Finding merit in plaintiffs' contentions, we vacate so much of the district court's order as denied plaintiffs such an award, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On appeal, plaintiffs contend that by establishing the Village's liability for violation of their civil rights and thereby requiring the entry of equitable relief against the Village, they achieved significant success on their claims against the Village and were thus entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs against that defendant. The district judge denied the motion, stating, inter alia, that plaintiffs had not prevailed against parties other than the Village, that plaintiffs were only вЂњtechnicallyвЂќ prevailing parties against the Village вЂњby virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeals,вЂќ that they had not been granted the вЂњmajor reliefвЂќ they sought in the form of compensatory and punitive damages and the dissolution of the Village, that they had not materially changed the legal relationship between themselves and the Village, and that they had not prevailed on any issue critical or essential to their claims. В§В§вЂ‚1988(b) and 3613(c)(2) for an award of attorneys' fees and costs against the Village. Goettel, Judge, as denied their motion under 42 U.S.C. In the present appeal, plaintiffs challenge so much of an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Gerard L. and (3) affirmed, following proceedings on remand, the district court's granting of injunctive relief in both actions prohibiting the Village from future discrimination on the basis of religion and directing that certain amendments be made to the Village's zoning code, see LeBlanc-Sternberg v. 2546, 135 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1996) (2) reversed the district court's entry of judgment against the United States in the government's parallel action against the Village under the FHA, see id. (вЂњFHAвЂќ), and for conspiracy to discriminate against plaintiffs on the basis of their Orthodox Jewish religion, in violation of the First Amendment, see LeBlanc-Sternberg v. This case returns to us following several appeals in which we, inter alia, (1) reinstated a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Yitzchok LeBlanc-Sternberg, the rabbi of plaintiff Park Avenue Synagogue, Inc., et al., against defendant Village of Airmont, New York (вЂњAirmontвЂќ or the вЂњVillageвЂќ), for violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Clark, Dorfman, Lynch & Knoebel, Nyack, NY, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee. Parshall, Fredricksburg, VA, Anne-Marie Arriel, The Rutherford Institute, Charlottesville, VA, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Platek, Coudert Brothers, New York City, Craig L. Koolyk, New York City (Arnold & Porter, New York City, Kevin W. Decided: May 13, 1998Д«efore: KEARSE and CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and CHIN, District Judge.* Layne, and Nicholas Vertullo, Individually and in their capacity as Trustees of the Village of Airmont, Maureen Kendrick, Individually and in her capacity as Mayor of the Village of Airmont, Raymond Kane, Paul Berliner, The Airmont Civic Association, the Town of Ramapo, and Herbert Reisman, Individually and in his capacity as Ramapo Town Supervisor, Defendants, The Village of Airmont, Defendant-Appellee.

Robert FLETCHER, Marianne Cucolo, John C. Rabbi Yitzchok LeBLANC-STERNBERG, Chanie LeBlanc-Sternberg, Fred Walfish, Lewis Kamman, Park Avenue Synagogue, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit

Airmount village court