voluntary dismissal or withdrawal of inflated claims may justify a fee reduction, the same will not be true of claims pursued in good faith, but later withdrawn for valid reasons, such as the discovery of additional evidence.” Green, 361 F.3d at 100; see also Morgenstern v. Cty. of Nassau, No. CV 04-58 (ARL), 2009 WL 5103158, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2009) (“The court will not, however, deduct from the award the amounts incurred for legal services rendered in connection with the breach of contract, civil service law, or human rights law claims that were voluntarily dismissed ... [because] [t]he court agrees with the plaintiff that the work done in relation to those claims contributed to the ultimate success of the lawsuit .... (citing Grant v. Martinez, 973 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>))). There is nothing in the record that
holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether hindsight vindicates an attorneys time expenditures but whether at the time the work was performed a reasonable attorney would have engaged in similar time expenditures holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest