Papers Submitted

Order to Show Cause, Affidavit, Affirmation, Exhibits Annexed..............................X

Notice of Cross Motion, Affidavit, Affirmation, Exhibits Annexed...........................X

Reply and Opposition to Cross Motion, Affirmation, Exhibits Annexed...................X

Reply Affirmation, Exhibits Annexed.........................................................................X

_____________________________________________________________ _______________ [*2]

Defendant ("Husband") moves by Order to Show Cause dated August 2, 2012 seeking an Order a) enjoining and restraining Plaintiff ("Wife"), her agents, employees, and attorneys, pendente lite, from declaring a default and/or implementing the default and security provisions of a certain Stipulation of Settlement and Modification Agreement dated March 30, 2009 (the "Stipulation") as amended by a Letter Agreement dated January 15, 2010 and a Letter Agreement dated July 13, 2010, based on the Husband's alleged default of the same; b) declaring that the Husband is not in default of the Judgment of Divorce, ordering the escrow deeds and confessions of judgment be returned to the Husband, and terminating maintenance due to a substantial change of circumstances and financial hardship; c) in the alternative, setting aside the Stipulation dated March 30, 2009 on the grounds of unconscionability and duress, ordering the escrow deeds and confessions of judgment be returned to the Husband, and terminating maintenance due to a substantial change of circumstances and financial hardship; d) in the alternative, reforming the parties' Stipulation consistent with the intent of the parties and equitable considerations; e) terminating child support and health insurance benefits for the parties' one unemancipated child on the basis of abandonment; f) in the alternative, reducing child support to $25.00 per month and terminating health insurance benefits on the basis that the Husband's income is below the self-support reserve and the Federal poverty income guidelines; and g) awarding Husband counsel fees, pendente lite, in the amount of $25,000.00 with leave to apply for additional fees throughout the proceeding as necessary to enable him to prosecute his claims.

Wife opposes Husband's motion and cross-moves by Notice of Cross Motion dated November 9, 2012 seeking an Order a) dismissing Husband's Order to Show Cause dated August 2, 2012 and denying all of the relief requested therein; b) vacating all interim restraining orders contained in the Order to Show Cause signed on August 2, 2012 (Reilly, J.S.C.), wherein the Court (i) restrained Wife, her attorneys and agents from taking any steps to implement or enforce the default and security provisions of the Stipulation, as amended by the successive Letter Agreements based on Husband's default; and (ii) restrained Wife, her attorneys and agents from releasing from escrow and from recording the deeds to the former marital residence, located at 173 Middle Neck Road, Sands Point, New York (the "Former Marital Residence") and the Husband's commercial building in Syosset; c) upon the vacatur of all interim restraining orders contained in the said Order to Show Cause, permitting Wife, through her counsel, to release from escrow and record the deeds transferring title of the Sands Point property and the Syosset commercial building from Husband to Wife; and docket the confessions of the judgment heretofore executed by the Husband which total the sum of $249,645.00; d) assuming Wife is permitted to release from escrow and enter against the Husband the Confessions of Judgment totaling $249,645.00, granting to the Wife a further money judgment against the Husband for the balance owed, that being the sum of $12,854.98 ($262,499.98- $249,645.00), plus statutory interest at the rate of 9% commencing as and when all such payments totaling $249,645.00 became due, and that Wife have execution therefor; e) if for any reason this Court denies Wife's request to release from escrow and enter the Confessions of Judgment previously executed by the Husband, then granting to Wife an immediate money judgment against Husband for the full sum of $262,499.98, plus statutory interest at the rate of 9% commencing as and when all such payments became due, and that Wife have execution therefor; f) pursuant to D.R.L. §243 and Article VI(A)(4) of the March 2009 Stipulation, appointing a receivership by reason of the Husband's defaults as follows: [*3]

(1) Plaintiff shall be appointed Receiver, to act without bond, and she shall have the power and authority to sell Defendant's residential property located at 173 Middle Neck Rd. Sands Point, New York and his commercial real property located at 212 Michael Drive, Syosset, New York, to deposit the net sale proceeds therefrom with the Nassau County Treasurer in a fund to be held for the benefit of the Plaintiff, and to utilize same as security for the unpaid support and property obligations of the Defendant and to satisfy any money judgments owed to Plaintiff;

