Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

Upon reading and considering the Defendant's Order to Show Cause dated February 20, 2025 (Motion Sequence 015), the supporting affidavit of the Defendant, DAT, sworn to on February 18, 2025, the affirmation of his counsel, Mary Grace Condello, Esq., and accompanying exhibits; the Cross-Motion of Plaintiff, PAT, dated April 16, 2025 (Motion Sequence 016), the Plaintiff's sworn affidavit in opposition and in support thereof, the affirmation of her counsel, Yonatan S. Levoritz, [*2]Esq., and all exhibits annexed thereto; and due deliberation having been had thereon:

This matrimonial matter arises post-judgment, following a Judgment of Divorce entered August 30, 2022. Incorporated but not merged therein were two critical agreements: a Custody and Parental Access Settlement Agreement dated March 17, 2022, and a Stipulation of Settlement dated June 17, 2022. The parties subsequently entered into a So-Ordered Stipulation on December 19, 2024, modifying custody and child support obligations, granting the Defendant sole custody of the child, ST.

The Defendant seeks orders holding the Plaintiff in contempt for alleged violations of the Judgment of Divorce and related stipulations; compelling Plaintiff to pay $4,039.93 in child support add-on expenses; requiring Plaintiff to provide proof of a $500,000 life insurance policy for the benefit of the child; directing Plaintiff to turn over the child's passport, birth certificate, and Social Security card; consolidating a Family Court violation of support proceeding filed by Plaintiff into the instant matter; awarding Defendant $7,500.00 in interim counsel fees; and granting other relief.

In response, Plaintiff cross-moves for an order denying the contempt application in its entirety, and pursuant to DRL §§ 244 and 236 [B], for a money judgment in the amount of $5,500.00 for child support arrears allegedly owed by Defendant. Plaintiff also requests attorney's fees and other relief.

I. CONTEMPT APPLICATION (Judiciary Law § 753)

A party seeking to hold another in contempt must establish by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a lawful and unequivocal mandate of the court; (2) knowing disobedience thereof; and (3) resulting prejudice (see McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574 [1983]).

Defendant's allegations center on Plaintiff's failure to reimburse $4,039.93 in add-on expenses, failure to procure a life insurance policy, refusal to relinquish vital documents of the child, and initiation of a Family Court proceeding. However, the Plaintiff credibly contends that the expenses at issue were out-of-network and incurred unilaterally, contrary to the stipulation's express limitation on out-of-network care unless agreed upon or emergent. She further asserts that she holds an active life insurance policy as required and that her custodianship of the child's documents remains consistent with prior agreements. Additionally, her Family Court filing was not prohibited by any court order.

On these facts, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate a clear and unequivocal violation of a specific court order, nor has he shown that any purported noncompliance was willful or resulted in prejudice. Accordingly, the contempt application is denied.

II. CHILD SUPPORT ADD-ON EXPENSES

The June 17, 2022 stipulation requires both parties to equally share add-on expenses including unreimbursed medical, extracurricular, tutoring, and camp expenses. Defendant claims Plaintiff failed to reimburse her share since October 11, 2024. Plaintiff asserts that these expenses included non-covered, out-of-network providers for which she did not consent, and maintains that certain expenses predate the custody change formalized on December 19, 2024.

The stipulation is explicit that out-of-network expenses are only reimbursable where agreed upon or medically necessary. The Court finds that reimbursement is unwarranted absent evidence of Plaintiff's prior consent or a demonstrable emergency. However, Plaintiff's blanket refusal to pay any valid in-network expenses is equally inconsistent with the agreement.

Therefore, the Court finds that a hearing is necessary to resolve the precise amount of valid reimbursable expenses incurred by each party since October 11, 2024. Pending that determination, Defendant's request for a money judgment is held in abeyance.

III. PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUPPORT ARREARS

Plaintiff asserts Defendant failed to pay his 50% share of child-related expenses between 2022 and October 2024 while she maintained residential custody. She provides documentation of tutoring, extracurricular, and medical expenses incurred and alleges that Defendant dismissed these obligations outright.

The Defendant, for his part, conceded via message (Our Family Wizard, January 5, 2025) that he declined to pay for tutoring and suggested "offsetting" other expenses. The Court finds these admissions persuasive and indicative of noncompliance. The Plaintiff has met her burden under DRL § 244 to obtain a money judgment for arrears.

Plaintiff's motion for a money judgment in the amount of $5,500.00 [FIVE THOUDAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] is therefore GRANTED.

IV. CUSTODIANSHIP OF CHILD'S LEGAL DOCUMENTS

The parties' most recent custodial agreement (December 19, 2024) awarded sole custody of the child to the Defendant. Legal custodianship generally encompasses control over vital records. Plaintiff's refusal to turn over the child's documents is inconsistent with the modified custodial arrangement.

Accordingly, Defendant's application to be designated custodian of the child's passport, birth certificate, and Social Security card is granted. Plaintiff shall transfer said documents within 10 days of service of this Order.

V. CONSOLIDATION OF FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING

The Defendant's request to consolidate the Plaintiff's Family Court violation of support proceeding (Docket No. F-01016-25/25) into this Supreme Court matter is unsupported by any legal authority and, moreover, would frustrate judicial economy given the differing procedural frameworks and judicial forums. The consolidation request is therefore denied.

VI. INTERIM COUNSEL FEES (DRL § 237)

Defendant seeks $7,500.00 in counsel fees. However, the Court is constrained to deny this application in the absence of a Statement of Net Worth or proof that the Plaintiff acted in bad faith. While this litigation has been contentious, Plaintiff has substantiated a valid claim for arrears, and the record does not support an award of counsel fees against her at this juncture.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Defendant's motion for an Order of Contempt is DENIED in its entirety; [*3]and it is further,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's cross-motion for a money judgment for child support add-on arrears in the amount of $5,500.00 [FIVE TOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant's application for transfer of custodianship of the child's passport, birth certificate, and Social Security card is granted, and Plaintiff shall deliver such documents to Defendant within ten (10) days of service of this Order with notice of entry; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant's request to consolidate the Family Court matter is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant's application for interim counsel fees is DENIED without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the issue of any further valid add-on reimbursements owed by Plaintiff to Defendant, if any, shall be set down for a hearing, the date of which shall be scheduled forthwith.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.