The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 004) numbered 85-102; 106, and (Motion No. 005) numbered 108-117 were read on this motion.

Upon the foregoing documents, and on consideration of the oral argument conducted on September 3, 2025, Motion Sequence No. 004 and Motion Sequence No. 005 are resolved and therefore, it is hereby,

ORDERED, Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 request for spousal maintenance is GRANTED, pendente lite, to Defendant and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay to the Defendant the amount of $2,157.32 [TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS] per month subject to reallocation at trial; and it is further,

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay monthly spousal maintenance, retroactive to the date of Defendant's Motion, July 31, 2025; and it is further,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 005 request for child support is GRANTED, pendente lite, to Plaintiff and Defendant is ORDERED to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $1,525.00 [ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per month subject to reallocation at trial; and it is further,

ORDERED that Defendant shall pay monthly child support, retroactive to the date of Plaintiff's Motion, August 25, 2025; and it is further,

ORDERED that all the children's add-on expenses, including, but not limited to (1) education expenses to include but not limited to private school tuition, mandatory fees, books, labs, uniform expenses; (2) unreimbursed medical expenses, to include but not limited to co-payments, pharmaceutical expenses, optical, dental, therapeutic sessions, mental health services, and related health care expenses; (3) child care expenses while the custodial parent is working; (4) mutually agreed upon extracurricular activities; and (5) all other statutory expenses shall be divided on a pro-rata basis. Plaintiff is responsible for 60% of all childcare expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and the Defendant is responsible for 40% of all child care expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial; and it is further,

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 request for counsel fees, pendente lite, is GRANTED, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, in the sum of $14,500.00 [FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] to be paid by Plaintiff directly to Defendant within 10 days; and it is further,

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 request for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] to Defendant within ten days as a sanction for his egregious misconduct; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court.

I. Procedural History

The Plaintiff and Defendant were married in a civil ceremony on XX XX, 2011, in Richmond County, city of Staten Island, State of New York. The marriage was not performed by a clergyman, minister or by a leader of the Society for Ethical Culture. There are two children of the marriage, to wit: CST (DOB X/XX/2011) and CVT (DOB X/XX/2015). This matter was commenced by the filing of a Summons with Notice on October 30, 2023.

Plaintiff filed a verified complaint on July 9, 2024, and a preliminary conference was held on July 17, 2024. On July 31, 2025, Defendant filed Motion Sequence No. 004 by Order to Show Cause seeking: (1) removal from Richmond County Family Court and consolidation with this action Docket No. O-XXXXX-25; (2) reinstatement of therapeutic visits pursuant to the So Ordered Custody & Parenting Time Stipulation and reappointment of the Attorney for the Children; (3) reissuance and modification of the previously entered parenting-time Stipulation and modification of the temporary order of protection issued pursuant to Docket No. O-XXXXX-25, to allow for regular visitation between Defendant and the subject children; (4) incorporation of the entire record of the Richmond County Family Court proceeding (Docket No. O-XXXXX-25), into this motion and into the record of this Supreme Court pursuant to a protective order of this Court under CPLR § 3103; and (5) a finding that pursuant to Social Services Law § 422 [4] [A] [e], the COI Report dated July 11, 2025 and all annexed documents, letters or records included with such report, shall be made available to this Court.

Defendant further seeks (6) Plaintiff to pay to Defendant temporary spousal maintenance pursuant to DRL § 236 Part B [5-a] in the amount of $2,468.47 per month, retroactive to the date of this motion and subject to recalculation based upon Plaintiff's 2024 tax returns; (7) Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant for an award of interim counsel fees in the amount of $20,000 [Twenty Thousand Dollars] for legal fees incurred thus far in maintaining this action and in continuing to maintain the within action, without prejudice to a further sum, if warranted, pursuant to DRL § 237; (8) an award of $5,000.00 [Five Thousand Dollars] as and for sanctions against Plaintiff for allegedly filing false reports and family offense petitions constituting frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; and (9) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Plaintiff filed Motion Sequence No. 005 by cross-motion opposing Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 and seeking (a) Dismissal of Defendant's motion to consolidate the Family Offense matter currently before the Richmond County Family under Docket No. O-XXXXX-25 with the instant matrimonial matter; (b) Defendant to pay to Plaintiff child support in the amount of $1,525 per month and her pro rata share of mandatory add-on expenses as and for temporary child support retroactive to the date of commencement, pendente lite; and (c) such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper.

