The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion #001) numbered 3-17, 23, 26-46 were read on this motion.

Upon the foregoing documents, and on consideration of oral argument heard on July 20, 2022, Motion Sequence #001 is resolved and therefore, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that Defendant is DENIED exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301, pendente lite, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Plaintiff is GRANTED exclusive use and occupancy of the marital [*2]residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301, pendente lite, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant is GRANTED spousal maintenance and Plaintiff is to pay to Defendant monthly spousal maintenance in the amount of $9,750.00 [Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars and No Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. This monthly payment shall be retroactive to the date of the filing of motion sequence #001, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator is DENIED without prejudice to renew, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the appointment of a neutral real estate appraiser to ascertain the value of the marital residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301, and the cost of the appraisal to be paid 100% by the Plaintiff is GRANTED, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request that the Plaintiff continue to provide health insurance coverage for the Defendant and pay 100% of the costs of the Defendant's health insurance is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for Plaintiff to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy is DENIED, and the matter is referred to the trial Court, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant, interim counsel fees is GRANTED, in the amount of $7,500.00, pendente lite, (without prejudice to renew for additional sums, on motion), subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for restraining orders against the Plaintiff pertaining to the transfer of assets is DENIED as moot, as the parties are subject to automatic orders pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for relief regarding hypothetical prior transfers of assets is DENIED as non-justiciable, without prejudice to renew, and it is further;

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff D.Z. and Defendant R.Z. were married on October 13, 1998. There are no children of the marriage. The Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce on April 26, 2022. On May 30, 2022, Defendant filed Motion Sequence #001 by Order to Show Cause.

The Defendant seeks (a) exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301; (b) monthly spousal maintenance, retroactive to the date of commencement of this action in the amount of $20,070.00, pendente lite; (c) the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator, paid for by the Plaintiff, to ascertain the value of the Plaintiff's business interests and finances; (d) the appointment of a neutral real estate appraiser, paid for by the Plaintiff; to ascertain the value of the marital residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301; and (e) the Plaintiff to be required to continue to provide health insurance coverage for the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant seeks (f) the Plaintiff to be required to maintain a life insurance policy on the Plaintiff's life with a minimum death benefit of $2,500,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents) with the Defendant named as [*3]beneficiary; (g) counsel fees in the amount of $30,000, pendente lite; and (h) the Plaintiff to be restrained from removing any funds, whether marital in whole or in part, from any bank, brokerage firm, or other institution, wherever situated and without limitation, except for the use of such funds for regular living expenses of the parties, and prohibited from encumbering, pledging, selling or otherwise transferring or hypothecating any and all assets, whether marital in whole or in part, wherever situated and without limitation.

The Defendant further seeks (i) preliminary injunction enjoining, forbidding, and restraining the Plaintiff, his agents or employees from disposing, transferring encumbering, alternating alienation any and all marital assets of parties hereto, except in the course of paying regular living expenses; (j) if Plaintiff has transferred, encumbered, pledged, sold or otherwise hypothecated any assets, whether marital in whole or in part, that all proceeds of such transaction or transactions be forthwith placed into an interest-bearing escrow account to be held until further order of this Court; and (k) such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed opposition. No reply was filed by Defendant. Oral argument was heard on Motion Sequence #001 on July 20, 2022. This is a Decision and Order on Motion Sequence #001.

"Courts are statutorily empowered to award one spouse temporary exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence during the pendency of divorce proceedings (see Domestic Relations Law § 234). Such an order is appropriate only upon a showing that the relief is necessary to protect the safety of persons or property, or one spouse has voluntarily established an alternative residence and a return would cause domestic strife." (see Goldman v Goldman, 185 AD3d 1012 [2d Dept 2020]; citing: Taub v Taub, 33 AD3d 612 [2d Dept 2006]).

Defendant seeks the exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301. She states in her affidavit, that the Plaintiff has "remained in the marital residence" and "has wrongfully had [her] excluded therefrom." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 4). Defendant is currently staying with her non-marital son and daughter-in-law. (see id).

