Document Type
Blog Post
Publication Date
10-31-2025
Abstract
Some of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Divisions are now recognizing “catalyst theory” as a part of the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). To preserve the intent of the EAJA, it is time for the Court of Appeals to decide in favor of catalyst theory for litigants. Recently, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department ruled in favor of Peter Markey, a disabled Navy veteran who sued New York State after they denied him rental assistance. The EAJA allows for plaintiffs to obtain attorneys’ fees when they prevail in certain actions against New York State and state agencies—intended to be similar to the Federal Equal Access to Justice Act. The Federal EAJA, enacted in 1980, instead allows for plaintiffs to recover attorneys’ fees from the federal government if the plaintiff prevails. One of the primary purposes of the Federal EAJA is to empower plaintiffs to seek review or appeal certain government actions and incentivize attorneys to represent them in these matters, knowing the federal government will award them attorneys’ fees.
This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice website on October 31, 2025. The original post can be accessed via the Archived Link button above.
Recommended Citation
Larcher, Nancy, "The Splintering of “Catalyst Theory” in New York" (2025). Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice (ERSJ) Blog. 95.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/ersj-blog/95
