I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion Sequence No. 003) numbered 113-121, 126, 139 and (Motion Sequence No. 004) numbered 127-134, 136-138 were read on this motion. The Court has before it Respondent's Notice of Motion dated August 4, 2025 (Motion Seq. No. 003), supported by the affidavit of BS and the affirmation of Andrea S. Ferrante, Esq., seeking: [*2](1) vacatur of the July 9, 2025 Order; (2) recalculation of child support; (3) nullification of counsel for the unemancipated child; (4) vacatur or stay of interim counsel fee awards; (5) restoration to the Court's calendar for oral argument; and (6) temporary modification of support to $1,264.38 monthly with 48.77% share of statutory add-ons.

The Court has also considered Petitioner's cross-motion dated September 11, 2025 (Motion Sequence No. 004), supported by the affirmation of Richard Geller, Esq. and the affidavit of Petitioner, seeking: (a) an award of $10,000.00 interim counsel fees payable to Petitioner's counsel; (b) denial of Respondent's motion in its entirety; and (c) such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

The Court has reviewed the pleadings, affidavits, affirmations, exhibits, and all prior papers filed herein.

II. Facts

This post-judgment matrimonial dispute arises from the July 9, 2025 Order of this Court (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 110) addressing child support and interim counsel fees. Respondent, BS, contends that her timely opposition papers were not considered, as the Order recites submission on June 26, 2025, predating her July 7, 2025 filing and even the June 28, 2025 date she was served.

Respondent asserts that Plaintiff, DK, misrepresented her financial circumstances and exaggerated his own expenses. She avers that Plaintiff improperly invoked hearsay, speculation, and irrelevant references, including materials concerning the parties' emancipated child. She further maintains that Plaintiff inflated her income by reference to outdated figures from the 2022 Stipulation of Settlement, ignoring her 2024 tax return evidencing reduced earnings of $104,809.00. By contrast, Respondent argues that Plaintiff's income and assets, inclusive of pension distributions, investment accounts exceeding $1.6 million, and savings of $210,000.00, reveal financial parity or superiority on his part.

Respondent therefore requests vacatur of the July 9, 2025 Order, recalculation of support to reflect a monthly obligation of $1,264.38 plus 48.77% of statutory add-ons, and vacatur or stay of the $10,000.00 counsel fee award.

Petitioner opposes and cross-moves. He argues that Respondent has failed to annex mandatory financial disclosure in conformity with 22 NYCRR § 202.16 [k]. He contends that a single 2024 return cannot substantiate a substantial change in circumstances, particularly absent her 2021—2023 returns or business records. He points to Respondent's lifestyle, business interests, and litigation expenditures to argue that her actual income remains consistent with the $140,000.00 acknowledged in the 2022 Stipulation. Petitioner further asserts that the July 9, 2025 interim fee award is justified under Domestic Relations Law § 237, designed to assure parity, and that Respondent herself has expended over $16,000.00 on her own counsel.

III. Conclusions of Law

A. Vacatur under CPLR § 5015 and Reargument under CPLR § 2221

Respondent invokes CPLR § 5015 [a] [1], asserting that her timely submissions were overlooked. The Court acknowledges the apparent discrepancy between the stated submission date [*3]of June 26, 2025 and Respondent's July 7, 2025 filing. Nonetheless, vacatur is not automatic. The movant must establish both a reasonable excuse for default and a meritorious defense.

Here, although Respondent raises plausible challenges to Plaintiff's evidentiary presentation, her own submission is procedurally deficient. The Uniform Rules mandate annexation of a sworn Statement of Net Worth to motions involving support (22 NYCRR 202.16 [k]). Respondent's failure to properly include such documentation in her moving papers undermines her showing. Courts are empowered to draw adverse inferences or deny the motion for noncompliance.

To the extent Respondent also seeks renewal or reargument under CPLR § 2221, she has not demonstrated that the Court overlooked controlling facts or law. Her reliance on a single 2024 return, unaccompanied by prior years' records or explanations for decline, does not amount to new evidence that would alter the determination.

Accordingly, vacatur, renewal, and reargument are DENIED.

B. Modification of Support under DRL § 236 [B] [9] [b]

To modify child support, a movant must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances, a 15% change in income, or the passage of three years since the last order. Less than three years have passed since the July 2022 Stipulation. Thus, Respondent must establish a substantial involuntary change in her finances since the July 2025 Order.

Respondent relies solely on her 2024 return. A solitary tax filing, devoid of historical context or corroborating records, cannot satisfy the statutory standard. Moreover, her expenditures, ownership interest in a business, and access to pension distributions suggest an earning capacity inconsistent with the reduction alleged. In contrast, Plaintiff has supplied multiple years of financial disclosure. On this record, the Court finds no basis for downward modification, temporary or permanent.

C. Counsel for the Unemancipated Child

Respondent requests nullification of the need for counsel for the unemancipated child. As custody is not presently in dispute and no attorney for the child is appointed in this phase, this branch is denied as moot.

D. Interim Counsel Fees

The July 9, 2025 Order awarded Plaintiff $10,000.00 in interim counsel fees. Domestic Relations Law § 237 establishes a presumption favoring fee awards to the less-monied spouse, designed to assure parity. Respondent's simultaneous payment of substantial fees to her own counsel belies her claim of hardship. She has not rebutted the statutory presumption.

The application to vacate or stay the fee award is denied. Plaintiff's cross-motion to enforce payment of the $10,000.00 award is GRANTED, payable within thirty (30) days.

E. Restoration for Oral Argument

The motion to restore this matter for oral argument is academic. The present submissions afford full opportunity for both parties to be heard.

IV.Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Respondent's motion (Motion Sequence No. 003) is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Petitioner's cross-motion (Motion Sequence No. 004) is GRANTED to the extent that Respondent shall pay to Petitioner's counsel, Geller Law PLLC, interim counsel fees in the amount of $10,000.00 [TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] within thirty (30) days of service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry; and it is further

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