With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it does bear on the propriety of fees awarded under § 1988,” id. at 114, 113 S.Ct. 566, and in a concurring opinion, Justice O’Conner wrote that “[wjhen the plaintiffs success is purely technical or de minimis, no fees can be awarded,” id. at 117, 113 S.Ct. 566 (O’Conner, J., concurring). The Court disagrees with defendants’ characterization of plaintiffs victory in this case. First, rather than a nominal sum, the $30,000 in compensatory and punitive damages awarded by the jury was substantial and easily distinguishable from the cases cited by defendants. See Carroll v. Blinken, 105 F.3d 79, 81-82 (2d Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s reduction of requested attorneys’ fees because, inter alia, “[tjhere was no damage award”); Pino v. Locascio, 101 F.3d 235, 238-39 (2d Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). In Pino, the Second Circuit specifically

A: holding that district court erred in awarding attorneys fees in civil rights action where plaintiff only recovered 1 in nominal damages
B: holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict
C: holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict
D: holding that in an action for breach of contract only nominal damages can be recovered if there is no evidence produced from which the facts necessary to determine damages under the proper rule can be determined
A.