(2) the appointment by the Court of an independent receiver of the rents, receipts and profits of Defendant's business, known as National Learning Corporation, authorized to (I) immediately enter into possession of the business premises; (ii) collect and keep written accounts itemizing gross sales receipts and expenditures; (iii) issue payment to Plaintiff from the net income and profits available to be paid to Defendant as personal income, as permitted by law, a sum equal to Defendant's outstanding support and property obligations to the Plaintiff, plus such expenditures for reimbursable support related items as required by the Judgment of Divorce, with an accounting thereof to be provided to Defendant; and

g) granting to Wife an immediate money judgment in her favor and against Husband in the sum of $11,265.00, representing the arrears in the payment of Husband's share of the college expenses pertaining to Cameron's attendance at Johnson & Wales University, plus statutory interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum commencing as and when said payments became due, and that Wife have execution therefor; h) awarding to Wife a further money judgment in her favor and against Husband for such additional arrears as may accrue during the pendency of this application; I) pursuant to Articles VI(C), VI(F), and IX(B) of the Stipulation, and in furtherance of D.R.L. §§237(c) and 238, awarding Wife counsel fees in the sum of $25,000.00, for the expenses incurred in connection with having to defend Husband's frivolous application and prosecuting the instant enforcement application; and further authorizing Wife's counsel to enter a money judgment in Wife's favor as against the Husband in the event of a default by Husband upon affirmation of non-payment.

The parties were married on June 30, 1973, and there are three children of the marriage, to wit: Alexis, age 33; Jacob, age 29; and Cameron, born xx/xx/1992, age 21.

The underlying divorce action was commenced on March 19, 2003. On October 27, 2005, the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement, which resolved the issues of custody of the then minor child, Cameron, and equitable distribution, which was "So-Ordered" by the Court (the "Agreement"). The Agreement provides, in pertinent part, that Husband would retain (i) the Former Marital Residence, which at the time was encumbered by a $235,000.00 mortgage; (ii) his business known as National Learning Corporation (which the parties stipulated had a fair market value of $2,200,00.00 as of the date of commencement of the divorce action; and (iii) the commercial building located at 212 Michael Drive, Syosset, New York (which the parties stipulated had a fair market value of $1,200,000.00 and was mortgage free) (the "Commercial Building"). In consideration of the marital assets to be retained by Husband, it was agreed that Wife would receive a distributive award in the sum of $2,600,000.00 payable in four installments as follows: (a) $750,00.00 to be immediately released from a line of credit; (b) $500,000.00 within 45 days of signing the Agreement; (c) $1,250,000.00 within 60 days of signing the Agreement; and (d) [*4]$100,000.00 payable on the 4th anniversary of the Agreement, secured by a confession of judgment and mortgage against the Commercial Building.

The remaining issues concerning maintenance, child support, life insurance, medical insurance, and counsel fees were referred to trial of the action, which trial spanned 20 days and on July 26, 2006, the Hon. Arthur M. Diamond, J.S.C., issued the Decision After Trial, pursuant to which, Husband was directed to pay, inter alia, the following: (a) $125,000.00 per year in spousal maintenance, payable at the rate of $10,416.67 per month, for 20 years commencing August 1, 2006, through and including July 31, 2026; (b) $15,829.55 per year in child support, payable at a rate of $1,319.13 per month, commencing August 1, 2006, and continuing until the emancipation of Cameron; and (c) the costs of Cameron's camp up to $7,500.00 per year.

By Order dated February 2, 2007, the Decision After Trial was modified to further require Husband to: (a) maintain all medical, dental and life insurance policies that were in existence during the marriage for the benefit of Cameron until his emancipation and for the benefit of Wife for so long as he is obligated to pay maintenance to Wife; and (b) to pay 100% of all unreimbursed "medicals" for Wife and Cameron provided she utilized "in-network" medical providers.

The aforementioned obligations were incorporated into a final Judgement of Divorce granted by the Court on July 20, 2007, which was thereafter amended by the Amended Judgment of Divorce dated November 26, 2007.

In support of the instant motion, Husband claims that he is saddled with tremendous debt as a result of his financial obligations stemming from the divorce action. He goes through a lengthy recitation of the circumstances surrounding such debt, and sets forth the specifics of his debt service. Wife , in opposition to Husband's claims of financial hardship, argues that the debt service originates from the Husband's "indefensible and incomprehensible" decision to retain ownership and occupancy of the Former Marital Residence in violation of a Stipulation, dated October 6, 2004, which required the sale of same.

At trial, Wife's counsel cross-examined Husband's expert, David Marcus, who stated that Husband's financial health would be ameliorated if he elected to sell the Former Marital Residence rather than occupy it.

In the Decision After Trial, Justice Diamond opined that:

that the Property Settlement Agreement provided the plaintiff with what she was entitled to under the law, virtually no more, and no less. In the court's opinion, a 50-50 split of the value of the marital residence and a negotiated value of the defendant's business and the business property reflects the purpose of the Equitable Distribution Law in a long-term marriage. The defendant agreed to the Property Settlement Agreement, understanding and consenting to leave the issues of maintenance and child support to the court. The court finds that the defendant has had normalized earnings of well over half a million dollars a year for the last five years of the marriage. While the defendant is certainly within his right to live alone in a 10,000 square foot house worth $2.5 milliondollars, that choice cannot cost the plaintiff herrightful spousal support order after a 30-year marriage. Additionally, the court finds that the defendant's income will remain in the $500,000 range for the foreseeable future.

The recitals of the Stipulation indicate that the parties had each filed Notices of Appeal and Cross Appeals intending to appeal the Judgment and the post-trial decision to the Appellate Division, [*5]Second Department; by reason of the Husband's non-compliance with the support obligations contained in the divorce judgment, Wife had been appointed receiver of the Husband's Commercial Building located at 212 Michael Drive, Syosset, New York, to collect the rental income for said property and apply same to satisfy the outstanding arrears in maintenance and child support; by reason of the Husband's further non-compliance with the order of receivership, by subsequent order of the Court dated January 16, 2009, Wife was granted a Sheriff's deed to Husband's residential property located at 173 Middle Neck Road, Sands Point, New York and Husband's Commercial Building to enable Wife to sell said properties and to utilize the net sale proceeds to satisfy various outstanding money judgments previously awarded to Wife and as security for the payment of future support; and the Husband had also filed a Notice of Appeal from the Court's orders of receivership, which appeals were pending in the Second Department under Docket Numbers 2008-06986 and 2009-01165.

In order to resolve such claims and actions, the parties first agreed as to the following extant obligations owed by the Husband to the Wife as of the dated of signing: $125,000 per annum in taxable maintenance, payable at a rate of $10,416.67 per month, for twenty years commencing August 1, 2006, through and including July 31, 2026;(2) $100,000 due and owing on October 27, 2009, representing the final installment payment of the distributive award owing under the Property Settlement Agreement; and (3) a distribution in the sum of $134,876 from Husband's profit sharing plan into an IRA belonging to the Wife, as required by the divorce judgment and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (Diamond, J.) dated November 12, 2008.

In lieu of the foregoing payments and distributions, Article I(B) of the Stipulation provided that the Husband would pay to Wife a non-taxable lump sum payment in the sum of $1,000,000.00 as follows: the sum of $300,000 would be paid on signing (this payment was made), and the balance of $700,000 would be paid on or before December 31, 2009.

As concerns maintenance and child support, the Stipulation further provided as follows:

Article II: In lieu of having to maintain health insurance for Wife and pay Wife's unreimbursed and uninsured medical, dental, prescription drug and other health related expenses for a period of 20 years, the Husband would only be obligated to maintain health insurance coverage for Wife until her 65th Birthday (on November 11, 2016), and Wife would be responsible for the costs of my own personal health expenses.

Article III: The child support obligation would be modified to provide that Husband's child support obligation would be limited to the basic child support payment of $1,319.13 per month, plus continue health insurance coverage for Cameron until his emancipation. Wife waived Husband's obligation to pay for the costs associated with Cameron's unreimbursed and uninsured medical, dental, prescription drugs and other health related expenses, absorbing said costs herself.

The Stipulation contains various security provisions for the payments noted above. Specifically, Article V provides that: Husband would execute deeds to the Former Marital Residence and the Commercial Building transferring his interest to the Wife, which deeds are held in escrow by my attorney; Husband consented to the filing of a Lis Pendens on the Former Marital Residence and the Commercial Building; and Husband would execute various confessions of judgment for his outstanding financial obligations which are held in escrow by my attorney. [*6]

Article VI of the Stipulation provides the remedies in the event of a default by the Husband in the payment to Wife of said $1,000,000.00 which said remedies include the following:

(a) a declaration that Articles I, II, and III of the agreement are null and void; (b) a retroactive revival of all prior court ordered obligations against Husband; (c) release from escrow of the deeds to the Former Marital Residence and Commercial Building; (d) entry of money judgments against the Husband; and (e) the appointment of Wife as receiver to sell the Former Marital Residence and the Commercial Building and utilization of the net proceeds of sale as security for the future financial and support obligations of the Husband; (f) the appointment by the Court of an independent receiver of the rents, receipts and profits of National Learning Corporation.

Article V, ¶D indicates that Husband intended to secure additional financing against the Former Marital Residence and/or the Commercial Building in order to pay the newly structured obligations to the plaintiff.

In furtherance of the Stipulation, the appeal and cross-appeals filed by each party from the Judgment of Divorce and the Amended Judgment were withdrawn as confirmed by the Decision & Order on Application dated April 9, 2009 granted by the Appellate Division, Second Department.

Wife cooperated in granting to Husband three (3) separate extensions of his obligation to pay the $700,000 balance outstanding pursuant to Article I(B)(2) of the Stipulation which was originally due to be paid on or before December 31, 2009.

First, by Letter Agreement dated January 15, 2010, Wife agreed to accept a partial payment of $200,000, and the balance of $500,000 to be paid by April 15, 2010. The parties further agreed that Wife would receive monthly interest on the remaining $500,000 at a rate of 10% per month, payable at the rate of $4,166.67 per month on the first of each month for 3 months or until the $500,000 is paid in full, whichever occurred first.

Paragraph (v) of the Letter Agreement contemplated that defendant would undertake a further refinance of his properties in order to make these final payments. First, pursuant to provision (iv), Wife agreed to cancel the Lis Pendens on the Sands Point property upon Husband's request (which was done). As to the Commercial Building, the Letter Agreement recites at ¶(v):

If required for Mr. Rudman to accomplish a refinancing or secondary refinancing on the Syosset commercial property, Mrs. Rudman will cancel her Lis Pendens on said property providing the entire net proceeds (after payment of first mortgage and customary closing costs) are used toward payment to Mrs. Rudman of the remaining monies due her pursuant to paragraph (ii) above. Mrs. Rudman shall have the right to immediately re-file said Lis Pendens once said refinancing or secondary financing is completed (proof of which shall be immediately given to Mrs. Rudman) without further notice to Mr. Rudman.

A second extension was granted by Letter Agreement dated April 19, 2010. Said agreement acknowledges Husband's receipt of a Commitment Letter dated April 14, 2010 from Savoy Bank in connection with a $2,000,000.00 mortgage on the Commercial Building. In consideration of said commitment letter, Wife agreed to further extend defendant's time to pay the remaining $500,000.00 sum for an additional three months until July 15, 2010. The parties further agreed that Husband would continue to pay Wife monthly interest on the remaining $500,000.00 at the previously agreed upon rate of 10%, or $4,166.67 per month for a period of three months or until the $500,000 is paid in full, whichever occurred first. [*7]

A third extension was granted by Letter Agreement dated July 13, 2010. In contemplation of the Husband securing a second mortgage with Savoy Bank, the parties agreed that Wife would receive the sum of $250,000.00 from the mortgage proceeds against the balance outstanding. Additionally, in consideration of the extensions of time which had been granted to the Husband, the parties further agreed that the principal sum of $50,000.00 would be added to the balance remaining to be paid to Wife under the Stipulation, so that the principal total due and owing to Wife was increased to $300,000.00, which sum was to be paid as follows: (a) the sum of $2,083.33 payable on the first day of the month, commencing August 1, 2010, and continuing each month for a period of 24 months, with the last payment being made on July 1, 2012, and at the end of the 24-month period, the defendant would have paid the sum of $50,000; and (b) the final sum of $250,000 was due and owing July 15, 2012.

Provided that the Husband was in compliance with the provisions of the July 13, 2010 Letter Agreement, his time to comply with the provisions of the Stipulation were extended until July 15, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. Additionally, provided compliance, Wife's attorneys would continue to hold the deeds to the Husband's properties in escrow.

Wife claims that Husband has failed to comply with his financial obligations under the Stipulation, as amended by the series of Letter Agreements dated January 15, April 19, July 13, 2010, pursuant to which Husband's time to make his final payment to Wife was extended to July 15, 2012, to wit: Husband has failed to pay the monthly sum of $2,083.33 since February 2012 as required by the Letter Agreement dated July 13, 2010; and Husband has failed to pay the final installment of 250,000.00, which was due and owing on July 15, 2012. As of the date of Wife's motion, Husband had allegedly accumulated arrears pursuant to the Stipulation, as amended by the Letter Agreement, in the combined sum of $262,499.98.

Wife argues that because Husband has defaulted in his obligations, she should be entitled to invoke all of the security provisions which were bargained for, including but not limited to the recording of the deeds held by her attorneys, her appointment as receiver of the Former Marital Residence, and the appointment of a neutral receiver of the Commercial Building.

Wife further argues that not only is the Husband's application seeking a reduction in his support obligation without legal or factual merit, but such an attempt also violates the express provisions of the Stipulation, to wit: Article III, ¶E of the Stipulation, the parties expressly agreed that the child support provisions of the agreement were satisfactory, reasonable and necessary for the support needs of Cameron and that the Husband shall not bring an application in the future to reduce child support.

Wife further argues that Husband's present application seeking to reduce his child support obligation is barred by the express provisions of the Stipulation.

While the Husband claims that he has been "abandoned" by the parties unemancipated child, Cameron, the record is clear that to the extent that there exists a strain in the relationship, same has been attributed to Husband's effort to disavow paternity of Cameron. Despite Wife's efforts to reunite Husband and Cameron, Husband consented, more than 6 years ago, to terminate the services of the Parent Coordinator, which consent is embodied in an order from which no appeal was taken.

The enforceability of the Stipulation as it pertains to Husband's obligation to pay for Cameron's college education, expenses has already been adjudicated by Order dated September 19, 2012 (Murphy, J.S.C.). [*8]

The parties agreed to share the costs of Cameron's college expenses equally after his freshman year, pursuant to Article (A) of the Stipulation.

Wife now alleges that Husband is in default of his obligation to pay 50% of the costs associated with Cameron's attendance at Johnson and Wales University, North Miami Campus for the 2012 Spring Trimester, 2012 Fall Trimester and 2012 Winter Trimester. Husband denies that he is in default and claims that he has repeatedly requested invoices and proof of payment of the tuition, room and board for Cameron's attendance at Johnson & Wales University, and further argues that the proofs that Wife annexes to her papers are insufficient and do not match information he obtained directly through the school. Further Husband claims to have already paid $7,306.00, and that he is entitled to an additional credit of $2,533.05 towards the 2011-2013 academic years, based upon additional funds in the custodial account over the $35,000.00 which amount the parties agreed would be transferred to Wife for the purpose of paying Cameron's freshmen year.

It is well-settled that the sanctity of the parties' decision to settle their own financial affairs by way of agreement must not be cast aside lightly (Rainbow v. Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 531 N.Y.S.2d 775, 527 N.E.2d 258 [1988]), and that pre-nuptial, marital and separation agreements which are regular on their face are binding on the parties, unless and until they are set aside (Paruch v. Paruch, 140 AD2d 418, 528 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2d Dept., 1988]); 2 Foster & Freed, Law and the Family, p.476; see also, Schmelzel v. Schmelzel, 287 NY 21, 26; 2 Lindey, Separation Agreements and Ante-Nuptial Contracts [rev. ed.], § 36, subd 1, p.36-3). Judicial review is to be exercised circumspectly, sparingly and with a persisting view toward the encouragement of parties settling their own differences in connection with the negotiation of property settlement provisions (Christian v. Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817 [1977]).

An unconscionable bargain has been regarded as one " such as no [person] in his [or her] senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair [person] would accept on the other'"(Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411[1889]). While the inequality of said bargain has been described as being " so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any [person] of common sense'" (Mandel v. Liebman, 303 NY 88, 94; Christian v. Christian, supra).

Moreover, where a party was represented by counsel during the course of the negotiation and execution of the subject agreement, and received substantial benefits under the agreement, a claim to vacate the agreement predicated upon unconscionability must fail (Cantamessa v. Cantamessa, 170 AD2d 792, 565 N.Y.S.2d 895 [3rd Dept., 1991]).

After careful review of the proofs presented and the parties' respective claims and allegations, the Court finds that Husband has failed to demonstrate a compelling legal or factual reason to justify his failure to comply with his financial obligations, and in consideration of the foregoing, branches "a" through "d" and "g" of his motion are DENIED. [*9]

Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that Husband, an attorney and astute businessman himself, had the benefit of independent legal counsel of his own choosing throughout the negotiation and execution of the subject agreement; that he avowed by his signature at the foot of the document that he understood the agreement fully; that the agreement was arrived at fairly; that he had been apprised of his legal rights by his own counsel; and that his rights and obligations under the relevant law had been thoroughly and satisfactorily explained to him, and that he was entering into said agreement that was fair and reasonable at the time of the execution thereof.

With respect to Husband's application for the termination of his child support obligations, the Court of Appeals has held that a "child's right to support and the parent's right to custody and services are reciprocal (see Roe v. Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 193 (1971); and lower courts have held that "[w]here a child voluntarily abandons a non-custodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation, without cause, the parent's child support obligation may be terminated" (Mark L. v. Gail S., 2006 NY Misc. LEXIS 4087, 59-60; N.Y.L.J. 103 (N.Y Sup. Ct. 2006) (quoting L.F.W. v. J.R. W., 10 Misc 3d 1067A, 814 N.Y.S.2d 562 (Family Ct. Nassau Cty. 2005)[emphasis added].

In the case at bar, Husband has failed to demonstrate that the parties' child, Cameron, has abandoned him without cause. In fact, the record indicates that even if, arguendo, Cameron has completely abandoned Husband, Husband has not demonstrated that it was without cause. Accordingly, branch "e" of Husband's motion is DENIED.

Branch "f" of Husband's motion is also DENIED. Husband's decision to buy-out Wife's interest in the Former Marital Residence, and all of the financial repercussions stemming therefrom was voluntary and the parties' child, Cameron, will not be forced to now subsidize such decision (see gen., Doyle v. Doyle, 230 AD2d 795, 796, 646 N.Y.S.2d 372, 373 [1996]; and Austein-Gillman v. Gillman, 292 AD2d 524, 740 N.Y.S.2d 76 [2002]). Furthermore, the Court finds that Husband has the ability to earn well-above the self-support reserve and the Federal poverty income guidelines.

In light of the foregoing and based upon the terms of the Stipulation branches "a" through "d","f" and "h" of Wife's motion are GRANTED in their entirety, and Wife shall submit a proposed order by July 15, 2013 on notice to Husband effectuating the receivership, and money judgments. The independent receiver of the Commercial Building shall be Thomas Campagna, Esq., with an office located at 88 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 200, Hauppauge, New York 11788

Domestic Relations Law §238, empowers the Court, in its discretion to require either party to pay counsel fees and expenses to the other party for legal services rendered in the prosecution or defense in a proceeding to enforce certain provisions of matrimonial orders and judgments. In light of the Court's findings and rulings herein, branch "I" of Wife's motion is GRANTED in the amount of $6,000.00, which sum shall be paid by Husband directly to Wife's counsel on or before July 31, 2013.

Based upon the conflicting Affidavits with respect to Cameron's college tuition and the term "freshman year" branch "g" of Wife's motion is set down for a Conference in Aid of Disposition, which shall be held on August 6, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., which date shall not be adjourned without prior consent of this Court and in full compliance with this Court's Part Rules and Procedures.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Defendant, MICHAEL RUDMAN, shall pay directly to Gassman Baiamonte Betts, PC, Attorney(s) for Plaintiff, a lump sum amount of $6,000.00 as and for legal fees [*10]attendant with the prosecution and defense of the instant motion, which shall be paid in full on or before July 31, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED, that upon the failure of the Defendant to pay Plaintiff's counsel as set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff's counsel may file an affidavit of non-compliance with the Clerk of the County who shall enter a judgment, with statutory interest thereon as of the date of this Order, in favor of Gassman Baiamonte Betts, PC, Attorney(s) for Plaintiff, without further proceedings

All matters not decided or requests for relief not granted herein are hereby DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated:June 28, 2013

Mineola, New York

ENTER:

_______________________

Edward A. Maron, J.S.C.