Plaintiff counters in his opposition that the Defendant's request should be rejected and requests that he be granted exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence.

Plaintiff has not wrongfully excluded the Defendant from the marital residence. On April 1, 2022, the Hon. Janet L. McFarland, Richmond County Family Court, issued an Ex Parte Temporary Order of Protection in favor of the Plaintiff and excluded the Defendant from the marital residence. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 29). On July 12, 2022, the Defendant was present before the Hon. Alison M. Hamanjian, Richmond County Family Court, when the Temporary Order of Protection was extended until August 11, 2022. (see id).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has threatened to kill him multiple times and he would be unable to work, live, sleep, and conduct day to day life if Defendant was allowed to live in the marital home.

After the Plaintiff's initial complaint in Family Court, Plaintiff allegedly communicated with Defendant in a threatening manner. On May 20, 2022, an Ex Parte Temporary Order of Protection was issued by the Richmond County Family Court in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. This Order did not exclude the Plaintiff from the marital home. (NY St Cts [*4]Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 10). On July 12, 2022, the Plaintiff was present before the Hon. Alison M. Hamanjian, Richmond County Family Court, when the Temporary Order of Protection was extended until September 29, 2022, with no changes as to occupation of the marital residence.

Plaintiff has had de facto exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home by way of a temporary order of protection. In addition, the existence of an acrimonious relationship between the parties, and the potential turmoil which might result from the Defendant's return to the marital home make it appropriate for this Court to DENY Defendant's request for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence and GRANT Plaintiff's request for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence, located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301, pendente lite. (see, Amato v Amato, 133 AD3d 695 [2d Dept 2015] citing: Preston v Preston, 147 AD2d 464 [2d Dept 1989]; Kristiansen v Kristiansen, 144 AD2d 441 [2d Dept 1988]; Wolfe v Wolfe, 111 AD2d 809 [2d Dept 1985]).

Defendant in Motion Sequence #001 seeks the Plaintiff to pay, retroactive to the date of the commencement of this action, April 26, 2022, monthly Maintenance to the Defendant in the amount of $20,070.00 [Twenty Thousand and Seventy Dollars and No Cents] pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial.

Pendente lite maintenance is awarded to ensure that a needy spouse is provided with funds for their support and reasonable needs pending trial. It should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, determined with due regard for the pre-separation standard of living. (see Salmon v de Salmon, 173 AD3d 793 [2d Dept 2019]). In this matter, the length of the marriage and the disparity in income make pendente lite maintenance appropriate.

A. Plaintiff Income

Plaintiff's 2021 W-2 reports a total amount of wages, tips, and other compensation as $933,3187.52. His withholdings are reported as follows: $8,853.60 for Social Security taxes; $20,591.24 for Medicare taxes; and $39,101.46 for New York City taxes. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 11).

Defendant seeks a monthly maintenance, retroactive to the date of commencement, in the amount of $20,070.00, pendente lite. No calculations were submitted to the court regarding this proposed amount of monthly maintenance. The Court has calculated that this amount would be reflected in a calculation of the Plaintiff's Net Statutory Income with almost no cap included. The calculations submitted included the statutory cap and reflect a monthly maintenance in the amount of $5,075.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12).

Plaintiff contests the amount Defendant is claiming that the Plaintiff earns. "Defendant's support calculation is flawed because she reports that Plaintiff earns $952,818.52 annually but Plaintiff only earns $290,000. The rest of his income is RSU's [sic] [Restricted Stock Units]." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12). Plaintiff provides a printout from his employer indicating that his income for 2022 is $290,000.00 and in January 2022 he has received an annual bonus in the amount of $100,000.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 35). In addition, Plaintiff received $400,000.00 in restricted stock units. (see id).

"Income shall mean income as defined in the child support standards act and codified in section two hundred forty of this article and section four hundred thirteen of the family court act[.]" (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [b] [4]).