Defendant filed opposition to the cross-motion on August 29, 2025. Plaintiff waived reply on the record on September 3, 2025. Oral argument was completed on September 3, 2025. Parties were able to resolve or render moot prongs 1 through 5 of Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004, leaving the Court to decide only prong (6) spousal maintenance, pendent lite; (7) counsel fees, pendente lite; and (8) sanctions. Prong (a) of Plaintiff's cross motion was deemed moot, leaving only prong (b) child support, pendente lite. This is a Decision and Order resolving the outstanding prongs of Motion Sequence No. 004 and Motion Sequence No. 005.

II. Statement of Facts

Parties resolved the issue of custody of the children in a custody and parenting time stipulation that was "So Ordered" by the Court on March 20, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 88). Parties having joint legal custody of the children with the Plaintiff having residential custody of the children. (see id).

On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff submitted his sworn statement of net worth dated May 7, 2024, in which he reported under gross income, that he received disability benefits in the amount of $142,452.72 and pension benefits in the amount of $30,484.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 11; 91). On August 25, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an updated statement of net worth dated August 22, 2025, in which he reported under gross income, that he received only disability benefits in the amount of $158,045.52. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 112). Plaintiff provides a 1099-R form indicating he had a gross distribution of $233,578.31 in 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 113). Plaintiff provides a redacted Chase bank statement that purports to demonstrate proof of a retro payment in the amount of $86,377.04 made to him on February 29, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 111).

On July 8, 2024, Defendant submitted her sworn statement of net worth dated February 29, 2024, in which she reported her gross income was $31,516.80. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 6). Defendant's W-2 reported Defendant earned $53,280.00 in 2023. (see id). On July 31, 2025, Defendant submitted an updated statement of net worth dated July 7, 2025, in which she reported her gross income was $73,944.48. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 94).

The custody and parenting time stipulation provides for Defendant to have therapeutic visitation with the children, and additional contact via phone or Facetime or messaging on a liberal basis with additional parenting time upon mutual agreement of the parties and our children, in consultation with the therapist. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 88). The stipulation further provides Defendant has the right to attend school functions and extracurricular activities or events, such as graduation, honors, achievements, plays, athletic events, or any other similar extra-curricular events. (see id).

On June 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Family Offense Petition in the Richmond County Family Court alleging

On September 2023 to August 2024 . . . my wife would touch and hold our daughter private area Viagra [sic] often, and our daughter would tell her to leave it alone. Our daughter [CVT]. In 2016 to October 2023, my wife hit and would throw whatever she can get her hands on at our daughter CST. She pulled knifes, scissors to threaten and throw at them. My daughter feel threaten [sic] to around her. The approximate date of the first incident was September of 2016 it started till October of 2023 for CST and August of 2024 for CVT. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 89).

Plaintiff requested a full stay away order of protection on behalf of himself and the children, alleging that Defendant committed certain family offenses against the children, spanning from 2016 to 2024. Defendant contends that the timing of this family offense petition was an aggressive act of parental alienation. The parties' daughter's graduation was to occur on the following Monday and due to the Order Defendant was prohibited from attending or having any contact with the children. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 86).

Defendant maintains that Plaintiff has frivolously filed family offense petitions against her on behalf of the Plaintiff and the children and made false allegations of abuse against her. [*2]Defendant further maintains that these false allegations were traumatizing not only to Defendant and to the children as well.

