
    Isabel MANZO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SOVEREIGN MOTOR CARS, LTD., Edward Feldman, Jack Matalon, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 10-2148-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 15, 2011.
    
      Avraham C. Moskowitz (Chaim B. Book, Jonathan S. Konovitch, on the brief), Mos-kowitz, Book & AValsh, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard E. Lerner, Wilson, Elser, Mos-kowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROGER J. MINER and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellee Isabel Manzo appeals from a May 24, 2010 judgment of the district court in an action brought pursuant to Title AHI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-l-17, and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-107-31, alleging sexual harassment through the creation of a hostile work environment and retaliatory firing. After a jury trial, Manzo was awarded $50,000.00 in compensatory damages, $200,000.00 in punitive damages, $314,534.00 in attorneys’ fees, and $11,911.39 in costs. Defendants-appellants (“defendants”) appealed, challenging the award of punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The parties thereafter notified this Court that they had settled defendants’ challenge to the punitive damages award, and thus we review only defendants’ challenge to the attorneys’ fees award. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees for abuse of discretion, and we will reverse only if the decision rested on an error of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or was not otherwise “ ‘within the range of permissible decisions.’ ” McDaniel v. Cnty. of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Kickham Hanley P.C. v. Kodak Ret. Income Plan, 558 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir.2009)). Our review of fee decisions is especially deferential because the district court “ ‘is intimately [more] familiar with the nuances of the case, [and thus] is in a far better position to make [such] decisions.’ ” Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 48 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting In re Bolar Pharm. Co. Sec. Litig., 966 F.2d 731, 732 (2d Cir.1992) (per curiam)).

After independently reviewing the record below, we conclude that the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision fell within its broad discretion to grant attorneys’ fees. We have considered appellants’ arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Hence, we affirm the district court’s award of fees.

Manzo also requests attorneys’ fees and costs for this appeal. We conclude that an award of appellate attorneys’ fees and costs is appropriate here. See Porzig v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benson, N. Am. LLC, 497 F.3d 133, 143-44 (2d Cir.2007); Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422, 428 (2d Cir.1999).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. We REMAND for the district court to determine Manzo’s reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees and costs for defending this appeal and for the entry of a supplemental judgment in that amount.  