In Silver v. Autos of Amboy 267 N.J. Super 546 (App. Div. 1993) the Appellate Division conducted an analysis of a fee application and held that if the claimant is successful in litigating a core set of facts fees should be awarded fees despite alternative theories which might not have been successful. In Silver the plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant automobile dealership, including seven counts, and received an award of $350.00, which was trebled. Thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel made an application for attorneys' fees. His application was for 70 hours at $225.00 an hour. The trial Court, improperly, divided the total attorneys' fee award into the seven counts and thus made a decision to significantly reduce the award of attorneys' fees. The Appellate Division held that this was an inappropriate manner to determine an award of attorneys' fees and embarked upon a lengthy analysis as to the method to analyze a request for attorneys' fees in consumer fraud cases. In reversing the trial Court, the Appellate Division held that "such a mechanical approach is contrary to the spirit and the underlying remedial purpose of the Consumer Fraud Act."