With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hines v. City of Albany, 613 Fed.Appx. 52, 54 (2d Cir. 2015) (“We are unpersuaded by Defendants’ attempts to characterize the $10,000 settlement in this case as meager. Moreover, the success here was hardly technical.”). Second, insofar as defendants assert that plaintiff achieved only “limited or partial success” because the jury did not find liability as to Officer Weiss (see Defs.’ Br. at 6), that argument fails because plaintiffs successful excessive force claim against Officer Cotter and unsuccessful excessive force claim against Officer Weiss “involve[d] a common core of facts or [were] based on related legal theories .... ” Green, 361 F.3d at 98; see also Kerin, 218 F.3d at 194; Monette v. Cty. of Nassau, No. 11-CV-539 (JFB) (AKT), 2016 WL 4145798, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2016) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because this “lawsuit consisted]

A: holding that plaintiffs claim of constitutional retaliation under the first amendment leading to a reduction in his benefits may only be heard in accordance with the vjra
B: holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination
C: holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation
D: holding that although plaintiffs claims for disability discrimination and hostile work environment were rejected by the jury and plaintiff only prevailed on his first amendment retaliation claim no reduction in requested fees was warranted on partial success grounds because the issue of plaintiffs transfer was inextricably intertwined with his retaliation claim
D.