amount of the deposit exceeds any unpaid rent owed by plaintiff to defendant. Defendant
does not challenge the jury's finding that the amount of unpaid rent/charges owed was
$4,800.[FN2]
And defendant does not explain why the jury could nonetheless validly decline to award
plaintiff anything in damages.
At most, defendant emphasizes that the jury's unanimous verdict was "reflective of
careful consideration" of the evidence at trial. (NYSCEF No. 63 at ¶ 33.) But
plaintiff is not disputing how the jury considered the evidence, nor indeed the jury's
factual findings based on that evidence—only whether the jury erred in
determining the amount of damages to which each side is entitled in light of those factual
findings. On that limited question, plaintiff has shown that the jury did err; and that
plaintiff is entitled as a matter of law to a judgment in its favor of $8,200, rather than
owing defendant a judgment of $4,800.[FN3]
II. Defendant's Cross-Motion for Attorney Fees
Defendant's
cross-motion argues that the lease "obligates Plaintiff to reimburse Defendant for legal
fees associated with enforcing the lease or defending against meritless claims"; and that
"[g]iven Defendant's success in both defending against Plaintiff's claims and prevailing
on its counterclaim," defendant is entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party.
(NYSCEF No. 63 at ¶¶ 40-41.) This court disagrees with defendant on both
points.
First, the scope of defendant's right under the lease to recover fees, should it prevail
in litigation, is narrower than defendant would have it. The lease provides that plaintiff
must [*4]reimburse defendant for fees incurred in two
circumstances: (i) in "legal actions or proceedings brought by [defendant] against