Gross income is defined as total income "as should have been or should be reported in the most recent federal income tax return." (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [5] [i]).

Plaintiff's 2021 W-2 reports his gross wages to be $966,088.95. This amount is reflected in the reported federal income tax withheld in the amount of $211,829.36. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 11). The 2021 federal income tax withholding is almost 80% of the Plaintiff's purported 2021 annual base salary of $266,000.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 35). The Plaintiff further states that the restricted stock units have been used for capital expenditures, such as home renovation. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 26).

While Courts have determined that the proceeds of certain stock options acquired or comingled during the marriage constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution (see DeGroat v DeGroat, 84 AD3d 1012 [2d Dept 2011]), there is no specified prohibition in the barring the inclusion of currently earned stock options or restricted stock units in gross income. The Court is therefore imputing an annual income of $933,318.52 to the Plaintiff, pendente lite, for the purpose of calculations made herein, pendente lite.

B. Guideline Amount Calculation Spousal Maintenance

Accordingly, the guideline spousal maintenance amount payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is $60,900.00 annually or $5,075.50 monthly.

C. Exceeding the Spousal Maintenance Cap

The statute provides as specific formula to apply to the parties annual reported incomes for the Court to determine the guideline amount of temporary maintenance, where the payor's income is lower than or equal to the income cap. (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [c]).

Where the payor's income exceeds the income cap, the court shall perform the calculations for income of the payor up to and including the income cap [$203,000.000]; and "for income exceeding the cap, the amount of additional maintenance awarded, if any, shall be within the discretion of the court which shall take into consideration any one or more of the factors set forth in subparagraph one of paragraph h of this subdivision[.]" (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [d] [2]).

If the Court determines that the presumptive temporary maintenance award is unjust or inappropriate, thereby warranting a deviation, the statute requires that the order adjusting the presumptive award must include the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award of temporary maintenance, the factors the Court considered, and the reasons the Court adjusted the presumptive award. (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [e] [2]).

Where, as here, the payor's annual income exceeds the statutory income cap of $203,000.00, "an additional step is necessary in this calculation of the guideline amount of temporary maintenance. Specifically, in determining whether and to what extent to apply the statutory formula to the payor spouse's income in excess of the income cap, the court must consider 18 specific enumerated factors, as well as "any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper[.]" (see Goncalves v Goncalves, 105 AD3d 901 [2d Dept 2013] citing: Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a]; Khaira v Khaira, 93 AD3d 194 [1st Dept 2012]).

If the Court determines that the presumptive temporary maintenance award is unjust or inappropriate, thereby warranting a deviation, the statute requires that the order adjusting the presumptive award must include the amount of the unadjusted presumptive award of temporary maintenance, the factors the Court considered, and the reasons the Court adjusted the presumptive award (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [h] [2]).

Plaintiff and Defendant have been married for more than twenty-three years. Plaintiff is 42 years-old and has the potential to earn over several more years in the workforce. Defendant is 62 years-old and has not been employed since 2013. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5). Defendant also reports various health issues, including a chronic foot injury, chronic asthma because of COVID-19 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 4), cardiac issues, liver conditions, and dental problems. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5).

Plaintiff is the monied spouse with a 2021 W-2 reported income of $933,318.52. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 11). Plaintiff submitted documentation that his 2022 salary is $290,000.00 and he received a bonus of $100,000.00 for 2022 in addition to $400,000.00 in restricted stock units. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 35). Defendant reports an income of zero and has not been employed since 2013 due to her chronic foot injury. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 4).

The parties' financial documentation, including statements of net worth and tax returns indicate the parties maintained a comfortable standard of living. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 5, 8, 26, 36, 42 and 43).

The Order of Protection issued by the Family Court and the grant of exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home to the Plaintiff in this Decision, will require the Defendant to obtain alternate housing in a manner like the lifestyle the Defendant was accustomed to during the twenty-three years of the parties' marriage. The Court is called upon to determine whether it is appropriate to award pendente lite maintenance to the defendant. In considering defendant's pendente lite maintenance application, the Court must consider whether, based upon the factors [*5]in DRL 236(B)(5—a), an award of temporary support above the maintenance guideline statutory cap of $203,000.00 (effective March 1, 2022) is appropriate given the lifestyle established during the marriage and the expenses detailed by defendant. The Court must also distinguish that calculating an award of maintenance over the cap of $203,000.00 is not an automatic formula but is based upon a set of factors enunciated in DRL 236(B)(5—1)(h)(1). When calculating an award of pendente lite maintenance on income above the statutory cap DRL § 236(B)(5—a) provides that the formula is only applied to the first $203,000.00. If the Court finds it appropriate to consider income over the $203,000.00 the Court must consider the factors set forth in DRL § 236(B)(5—a)(h)(1); however, the maintenance guideline statute formula is not applied when calculating an award on income above the $203,000.00 cap (see, Al E v Joann E, 55 Misc 3d 1212 (A) (Sunshine, J.) [Kings Co Sup Ct 2017]). The court may deviate from the guideline amount of temporary maintenance, including awarding temporary maintenance on income above the cap, if the Court finds that, upon consideration of one or more of the factors set forth in DRL § 236(B)(5—a)(h)(1), strict application of the statutory formulas would be unjust or inappropriate. DRL 236(B)(5—1)(h)(1) and (2) provide as follows:

(1) The court shall order the guideline amount of temporary maintenance up to the income cap in accordance with paragraph c of this subdivision, unless the court finds that the guideline amount of temporary maintenance is unjust or inappropriate, which finding shall be based upon consideration of any one or more of the following factors, and adjusts the guideline amount of temporary maintenance accordingly based upon such consideration:

(a) the age and health of the parties;

(b) the present or future earning capacity of the parties, including a history of limited participation in the workforce;

(c) the need of one party to incur education or training expenses;

(d) the termination of a child support award during the pendency of the temporary maintenance award when the calculation of temporary maintenance was based upon child support being awarded and which resulted in a maintenance award lower than it would have been had child support not been awarded;

(e) the wasteful dissipation of marital property, including transfers or encumbrances made in contemplation of a matrimonial action without fair consideration;

(f) the existence and duration of a pre-marital joint household or a pre-divorce separate household;

(g) acts by one party against another that have inhibited or continue to inhibit a party's earning capacity or ability to obtain meaningful employment. Such acts include but are not limited to acts of domestic violence as provided in section four hundred fifty-nine-a of the social services law;

(h) the availability and cost of medical insurance for the parties;

(i) the care of children or stepchildren, disabled adult children or stepchildren, elderly parents or in-laws provided during the marriage that inhibits a party's earning capacity;

(j) the tax consequences to each party;

(k) the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage;

(l) the reduced or lost earning capacity of the payee as a result of having forgone or delayed education, training, employment or career opportunities during the marriage; and

(m) any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper.

(2) Where the court finds that the guideline amount of temporary maintenance is unjust [*6]or inappropriate and the court adjusts the guideline amount of temporary maintenance pursuant to this paragraph, the court shall set forth, in a written decision or on the record, the guideline amount of temporary maintenance, the factors it considered, and the reasons that the court adjusted the guideline amount of temporary maintenance. Such decision, whether in writing or on the record, shall not be waived by either party or counsel.

Based upon the factors detailed above, the Court finds that an additional award above the award calculated using the maintenance guideline statute formula up to the cap of $203,000 is just and appropriate based upon: (b) the present or future earning capacity of the parties, including a history of limited participation in the workforce by defendant; and (k) the standard of living of the parties established during the marriage as fully detailed by the Court herein.

There is evidence at this juncture that supports the Defendant's claim that the guideline amount of temporary maintenance would be unjust and inappropriate. The Court, in its' discretion and on consideration of all the factors, is therefore going above the income cap of $203,000.00 to $390,000.00, more particularly based on inter alia the lifestyle of the parties during the course of the marriage, the respective age of the parties, the health of the parties, and the Defendant's absence from the workforce, for the purpose of calculating spousal maintenance, pendente lite (subject to reallocation at trial).

