Estate of DePerno, 18 F.3d 179, 181 (2d Cir.1994); Miles v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593, 602 n. 9 (2d Cir.1983); Mendez v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 789 F.Supp. 139, 140-41 (S.D.N.Y.1992). Although the awarding of attorneys’ fees “is discretionary, not mandatory,” Fase, 589 F.2d at 116; see International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Joint Council 18 v. New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund, 903 F.2d 919, 923 (2d Cir.1990), the Second Circuit favors awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing plaintiffs in ERISA cases “in the absence of some particular justification for not doing so.” Birmingham v. SoGen-Swiss Int’l Corp. Ret. Plan, 718 F.2d 515, 523 (2d Cir.1983); see Chambless, 815 F.2d at 871 (<HOLDING>); Rice, 888 F.Supp. at 500. Regardless of the
holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees holding that it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to award attorneys fees where each element of five part test has been satisfied holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife