I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 038) numbered 623-634, 647-655 were read on this motion.

II. Facts

This matter arises from a matrimonial action commenced in 2017 and resolved by a Stipulation of Settlement executed on January 18, 2024, and incorporated into the parties' Judgment of Divorce. Among other provisions, the stipulation provides the following:

• Plaintiff was awarded exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence through January 18, 2025;

• Defendant was required to pay "status quo" carrying charges for the property, including mortgage, taxes, water, utilities, and limited ancillary expenses, for a period of one year;

• The parties agreed to list the residence for sale and to cooperate with its disposition.

On July 23, 2025, this Court issued a Decision and Order denying Plaintiff's prior application to remain in the marital residence beyond the contractual occupancy date. The Court expressly found that no legal or equitable basis existed to override the clear terms of the stipulation, and directed that Plaintiff vacate the property within thirty (30) days of notice of entry. That Order was filed and noticed for entry on July 28, 2025, fixing the vacatur deadline at August 27, 2025.

Despite that directive, Plaintiff has neither vacated the residence nor demonstrated any legitimate impediment to doing so. Instead, she has filed a near-identical application, again asserting hardship and a purported necessity to remain due to her knowledge of the property and inability to secure alternate housing.

In opposition, Defendant submits that Plaintiff's conduct continues to obstruct the orderly sale of the marital home, that he has complied with his obligations under the stipulation, and that Plaintiff's claims are duplicative and pretextual.

III. Conclusions of Law

It is long settled that stipulations of settlement are contractual instruments that should be enforced in accordance with their terms. (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]). Absent fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability—none of which are alleged here—the courts will not relieve a party from the consequences of a freely bargained agreement. (see Greenfield v Philles Records, Inc., 98 NY2d 562 [2002]).

The language of the stipulation is unequivocal. Plaintiff was granted exclusive occupancy of the marital residence for one year, ending January 18, 2025. That provision was fully negotiated, reduced to writing, and endorsed by this Court. It is enforceable on its face.

B. No Statutory Basis for Post-Judgment Occupancy

Plaintiff invokes no statutory authority that entitles her to remain in the residence post-[*2]judgment. Domestic Relations Law § 234, which permits courts to award exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home, applies only during the pendency of a matrimonial action. (see Amato v Amato, 133 AD3d 695 [2d Dept 2015]). That statute is wholly inapplicable in the post-judgment context, particularly where a contractual occupancy period has been agreed upon and has expired.

C. No Substantial Change in Circumstances

Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances warranting relief from the stipulation. (see Laddy v Laddy, 260 AD2d 354 [2d Dept 1999]; Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210 [1977]). Plaintiff has not satisfied that burden.

Her claims of financial hardship, impaired credit, and familiarity with the property were all known, and expressly referenced, at the time of execution. Moreover, those very assertions were already considered and rejected by this Court in its July 23, 2025 Decision and Order. The current application merely reasserts the same facts, repackaged as renewed urgency. That is insufficient.

D. Judicial Finality and the Need for Closure

The integrity of matrimonial settlement enforcement depends on finality and predictability. The Court has already afforded Plaintiff a discretionary grace period through August 27, 2025. She has now been in the residence for over seven months beyond the stipulated deadline, and one full month beyond this Court's compliance order. Equity does not entitle her to permanent or indefinite occupancy. The time for compliance has arrived.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is:

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's application for continued exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff is hereby directed to vacate the marital residence located at XX XXX Road, Staten Island, New York, no later than September 15, 2025; and it is further

ORDERED, that the vacatur deadline of September 15, 2025 shall be deemed final and non-extendable, and no further applications for stay or extension will be entertained absent demonstrable emergency circumstances; and it is further

ORDERED, that in the event Plaintiff fails to vacate the premises on or before September 15, 2025, Defendant may apply by letter to this Court, with copy to opposing counsel, for issuance of a warrant of eviction, which shall be executed by the New York City Sheriff or other authorized enforcement officer; and it is further

ORDERED, that all other relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.