D. Discretionary Spousal Maintenance Calculation above the cap to $390,000.00, pendente lite, Subject to Reallocation at Trial

Accordingly, monthly spousal maintenance is GRANTED to Defendant in the amount of $9,750.00 [Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars and No Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. This monthly payment shall be retroactive to the date that motion sequence #001 was filed, as a party's maintenance obligation is retroactive to the date the application for maintenance was first made (See Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Kaprov v Stalinsky, 145 AD3d 869 [2d Dept 2016]).

There is insufficient evidence to warrant the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator. Defendant has not presented any evidence of the Plaintiff maintaining business interests other than his W-2 employment and there is no allegation of the Plaintiff refusing to provide financial documentation or providing false financial documentation. The Court DENIES Defendant's request for the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator, without prejudice to renew.

Defendant requests the appointment of a neutral real estate appraiser to ascertain the value of the marital residence and requests the cost of the appraisal to be paid 100% by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff agrees with the need for an appraisal of the marital home and requests that the appraisal take place after the anticipated completion of renovations on the marital home on or about August 31, 2022 and the cost of appraisal be paid 50% by the Plaintiff and 50% by the Defendant. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 26).

Plaintiff is the monied spouse and as such would be 100% responsible for the cost of the appraisal of the marital home, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. (see Domestic Relations Law § 237(a)). The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for the appointment of a neutral real estate appraiser to ascertain the value of the marital residence, located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301, and the cost of the appraisal Ordered to be paid 100% by the Plaintiff, pendente lite, and subject to reallocation at trial. The Court further Orders the appraisal to be competed no later than September 15, 2022 and hereby appoints XXXX, Sr., XXXX Boulevard, Staten Island, NY 10305; Tel.: 718 XXX-XXXX, Fax: 718-XXX-XXX as appraiser.

Defendant seeks that Plaintiff be required to continue to provide health insurance coverage for the Defendant. Plaintiff offers no objection. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 26); (tr 22, lines 9-11 [July 20, 2022]).

The Courts GRANTS Defendant request and Orders the Plaintiff to continue to provide health insurance coverage for the Defendant and pay 100% of the costs of the Defendant's health insurance, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial.

Defendant seeks the Plaintiff to be required to maintain a life insurance policy on his life with a minimum death benefit of two million five hundred thousand dollars and with the Defendant named as beneficiary. The claim is premature, and not substantiated by Defendant.

The Court refers this matter to the trial Court for final determination.

Defendant seeks to have the Plaintiff restrained from removing any funds, whether marital in whole or in part, from any bank, brokerage firm, or other institution, wherever situated and without limitation, except for the use of such funds for regular living expenses of the parties, and prohibited from encumbering, pledging, selling, or otherwise transferring or hypothecating any and all assets, whether marital in whole or in part, wherever situated and without limitation.

Upon service of the summons in every matrimonial action, automatic orders prohibit the very conduct that the Defendant is seeking to have restrained. (see Uniform Civil Rules, Civil Cts § 202.16-a).

The Court DENIES Defendant's request as moot.

The Defendant seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining, forbidding, and restraining the Plaintiff, his agents or employees from disposing, transferring encumbering, alternating alienation any and all marital assets of parties hereto, except in the course of paying regular living expenses.

Upon service of the summons in every matrimonial action, automatic orders prohibit the very conduct that the Defendant is seeking a preliminary injunction against. (see id).

The Court DENIES Defendant's request as moot.

Defendant seeks the following hypothetical relief, to wit, that "if Plaintiff has transferred, encumbered, pledged, sold or otherwise hypothecated any assets, whether marital in whole or in part, that all proceeds of such transaction or transactions be forthwith placed into an interest-bearing escrow account to be held until further order of this Court."

At this juncture there is neither a credible allegation, nor any evidence presented by the Defendant to indicate that the Plaintiff has transferred, encumbered, pledged, sold or otherwise hypothecated any assets, whether marital in whole or in part. Defendant is presenting a hypothetical situation to the Court and requesting relief in the event it turns out to be true.

