With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Costs 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(d) (“Korenbaum Deck”), Ex. E, [Time & Expense Entries of Korenbaum], ECF No. 63. In total, Coe’s counsel spent approximately 100 hours more on the second appeal than they did on the first, despite having already completed the majority of the work during the first appeal. The only difference between the first and second appeal was Coe’s argument opposing this Court’s fifty-percent reduction on the attorneys’ fees award for the trial and first appeal. This Court rules that the attorneys’ fees sought by Coe for the second appeal relating to the same facts and issues presented in the first appeal are unreasonably redundant and unnecessary. See Grant v. Martinez, 973 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir.1992) (considering “whether, at the time the work 7) (<HOLDING>). A fifty-percent reduction is reasonable

A: holding that status as a prevailing party does not by itself entitle a plaintiff to attorneys fees rather the most critical factor in determining a fee awards reasonableness is the degree of success obtained emphasis added
B: holding that the quantity of relief obtained as compared to what the plaintiff sought to achieve are key elements in determining the degree of success
C: holding that the most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of success obtained
D: holding that the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained
B.