Case Name: GENERAL CAMERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Convention Center Development Corporation, and State of New York, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1984-05-08
Citations: 734 F.2d 468
Docket Number: No. 775, Docket 83-7828
Parties: GENERAL CAMERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Convention Center Development Corporation, and State of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, and MANSFIELD and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 734
Pages: 468–470

Head Matter:
GENERAL CAMERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Convention Center Development Corporation, and State of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 775, Docket 83-7828.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted March 5, 1984.
Decided May 8, 1984.
Robert S. Tobin, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant General Camera Corp.
Evelyn M. Tenenbaum, New York City, Asst. Atty. Gen. of the State of New York (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Melvyn Leventhal, Deputy First Asst. Atty. Gen., Stanley Camhi, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee State of N.Y.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, and MANSFIELD and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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).
We affirm the judgment of the district court.