"The ripeness doctrine and the related rule that there must be 'an actual controversy between genuine disputants with a stake in the outcome' . . . serve the same purpose: 'to conserve judicial machinery for problems which are real and present or imminent, not to squander it on abstract or hypothetical or remote problems[.]'" (see Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Housing & Community Renewal, 175 AD2d 905 [2d Dept 1991] quoting Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 NY2d 510 [1986]).

At the very best, Defendant's request seeks relief for an "alleged a hypothetical future controversy which is not yet ripe for adjudication[.]" (see Cherry v. Koch, 126 AD2d 346 [2d Dept 1987]).

As the Defendant has not presented a justiciable controversy. The Court DENIES Defendant's request for relief without prejudice to renew.

An award of pendente lite counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §237 "is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court" and "is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case." (see Quinn v Quinn, 73 AD3d 887 [2d Dept 2010]). Counsel fee awards have helped reduce what would otherwise be substantial advantages for the monied spouse in matrimonial litigation. (see Frankel v Frankel, 2 NY3d 601 [2004]). "[T]he [*7]Legislature invested Trial Judges with the discretion to make the more affluent spouse pay for legal expenses of the needier one. The courts are to see to it that the matrimonial scales of justice are not unbalanced by the weight of the wealthier litigant's wallet." (see O'Shea v O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187 [1999].

Plaintiff is the monied spouse in this marriage. Defendant has not had any form of employment since 2013. Plaintiff has a substantial income.

Accordingly, Defendant's request for the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant, interim counsel fees is GRANTED, in the amount of $7,500.00 [Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, and No Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. These funds should be utilized responsibly. There is a certain tenor of frivolity in portions of the relief requested in Defendant's motion, particularly those portions where the relief has been rendered denied as moot, and as to those matters that have been deemed to be non-justiciable at this time. The court takes notice of same and cautions counsel from engaging in futile litigious exercises that only run up the cost of litigation for the parties. The issues of this matrimonial action are not complex, or of first impression for the court. The parties shall proceed prudently, and cautiously as not to run afoul of the court rules regarding frivolous motion practice.

The parties are hereby cautioned not to engage in frivolous conduct, pursuant to NYCRR Part 130.

The parties are hereby directed to contact the court before engaging in any future motion practice.

It is hereby ORDERED, that R.Z. is DENIED exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301, pendente lite, and it is further;

ORDERED, that D.Z. is GRANTED exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;

ORDERED, that R.Z. is GRANTED spousal maintenance and D.Z. is to pay to Defendant monthly spousal maintenance in the amount of $9,750.00 [Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars and No Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. This monthly payment shall be retroactive to the filing date motion sequence #001, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator is DENIED, without prejudice to renew, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the appointment of a neutral real estate appraiser, paid for by the Plaintiff; to ascertain the value of the marital residence located at XXXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10301, and the cost of the appraisal Ordered to be paid 100% by the Plaintiff is GRANTED, pendente lite, and subject to reallocation at trial. A separate Order appointing a neutral real estate appraiser shall issue contemporaneously with this Decision and Order, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request that the Plaintiff to continue to provide health insurance coverage for the Defendant and pay 100% of the costs of the Defendant's health insurance is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for Plaintiff to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy is referred to the trial Court, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant, interim [*8]counsel fees is GRANTED, in the amount of $7,500.00 [Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents], pendente lite, without prejudice to renew for additional sums as may be required (upon proper motion and justification pursuant to the DRL), subject to reallocation at trial.

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for restraining orders against the Plaintiff pertaining to the transfer of assets is DENIED as moot, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, without prejudice to renew, and it is further;

ORDERED, that Defendant's request for relief regarding hypothetical prior transfers of assets is DENIED as non-justiciable, without prejudice to renew.

Any relief requested, and not specifically addressed in this Decision and Order is referred to the trial court, and it is further;

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court.