Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated February 14, 2003 (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.) granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's sole remaining cause of action for attorneys' fees.

PER CURIAM:

Order dated February 14, 2003 (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

"Under the general rule, attorneys' fees and disbursements are incidents of litigation and the prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or court rule" (Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 5 [1986]). The governing commercial lease agreement between the parties did not provide for an award of attorneys' fees in favor of the plaintiff-tenant and plaintiff identifies no court rule or statute authorizing such an award. Nor does the record support a finding that the underlying dispute over the return of a portion of the plaintiff's security [*2]deposit resulted entirety from actual malice or a "disinterested malevolence" on defendant's part (Brook Shopping Ctrs. v Bass, 107 AD2d 615 [1985]; see Anniszkiewicz v Harrison, 291 AD2d 829 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 611 [2002]). The existence of a bona fide dispute over the security deposit is confirmed by the parties' pre-litigation correspondence.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.