I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 001) numbered 2-14 and (Cross-Motion No. 002) numbered 16-24, 28, 31-35 were read on this motion.

The following papers were considered in connection with the within motion and cross-motion: Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause dated June 16, 2025, with the affidavit of RA and supporting exhibits; the affirmation of Thomas J. DeVito, Esq.; Defendant's Affidavit in Opposition and Cross-Motion sworn to on July 7, 2025, with annexed exhibits; the attorney affirmation of Masood Syed, Esq.; and Plaintiff's Reply Affidavit sworn to July 24, 2025.

II. Exclusive Use and Occupancy of the Marital Residence

Plaintiff's request for exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence is granted. The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented a credible, thorough, and emotionally resonant account of persistent domestic discord within the home. The record is replete with allegations of controlling and erratic behavior by Defendant, including verbal intimidation, threats, confrontations with the children, and misuse of surveillance technology, all of which, while contested, are presented with specificity and evidentiary support. Defendant's response, grounded largely in denial and deflection, fails to sufficiently controvert the gravity and consistency of Plaintiff's sworn statements. In light of the psychological environment described, and pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 234, the Court concludes that Defendant's continued residence poses a material risk of emotional harm and family destabilization. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence pendente lite. Defendant shall vacate the premises within ten (10) days of service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry, without prejudice to any claim he may assert in equitable distribution.

III. Custody and Parenting Time

Plaintiff is granted pendente lite custody of the parties' two minor children, LA (age 17) and YA (age 12). The Court finds that the home environment has become unsafe and unpredictable for the children, particularly in light of Defendant's interactions with the daughters, which include documented episodes of hostility, excessive control, and inappropriate surveillance. While Defendant asserts his desire to remain actively involved in the children's lives, the record suggests that his behavior has contributed to familial strife and parental alienation. A joint custodial arrangement or 50/50 schedule is not appropriate at this preliminary stage. Parenting time shall occur outside the marital residence at mutually agreed-upon times and in a manner consistent with the children's academic and extracurricular schedules. The Court has appointed an Attorney for the Children by Order of this Court dated August 8, 2025. The question of whether forensic evaluation is appropriate is reserved pending the attorney's preliminary report and recommendation.

IV. Financial Obligations Pendente Lite

The Court declines to maintain any so-called "status quo" arrangement and instead enters affirmative directives. Defendant, as the higher-earning spouse, shall continue to bear full financial responsibility for the following pendente lite: the monthly mortgage on the marital residence; real estate taxes; homeowners insurance; all utilities including electric, gas, water, and internet; automobile insurance and loan payments on any vehicles used by Plaintiff or the children; and all reasonable expenses associated with the children's extracurricular activities. [*2]Defendant shall also pay one hundred percent of all unreimbursed medical, dental, vision, and psychological expenses incurred by the minor children, including all co-payments and deductibles, within seven (7) days of presentation of documentation by Plaintiff. These obligations shall remain in effect until further order of the Court or final resolution of all financial issues.

V. Health Insurance and Medical Reimbursement

The record establishes that Defendant removed Plaintiff from the parties' health insurance plan in direct contravention of the automatic orders imposed under Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [2] [b]. Defendant's explanation, premised on Plaintiff's new employment benefits, does not cure the impropriety of his unilateral action. Defendant is directed to immediately reinstate Plaintiff to the marital health insurance plan, or, if unavailable, secure equivalent coverage for her at his sole expense. In addition, Defendant shall reimburse Plaintiff for any medical expenses incurred due to her lack of coverage during the lapse. Defendant is cautioned that any further unilateral financial actions may be addressed through contempt or sanctions.

VI. Spousal Maintenance and Child Support

Plaintiff's request for pendente lite maintenance and child support is held in abeyance pending full financial disclosure by both parties. Defendant shall provide, within ten (10) days of service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry, his most recent tax returns, W-2s, pay stubs, and documentation of all fringe benefits and retirement assets. Plaintiff shall simultaneously produce her corresponding financial documentation, including any income derived from outside employment or private instruction. Upon submission, the Court shall issue an order fixing pendente lite support, retroactive to June 16, 2025, the date of Plaintiff's initial application.

VII. Access to a Functional Vehicle

The Court finds credible Plaintiff's contention that the vehicle in her possession is in a state of disrepair and unsuitable for daily use. Defendant concedes ownership of a newer, operable BMW that remains idle in the marital garage. In light of the parties' respective financial positions and the Defendant's prior conduct, Plaintiff shall be granted exclusive use of the aforementioned BMW vehicle pendente lite. Defendant shall maintain the vehicle in good working order, including paying for insurance and necessary repairs, without delay or obstruction.

VIII. Surveillance Equipment

Plaintiff's allegations concerning the pervasive and intrusive use of surveillance cameras within the marital residence are deeply troubling. Defendant's assertions that such devices are limited to exterior use are unpersuasive and contradicted by the larger record. The Court finds that the presence of such monitoring, particularly in a contested matrimonial home, creates an atmosphere of intimidation and control. Plaintiff is authorized to disable and remove all interior surveillance devices. Exterior cameras may remain only to the extent that they face public-facing areas and do not capture interior spaces or windows. Defendant shall not reinstall or tamper with [*3]the surveillance system in a manner that affects Plaintiff's use of the home or the children's privacy.

IX. Appointment of Neutral Experts

The Plaintiff's application for the valuation of the marital residence and the Defendant's retirement accounts is granted. The Court shall issue a separate and contemporaneous order appointing a neutral real estate appraiser to determine the fair market value of the marital residence. The Court shall also appoint, by separate and contemporaneous order, Lexington Pension Consultants, Inc., or such other qualified expert as the Court deems appropriate, to evaluate Defendant's pension and retirement assets. The full cost of both the appraisal and the pension evaluation shall be borne by Defendant without prejudice to later reallocation upon trial.

X. Interim Counsel Fees

Plaintiff has demonstrated that she lacks the financial ability to continue funding this litigation independently and has already incurred substantial legal fees, in part through loans from family. Defendant, by contrast, is the monied spouse and has historically controlled the financial means of the marriage. In the interests of parity and pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237, Defendant is directed to pay to Plaintiff's counsel the sum of $10,000.00 [TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] in interim counsel fees within fifteen (15) days of service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry.

XI. Defendant's Cross-Motion

The Defendant's cross-motion is granted only to the extent that it seeks the appointment of an Attorney for the Children and the compelled production of Plaintiff's financial documents, which the Court has addressed above. The remainder of the cross-motion, including requests for joint custody, a 50/50 parenting schedule, the continuation of informal financial arrangements, the denial of Plaintiff's requested relief, the sharing of litigation costs, and restrictions on vehicle and property use, is denied without prejudice to renewal at the appropriate stage of litigation or trial.

XII. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's motion is granted in substantial part as set forth herein. Defendant's cross-motion is granted to the limited extent described, and otherwise denied. Appointments of the Attorney for the Children, real estate appraiser, and pension evaluator shall be made by separate and contemporaneous orders. All parties are directed to comply with the provisions of this Decision and Order without delay.