Defendant further contends that

Since the time I filed my original order to show cause on July 31, 2025, Plaintiff has made yet another false report against me but this time he was successful in having me wrongfully arrested. Plaintiff made a recent allegation against me for the crime of bigamy and that I did so while I was allegedly after his pension and retirement assets. As a result of Plaintiff's false report, at around 6:00 AM in the morning, a warrant squad abruptly arrived at my home. A number of plainclothes officers took me from my home, placed me in an unidentified van, and detained me for over ten (10) hours. My family believed I was being kidnapped. At the time, I was fearful, scared, and had no idea why I was being detained. Ultimately, the District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute and dismissed the case pursuant to a "declined prosecution" or "343 letter." No criminal charges were filed, despite my arrest. Accordingly, I cannot be prosecuted again for this false allegation. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 116).

III. Discussion

A. Income

"The CSSA sets forth a formula for calculating child support by applying a designated statutory percentage, based upon the number of children to be supported, to combined parental income up to a particular ceiling" (see Matter of Giraldo v Fernandez, 199 AD3d 796 [2d Dept 2021] quoting Matter of Peddycoart v MacKay, 145 AD3d 1081 [2d Dept 2016], quoting Matter of Freeman v Freeman, 71 AD3d 1143 [2d Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff contends that Defendant incorrectly states his income is $172,936.00. Plaintiff maintains that in 2024 he received a retroactive check in the amount of $73,206.52 for a contract renegotiation for 2023, 2022, 2021 and 2020. Plaintiff purports in his updated statement of net worth dated August 22, 2025, a gross income in the amount of $158,045.52. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 112).

Defendant purports in her updated statement of net worth dated July 7, 2025, a gross income was $73,944.48. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 94).

"In determining parental income under the CSSA, the court must begin with the parent's 'gross (total) income as should have been or should be reported in the most recent federal income tax return'" (see Matter of Dailey v Govan, 136 AD3d 1029 [2d Dept 2016] quoting Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [i]; citing Matter of Lynn v Kroenung, 97 AD3d 822 [2d Dept 2012]; Matter of Azrak v Azrak, 60 AD3d 937 [2d Dept 2009]).

Here there has been a significant amount of fuzzy math, where amounts reported in statements of net worth may or may not be accurate. Plaintiff's claim that his 2024 income as reported was overly inflated due to retroactive check in the amount of $73,206.52 is somewhat plausible, but the evidence provided is not conclusive. Defendant's original statement of net worth significantly underestimated her earning for 2024.

"In determining maintenance and child support obligations, '[a] court need not rely upon a party's own account of his [or her] finances, but may impute income based upon the party's [*3]past income or demonstrated future potential earnings'" (see Malkani v Malkani, 208 AD3d 863 [2d Dept 2022] quoting Tuchman v Tuchman, 201 AD3d 986 [2d Dept 2022], quoting Duffy v Duffy, 84 AD3d 1151 [2d Dept 2011]).

"The court has considerable discretion in determining whether income should be imputed to a party and the court's credibility determinations are accorded deference on appeal" (see Klein v Klein, 178 AD3d 802 [2d Dept 2019] quoting Matter of Monti v DiBedendetto, 151 AD3d 864 [2d Dept 2017]; citing Matter of Kiernan v Martin, 108 AD3d 767 [2d Dept 2013]).

Accordingly, the Court is imputing an annual income of $165,000.00 to the Plaintiff and an annual income of $75,000.00 to the Defendant, pendente lite, for the purpose of calculations made herein.

B. Maintenance

"The purpose of pendente lite maintenance is to ensure that a needy spouse is provided with funds for his or her support and reasonable needs pending trial. It is not to determine the correct ultimate distribution" (see Salmon v de Salmon, 173 AD3d 793 [2d Dept 2019] quoting Jin C. v Juliana L., 137 AD3d 1063 [2d Dept 2016]; citing Fales v Fales, 102 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 2013]).

"A pendente lite award should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living" (see id quoting Jin C. v Juliana L., 137 AD3d 1063 [2d Dept 2016]; citing Cristando v Lozada, 118 AD3d 846 [2d Dept 2014]). In this matter, the length of the marriage and the disparity in income make pendente lite maintenance appropriate.

