The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 004) numbered 127-144, and (Motion No. 005) numbered 147-170 were read on this motion.

The Court is in receipt of PDB's duly filed Order to Show Cause, dated March 17, 2025, whereby she seeks to adjudicate DDB in civil contempt for alleged deliberate noncompliance with the Judgment of Divorce entered on August 23, 2024, which incorporated but did not merge the parties' Stipulation of Settlement dated June 18, 2024. Plaintiff also seeks ancillary relief, including enforcement of stipulated obligations, the payment of specific arrears, and an award of interim counsel fees.

Defendant interposes opposition and a cross-motion to dismiss, citing jurisdictional and substantive defenses. Upon review of all papers submitted, and upon careful deliberation, the Court now renders its ruling.

The parties' marriage was formally dissolved by the Judgment of Divorce entered on August 23, 2024, which expressly incorporated without merger the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement executed on June 18, 2024.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has flagrantly violated the clear mandates of the Stipulation and Judgment by:

1. Failing to remit monthly support payments of $2,600.00 via Zelle on the first day of each month as required;

2. Failing to ensure mortgage statements for the marital residence are directed to XX XX Avenue, Staten Island, New York;

3. Refusing to timely cooperate with Lexington Pension Consultants in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) concerning his NYC Sanitation Pension;

4. Failing to pay a water and sewer bill in the amount of $10,848.67, which Plaintiff alleges was improperly shifted to her sole responsibility;

5. Failing to assume responsibility for 2021 New York State income taxes resulting from the parties' joint return;

6. Failing to pay $7,500 in interim legal fees necessitated by his noncompliance.

Defendant denies material noncompliance, citing logistical and technical impediments to payment, documentary evidence showing proper address change for mortgage statements, email correspondence indicating his cooperation with pension administrators, and asserting that both the water bill and the 2021 tax obligation are joint marital liabilities not exclusively his own.

Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211 [a] [8] for lack of personal jurisdiction is rendered moot by the Plaintiff's submission of a duly executed Affirmation of Service (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 163), establishing that personal service was effectuated on April 28, 2025, in conformity with the Court's directive in the Order to Show Cause. As such, the Court finds jurisdiction to be properly conferred and proceeds to adjudicate the substantive merits.

"A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" (see Matter of Mendoza-Pautrat v Razdan, 160 AD3d 963 [2d Dept 2018] citing Cassarino v Cassarino, 149 AD3d 689 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of Hughes v Kameneva, 96 AD3d 845 [2d Dept 2012]; Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 AD3d 944 [2d Dept 2009]).

The movant in a civil contempt motion bears the burden of proof. (see id citing Vujovic v Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490 [2d Dept 2005]; Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri, 305 AD2d 394 [2d Dept [*2]2003]).

To sustain an application for civil contempt under Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3], a movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence the following:

1. The existence of a clear and unequivocal mandate of the Court ;

2. The contemnor's actual knowledge of said order;

3. Willful disobedience of the mandate;

4. Resulting prejudice to the movant's rights.

This extraordinary remedy will not lie absent unequivocal judicial directives and demonstrable willfulness.

The Judgment of Divorce and incorporated Stipulation mandate monthly Zelle payments in the amount of $2,600.00 to be made on the first of each month. Defendant concedes certain payments were untimely or misdirected, attributing such to banking errors, weekends, and institutional interference.

The evidence reflects a sustained pattern of noncompliance that is neither inadvertent nor excusable. This conduct constitutes a willful violation of a direct court order, and Plaintiff has suffered economic prejudice as a result. Accordingly, Defendant is adjudicated in civil contempt as to this obligation.

Defendant has submitted copies of mortgage statements addressed to XX XX Avenue, Staten Island, New York from October 2024 through April 2025, and the Plaintiff offers no persuasive rebuttal. In light of this documentary evidence, the Court finds that Defendant has substantially complied, and thus no contempt lies.

Although Plaintiff claims Defendant has failed to cooperate, an email dated April 18, 2025, demonstrates Defendant's engagement with the pension consultant. This delay, though regrettable, does not rise to the level of willful defiance. The application for contempt is DENIED, but Defendant is directed to effectuate full cooperation with Lexington Pension Consultants within fifteen (15) days of this Order.

The contested charges were accrued prior to the conveyance of the deed and pertain to a jointly owned residence. In the absence of a stipulation clause clearly assigning this obligation solely to Defendant, the Court finds it to be a presumptively shared marital debt. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a clear judicial directive or contractual basis sufficient to support a contempt finding. The application is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks to impute sole responsibility for a jointly filed tax return signed by both parties. There is no language in the Stipulation of Settlement assigning this debt solely to Defendant. In the absence of such, and pursuant to prevailing matrimonial law, the liability remains joint and no contempt lies. Plaintiff's application is DENIED.

In light of Defendant's adjudicated contempt and the necessity of Plaintiff's legal action to secure compliance, the Court finds it appropriate to award interim counsel fees in the amount of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237. This award balances the equities, taking into account the parties' respective financial circumstances.

Defendant is granted the opportunity to purge his contempt by fully satisfying all outstanding support arrears within ten (10) days of service of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry.

Should Defendant fail to purge said contempt within the time specified, Plaintiff may move upon affidavit for the imposition of coercive sanctions, including but not limited to incarceration, monetary fines, sequestration of assets, or such other relief as this Court shall deem just and proper, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753.

The Court declines to consolidate the modification of custody petition, which has been brought in the Richmond County Family Court under Docket Numbers REDACTED and REDACTED, a Court of concurrent and competent jurisdiction, where the matter has already commenced.

Although CPLR § 602 permits consolidation such consolidation is not automatic and subject to the discretion of the court. The courts have held that even if the Supreme Court previously decided custody the Family Court has jurisdiction over future modifications and the Supreme Court is not required to reassert jurisdiction. (see Matter of Montanez v Tompkinson, 167 AD3d 616 [2d Dept 2018]).

It is therefore:

ADJUDGED, that DDB is in civil contempt of court for his willful failure to comply with the monthly support payment provisions of the Judgment of Divorce; and it is further,

ORDERED, that such contempt shall be purged upon full payment of all outstanding arrears within ten (10) days of service of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry; and it is further,

ORDERED, that in the event of Defendant's failure to purge said contempt within the time prescribed, Plaintiff may move by affidavit for the imposition of coercive remedies, [*3]including but not limited to incarceration and monetary sanctions; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant shall fully cooperate with Lexington Pension Consultants in finalizing the QDRO within fifteen (15) days, failing which Plaintiff may renew her application for contempt; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's remaining contempt applications, including those relating to the water bill and tax liability, are denied; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant shall remit to Plaintiff the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] for interim counsel fees within thirty (30) days of this Order, and in default thereof, statutory interest shall accrue and Plaintiff may enforce the award through further proceedings; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's request for the consolidation of the Richmond County Family Court matters under Docket Numbers REDACTED and REDACTED is DENIED; and it is further,

This constitutes the final Decision and Order of the Court.