sought by the tenant, as determined by the pleadings, offers of proof, or other means
with the actual recovery, bearing in mind that the statutory reciprocal provision for
attorney's fees was not intended to confer a windfall (Solow v Wellner, 205
AD2d 339, 340 [1st Dept 1994], affd, 86 NY2d 582 [1995] [providing standard
for attorneys' fees in summary proceedings]).
To be considered a "prevailing party," one must simply prevail on the central claims
advanced, and receive substantial relief in consequence thereof (Sykes v RFD Third Ave. I Assoc.,
LLC, 39 AD3d 279, 279 [1st Dept 2007]; see D.A.S. Contr. Corp. v Nova Cas. Co., 14 Misc 3d
1213(A) [Sup Ct Nassau County 2007] ["One who recovers less than 50% of the
amount sought cannot reasonably be found to have obtained substantial relief."],
citing Excelsior 57th Corp. v Winters, 227 AD2d 146, 147 [1st Dept 1996]
[granting fees to landlord as "prevailing party" where landlord sought 54 months' rent
and tenants received 4.5 months' abatement out of a total 24 months sought]; Peachy
v Rosenzweig, 215 AD2d 301, 302 [1st Dept 1995] [landlord entitled to fees as the
prevailing party based on winning a money judgment and judgment of possession,
whereas the tenants were successful only on their affirmative defense of breach of
warranty, and were unsuccessful as to their twelve other affirmative defenses]).
Where there is a mixed outcome, that is not "substantially favorable" to either side,
and therefore neither should be accorded the status of a prevailing party (339-347 E. 12th St. LLC v
Ling, 31 Misc 3d 48, 49 [App Term 1st Dept 2011] [tenant awarded an 11%
reduction in rent for an 18-month period, but did not recover on claims for punitive and
treble damages]; see also 157 E.