Calculation of Spousal Maintenance

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 request for spousal maintenance is GRANTED, pendente lite, to Defendant and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay to the Defendant the amount of $2,157.32 [TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS] per month subject to reallocation at trial; and it is further,

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay monthly spousal maintenance, retroactive to the date of Defendant's Motion, July 31, 2025.

C. Child Support

"A parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her child's basic needs, an obligation which is addressed in Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [1], [2]." (see Cimons v Cimons, 53 AD3d 125 [2d Dept 2008]). The Child Support Standards Act "provides a precisely articulated, three-step method for determining child support." (see Boltz v Boltz, 178 AD3d 656 [2d Dept 2019]). This three-step process includes (1) computing a combined parental income, (2) multiplying that income, up to a certain income cap, by a specific percentage, and (3) determining the amount of income that should be considered for child support purposes if the combined parental income exceeds the income cap. (see Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d at 649 [1995]).

Calculation of Child Support

"Where the combined parental income exceeds the statutory cap, the court, in fixing the basic child support obligation on income over the statutory cap, has the discretion to apply the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [f], or to apply the statutory percentages, or to apply both" (see Miller v Miller, 216 AD3d 1154 [2d Dept 2023] quoting Moradi v Buhl, 201 AD3d 928 [2d Dept 2022]; citing DRL § 240 [1-b] [c] [3]). "The court must articulate an explanation of the basis for its calculation of child support based on parental income in excess of the statutory cap" (see id quoting Moradi v Buhl, 201 AD3d 928 [2d Dept 2022]).

"Such articulation should reflect a careful consideration of the stated basis for the court's exercise of discretion, the parties' circumstances, and the court's reasoning why there should or should not be a departure from the prescribed percentage" (see id).

Plaintiff has not established a record detailing specific expenses or a lifestyle basis sufficient for the Court, at this juncture, to award child support on combined parental income exceeding the statutory cap.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 005 request for child support is GRANTED,pendente lite, to Plaintiff and Defendant is ORDERED to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $1,525.00 [ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per month subject to reallocation at trial; and it is further,

ORDERED that Defendant shall pay monthly child support, retroactive to the date of Plaintiff's Motion, August 25, 2025; and it is further,

ORDERED that all the children's add-on expenses, including, but not limited to (1) education expenses to include but not limited to private school tuition, mandatory fees, books, labs, uniform expenses; (2) unreimbursed medical expenses, to include but not limited to co-payments, pharmaceutical expenses, optical, dental, therapeutic sessions, mental health services, and related health care expenses; (3) child care expenses while the custodial parent is working; (4) mutually agreed upon extracurricular activities; and (5) all other statutory expenses shall be divided on a pro-rata basis. Plaintiff is responsible for 60% of all childcare expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and the Defendant is responsible for 40% of all child care expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial.

D. Counsel Fees, Pendente Lite

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a], "There shall be a rebuttable presumption that counsel fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse. In exercising the court's discretion, [*6]the court shall seek to assure that each party shall be adequately represented and that where fees and expenses are to be awarded." "An award of reasonable counsel fees in a matrimonial action is a matter within the discretion of the trial court[.]" (see Guzzo v Guzzo, 110 AD3d 765 [2d Dept 2013] citing Domestic Relations Law § 237; De Cabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Quinn v Quinn, 73 AD3d 887 [2d Dept 2010]).

"For matrimonial actions such as this one, commenced on or after October 12, 2010, there is a statutory 'rebuttable presumption that counsel fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse[.]'" (see Weidman v Weidman, 162 AD3d 720 [2d Dept 2018] quoting Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; citing Teaney v. Teaney, 138 AD3d 1301 [3rd Dept 2016]; Vantine v Vantine, 125 AD3d 1259 [3rd Dept 2018]). "[I]n exercising its discretionary power to award counsel fees, a court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case[.]" (see id quoting De Cabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]).

Based on the information available to the Court, the Plaintiff is the monied spouse and Defendant is entitled to an award of reasonable counsel fees to ensure Defendant is adequately represented. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 request for counsel fees, pendente lite, is GRANTED, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, in the sum of $14,500.00 [FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] to be paid by Plaintiff directly to Defendant within 10 days.

