I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 037) numbered 611-622, 637-644 were read on this motion.

Plaintiff moves by Order to Show Cause for sweeping post-judgment relief: (a) appointment of a receiver for Defendant's business, XXXX Inc. ("INC"); (b) an order compelling Defendant to "immediately" satisfy the mortgage arrears and penalties on the former marital residence (MARITAL RESIDENCE Road, Staten Island); (c) a money judgment of $17,500.00 for March 2025 maintenance "penalties"; (d) and (e) compelled sales of a 2017 Rolls-Royce Dawn (VIN REDACTED) and a 2022 Rolls-Royce Cullinan (VIN REDACTED); (f) application of sale proceeds to Plaintiff's penalties and judgments; (g) assignment to Plaintiff of Defendant's interest, if any, in REDACTED Road, Staten Island; (h) leave to attach Plaintiff's "money judgments" to Defendant's businesses, including INC; and (i) $10,000.00 in counsel fees.

The Court has considered the Order to Show Cause; the Affirmation of Michael J. Kuharski, Esq. in support with Plaintiff RB's affidavit; the Affirmation in Opposition of DB; and the Affirmation in Opposition of Michael A. Coscia, Esq. for Defendant, together with the exhibits referenced therein. Decision follows.

II. Facts

This action, now in a post-judgment posture, has generated substantial motion practice. Plaintiff's submissions aver, in sum and substance, that Defendant is siphoning or relocating business activity to Florida; that tax delinquencies and threatened federal levy imperil marital assets; and that as of June 6, 2025, TD Bank reported the marital mortgage 340 days and $250,141.40 in default. Plaintiff further attests to recurrent untimely maintenance payments and claims $17,500.00 in "penalties" for a missed March 2025 payment under the parties' Stipulation of Settlement. As to liquidity, Plaintiff points to a fleet of exotic vehicles reflected on AIG policy schedules (including a 2017 Rolls-Royce Dawn and a 2022 Rolls-Royce Cullinan) and urges compelled liquidation to staunch ongoing harm. Plaintiff also seeks assignment of Defendant's purported interest in REDACTED Road and leave to attach any money judgments to INC.

Defendant opposes in all respects. He contends that Plaintiff's mortgage branch was moot ab initio because he paid the TD Bank mortgage in full on June 30, 2025 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 640), i.e., before the July 8, 2025 filing of Plaintiff's motion papers. Defendant also asserts substantial compliance with the equitable-distribution scheme embodied in the parties' Stipulation of Settlement (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 641), which, per Defendant, (i) fixes Plaintiff's distributive entitlement for INC at $2,000,000 payable first from Defendant's net proceeds of the sale of the marital residence, plus rollover of his INC 401(k), and then, after the sale, in $25,000 monthly installments on any remaining balance; (ii) provides that late-payment penalties are payable at the time of default or from Defendant's proceeds of the marital residence sale; and (iii) limits post-judgment counsel-fee shifting for maintenance defaults to circumstances where three consecutive maintenance payments are missed. Defendant further represents that his INC 401(k) was transferred to Plaintiff for $375,488.67 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No.643), reducing the distributive balance; denies present ownership of a multi-vehicle "fleet" (asserting he possesses a 2020 Mercedes G550 used by the parties' daughter and leases the 2022 Cullinan); and denies any ownership interest in "REDACTED Road," [*2]averring that the business operates at REDACTED Road, a property owned by third-party entities in which he holds no interest (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 642). Defendant also assails Plaintiff's counsel-fee application as procedurally non-compliant (citing §§ 22 NYCRR 1400.2 and 1400.3, and NY CLS Unif Rules, Civil Cts § 202.16 [k]'s Statement-of-Net-Worth requirement) and, on the merits, premature or unwarranted given the Stipulation's terms.

Both sides invoke governing principles: Plaintiff cites CPLR § 6401 [a] and authority permitting appointment of a receiver to conserve property in danger of loss, removal, or material injury; Defendant counters that receivership is an "extreme remedy" reserved for a clear and convincing showing of irreparable risk and that the Stipulation's plain text controls enforcement, not judicial re-engineering of the parties' bargain. Defendant also argues Plaintiff failed to annex the Judgment of Divorce in moving papers.

III. Conclusions of Law

A. Receivership of INC (CPLR § 6401 [a])

Plaintiff's showing centers on asserted Florida operations, threatened tax enforcement, and a now-cured residential mortgage default, coupled with generalized apprehension that INC will be depleted. Countervailing, the record reflects a detailed contractual distribution mechanism for Plaintiff's INC interest: first recourse to the net proceeds of the marital residence sale, credit for the 401(k) rollover already effected, and post-sale monthly installments on any residual balance. On this paper record, Plaintiff has not demonstrated, by the heightened measure the cited cases require, that the extraordinary step of wresting corporate control via receivership is necessary to prevent imminent, irreparable dissipation beyond the reach of the Stipulation's bargained-for protections and ordinary post-judgment remedies. Less drastic avenues, foremost, enforcement of the Stipulation as written, remain available. This branch is DENIED, without prejudice to a renewed application upon a concrete, document-based showing of exigency not presently established.

B. Mortgage Arrears on MARITAL RESIDENCE Road

Plaintiff sought an order compelling immediate satisfaction of serious arrears referenced in a June 6, 2025 TD Bank notice. Defendant submits proof that he paid the mortgage in full on June 30, 2025 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 616), predating the July 8, 2025 filing of Plaintiff's motion. On this record, and absent contrary proof, the relief is moot. This branch is DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice to future application should a new default arise.

C. $17,500 "Maintenance Penalties" for March 2025

Plaintiff claims $17,500.00 in penalties tied to an alleged missed March 2025 maintenance payment. Defendant answers that (i) the Stipulation (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 641 at page 16) makes any penalty payable at the time of default or from the Husband's proceeds of the sale of the marital residence, and (ii) Plaintiff supplies no documentary basis for the amount, timing, or calculation of the asserted penalties. Applying the parties' contract as presented, the claim is not ripe to the extent it demands immediate payment prior to the sale contemplated by the Stipulation, and in any event is insufficiently supported on this record. This branch is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal on proper papers and at the contractually appropriate time.

D. Forced Sales of the 2017 Rolls-Royce Dawn and 2022 Rolls-Royce Cullinan; Application of Proceeds

The compelled liquidation of identified vehicles is not authorized by any Stipulation term [*3]placed before the Court. Defendant also disputes present ownership (asserting the Cullinan is leased and denying ownership of a broader "fleet"). On this showing, and in light of the parties' agreement that otherwise releases and discharges claims to property not expressly addressed, the extraordinary relief of forced sale, and the derivative request to direct proceeds to penalties and judgments, is DENIED, without prejudice to conventional enforcement remedies upon proof of ownership, lien status, and contractual entitlement.

E. Assignment of Defendant's Interest in "REDACTED Road"

Plaintiff seeks assignment of Defendant's "interest" in REDACTED Road. Defendant avers that he holds no ownership interest in that address; that the operative property is REDACTED Road; and that fee ownership lies with third-party limited liability companies (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 642). Plaintiff supplies no contrary deed or ownership documentation. The drastic relief of compelling assignment of realty, particularly where third-party interests are implicated, cannot be granted on the present showing. This branch is DENIED, without prejudice.

F. Leave to "Attach" Money Judgments to INC

Plaintiff requests a blanket license to "attach any and all money judgments" to INC. The motion papers neither identify existing, unsatisfied money judgments nor tether the requested relief to the procedural mechanisms attendant to such enforcement. The request is vague, overbroad, and unsupported by the record. This branch is DENIED, without prejudice to pursuit of specifically identified judgments by appropriate process.

G. Counsel Fees of $10,000.00

Plaintiff seeks $10,000.00 in counsel fees, citing DRL § 237(b) and annexing a retainer (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 619) and billing (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 620). Defendant argues procedural non-compliance under §§ 22 NYCRR 1400.2 and 1400.3, and NY CLS Unif Rules, Civil Cts § 202.16 [k] (including the Statement of Net Worth requirement for such motions), and also points to the Stipulation's narrower fee-shifting clause, triggered only by three consecutive missed maintenance payments, which is not established here. On this record, the application is procedurally deficient and, on the terms of the Stipulation, substantively unsupported. In the exercise of discretion, this branch is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a properly supported application consistent with the Stipulation and applicable court rules.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, upon the foregoing papers and for the reasons stated:

1. The branch seeking appointment of a receiver for INC Elimination Systems Technology Inc. is DENIED, without prejudice.

2. The branch seeking to compel immediate payment of mortgage arrears on MARITAL RESIDENCE Road, Staten Island, New York is DENIED AS MOOT based on Defendant's documentary showing of June 30, 2025 payment, without prejudice to future application if circumstances change.

3. The branch seeking $17,500.00 in March 2025 maintenance penalties is DENIED as premature and insufficiently documented, without prejudice to renewal in conformity with the Stipulation.

4. The branches seeking compelled sales of the 2017 Rolls-Royce Dawn (VIN REDACTED) and 2022 Rolls-Royce Cullinan (VIN REDACTED) and application of proceeds are DENIED, without prejudice.

5. The branch seeking assignment of Defendant's interest in REDACTED Road, Staten Island, New York is DENIED, without prejudice.

6. The branch seeking leave to attach unspecified "money judgments" to INC is DENIED, without prejudice.

7. The branch seeking $10,000.00 in counsel fees is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a renewed application compliant with the Stipulation and court rules identified in the parties' submissions.

Nothing herein alters, impairs, or excuses either party's obligations under the Stipulation of Settlement or any prior orders of this Court; the parties remain bound to perform strictly in accordance with their bargain and to proceed in good faith with the sale of the marital residence and the distribution scheme set forth in their agreement.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.