In light of the full history of this dispute between plaintiff landlord and various tenants of the residential building in question (see e.g. Solow v. Bradley, 273 A.D.2d 75; Solow v. Wellner, 205 A.D.2d 339, affd 86 N.Y.2d 582; Solovieff Gallery Co. v. Langston, 167 A.D.2d 325), and of defendant's decision to pay all claimed rent arrears and forgo his viable claim for a rent abatement, the court properly exercised its discretion in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys' fees. Even assuming that plaintiff should be viewed as having substantially prevailed, the imposition of attorneys' fees would be unfair under the particular circumstances of this case (see Jacreg Realty Corp. v. Matthew Barnes, 284 A.D.2d 280; Nesbitt v. NYC Conciliation Appeals Bd., 121 Misc.2d 336, 340; see also Solow v. Wellner, 205 A.D.2d at 340). We have considered and rejected plaintiff's remaining arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.