E. Sanctions

Sanctions are a grave remedy, reserved for those instances where a litigant's conduct crosses the boundary from zealous advocacy into the territory of bad faith, harassment, and abuse of process. This Court finds that Plaintiff's conduct in this case has not only transgressed that boundary but trampled it with calculated malice.

Plaintiff's family offense petition was not content merely to dredge up allegations long predating the custody stipulation. Rather, he advanced an accusation of bigamy against Defendant, a charge so extraordinary and stigmatizing that it triggered the intervention of law enforcement and culminated in Defendant's arrest by the New York City Police Department. That a matrimonial litigant would brand his spouse a bigamist in the midst of divorce proceedings, without substantiating evidence and in direct contravention of the parties' recent parenting agreement, is a measure of recklessness bordering on the unconscionable.

The record reveals that Defendant, a mother already struggling under the weight of separation from her children, was subjected to the indignity of handcuffs and the trauma of arrest, her liberty momentarily stripped, her reputation impugned, and her emotional equilibrium shattered. Such an ordeal is not the inevitable byproduct of contentious matrimonial litigation; it is the result of Plaintiff's deliberate invocation of baseless allegations, weaponizing not only the courts but also the criminal justice system. The Court finds this to be a calculated attempt to terrorize, humiliate, and silence Defendant under color of legal process.

This is precisely the species of frivolous and harassing conduct that 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 was designed to remedy. The regulation makes clear that litigation tactics devoid of legal or factual merit, and undertaken with the intent to harass or injure, cannot be tolerated. Here, Plaintiff's actions inflicted not only unnecessary financial cost but also profound personal trauma upon Defendant. He compelled her to divert her limited resources to criminal defense, exposed [*7]her to reputational ruin, and deprived her of the ordinary security of family life.

Moreover, such conduct undermines the integrity of the judiciary by exploiting its processes for improper ends. If unchecked, it signals that litigants may commandeer the courts and law enforcement to serve personal vendettas, rather than the orderly resolution of disputes. This Court will not countenance such degradation of the justice system.

Accordingly, the imposition of sanctions is not only appropriate but imperative. The award must serve the dual function of compensating Defendant for the injuries inflicted and deterring Plaintiff, and others similarly inclined, from employing falsehood and intimidation as litigation tactics. The Court therefore directs Plaintiff to pay the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] to Defendant within ten days as a sanction for his egregious misconduct.

IV. Decretal Paragraphs

It is hereby ORDERED, Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 request for spousal maintenance is GRANTED, pendente lite, to Defendant and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay to the Defendant the amount of $2,157.32 [TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS] per month subject to reallocation at trial; and it is further,

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay monthly spousal maintenance, retroactive to the date of Defendant's Motion, July 31, 2025; and it is further,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 005 request for child support is GRANTED,pendente lite, to Plaintiff and Defendant is ORDERED to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $1,525.00 [ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per month subject to reallocation at trial; and it is further,

ORDERED that Defendant shall pay monthly child support, retroactive to the date of Plaintiff's Motion, August 25, 2025; and it is further,

ORDERED that all the children's add-on expenses, including, but not limited to (1) education expenses to include but not limited to private school tuition, mandatory fees, books, labs, uniform expenses; (2) unreimbursed medical expenses, to include but not limited to co-payments, pharmaceutical expenses, optical, dental, therapeutic sessions, mental health services, and related health care expenses; (3) child care expenses while the custodial parent is working; (4) mutually agreed upon extracurricular activities; and (5) all other statutory expenses shall be divided on a pro-rata basis. Plaintiff is responsible for 60% of all childcare expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and the Defendant is responsible for 40% of all child care expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial; and it is further,

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 request for counsel fees, pendente lite, is GRANTED, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, in the sum of $14,500.00 [FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] to be paid by Plaintiff directly to Defendant within 10 days; and it is further,

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 004 request for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] to Defendant within ten days as a sanction for his egregious misconduct; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court.