPINION and ORDER
JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, the prevailing party in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"), moves the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ("§ 1988"). The defendants oppose this motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiff's motion.
On January 14, 1985, following a trial before this Court, a jury found that plaintiff had established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the defendants, "acting under color of law, [had] deprived him of a right protected by Constitution thereby causing injury to plaintiff for which the defendants [were] responsible." (Jury Special Interrogatories - Court Exhibit 16). The jury returned a verdict in favor of Cool in the amount of $7,500.00. The issue before the Court is whether Cool's pro bono attorneys are entitled to fees and costs pursuant to § 1988.
The Court may, in its discretion, award "a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs" to the prevailing party in an action to enforce § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. "The purpose of § 1988 is to ensure "effective access to the judicial process' for persons with civil rights grievances." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1937, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983) (citation omitted). Additionally, § 1988 is designed to encourage litigants to serve as private attorneys general in order to assist in the enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws. McCann v. Coughlin, 698 F.2d 112, 128 (2d Cir. 1983). Thus, unless such an award would be unjust, a prevailing § 1983 plaintiff should ordinarily recover under § 1988. Hensley, 103 S. Ct. at 1937.
There can be no doubt that Cool prevailed in his § 1983 action against the City of Yonkers.
Therefore, Cool meets the "threshold" requirement to bring a § 1988 action. Hensley, 103 S. Ct. at 1939. The Court, however, still must analyze the reasonableness of the fee requested by Cool's attorneys. Hensley, 103 S. Ct. at 1939.
Cool's attorneys seek fee remuneration in the amount of $170,816.81, attributable to time spent prosecuting Cool's § 1983 claim by attorneys Jay Topkis, Robert Bartkus,
Jill Levi, Steven Popofsky, and Eric Freedman of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison ("Paul, Weiss"). Non-professional staff members of Paul, Weiss also spent time working on the preparation of Cool's § 1983 action.
(See Affidavit of Jay Topkis; Levi Letter of April 22, 1985).
In examining the reasonableness of Cool's fee request,
the Court necessarily must examine the results obtained on Cool's behalf, because "where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee." Hensley, 103 S. Ct. at 1940. Having presided over the trial, the Court recognizes that Cool's attorneys, although unable to recover the full $250,000 in damages sought for Cool, worked diligently on Cool's behalf and achieved a result which vindicated Cool's constitutional rights, defendant's representations notwithstanding.
(See Defendant's Memorandum of Law at 1-2, 10; Fitzgerald Affidavit at P3, P9, P13, P16, P19, P20).
The Court notes, at the outset, that Cool does not seek a "bonus" payment for his attorneys. In fact, the hours logged by his attorneys, on Cool's behalf, were reduced.
Nonetheless, the Court is mindful that "the civil rights statutes should not be construed to provide windfall recoveries for successful attorneys." Wheatley v. Ford, 679 F.2d 1037, 1041 (2d Cir. 1982). Indeed, the Court must view an award "with an "eye to moderation" so as to avoid even the appearance of windfall fees." Wheatley, 679 F.2d at 1040, citing Beazer v. New York City Transit Authority, 558 F.2d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1977), rev'd on other grounds, 440 U.S. 568, 59 L. Ed. 2d 587, 99 S. Ct. 1355 (1979).
The Court has carefully reviewed Cool's application for attorneys' fees. Given the discretionary nature of a § 1988 fee award and the fact "there is no precise rule or formula for making" a fee determination, Hensley, 103 S. Ct. at 1941, the Court finds $50,000.00 to reasonable remuneration for services rendered by Paul, Weiss on Cool's behalf, despite the fact that Cool recovered only ...