This Decision and Order is being entered following an oral application made by Defendant's counsel during a conference held before the undersigned on November 5, 2025, requesting that this Court: (1) appoint a neutral expert for the valuation of two entities known as [REDACTED] (hereinafter "L&K") and [REDACTED] (hereinafter "L&M"); and the appointment of a neutral expert for income stream analysis for Plaintiff's income.

On May 30, 2025, this matrimonial action was commenced with the filing of a summons and complaint,^[FN1] which asserted that the parties were married in 2017, have one unemancipated child and seeking a dissolution of the parties' marriage pursuant to the alleged irretrievable breakdown of the parties' relationship pursuant to New York State Domestic Relations Law (hereinafter "DRL") § 170(7), along with other ancillary relief.

On June 25, 2025, Defendant filed an Answer With Counterclaim, also requesting the entry of a judgment of divorce pursuant to DRL § 170(7), along with other ancillary relief.^[FN2]

On June 26, 2025, a request for judicial intervention was filed,^[FN3] after which a Court notice was issued directing a preliminary conference to be held on July 28, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.^[FN4]

On July 8, 2025, a reply to Defendant's counterclaim was filed by Plaintiff.^[FN5]

On July 24, 2025, a statement of net worth of Plaintiff was filed, dated July 23, 2025, indicating that the information set forth therein was accurate as of that date, signed by Plaintiff before a notary and certified by Plaintiff's counsel (hereinafter "Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth").^[FN6] Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth provided monthly expenses of $12,919.67, being $155,036.04 annually; annual income of $89,880.00; liabilities totaling $1,223.00; and assets including $50,000.00 in non-retirement financial accounts, several parcels of real property, no retirement accounts, several vehicles, and one business interest being 100% ownership interest in L&K.

On July 25, 2025, Defendant filed a statement of net worth, dated July 7, 2025, indicating that the information set forth therein was accurate as of that date, signed by Defendant before a notary and certified by Defendant's counsel (hereinafter "Defendant's Statement of Net Worth").^[FN7] Defendant's Statement of Net Worth provided monthly expenses of $5,069.59, being $60,835.08 annually; annual income of $25,399.00; liabilities totaling $3,145.71; and assets including $188.66 in non-retirement financial accounts, several parcels of real property (noting ownership by Plaintiff; K.L.M; and 46 O., LLC), no retirement accounts, and several vehicles.

On July 28, 2025, a preliminary conference was held after which an order was entered,^[FN8] which set forth discovery deadlines including in section (H), pertaining to valuation/financial experts, the following:

"The parties shall notify the Court no later than 10/15/25 as to whether any neutral experts are required," and "Experts to be Retained by a Party: Each party shall select his/her own expert to value and assets or address other issues. The expert shall be identified to the other party by letter with their qualifications and retained no later than 10/31/25. If a party requires fees to retain an expert and the parties cannot agree upon the source of funds, an application for fees shall be made."

On October 1, 2025, a conference was held after which an Order was entered,^[FN9] which provided, "By October 31, 2025, all requests for Court appointed neutrals shall be made," and "By November 15, 2025, the parties shall retain and disclose retained experts as set forth in the [*2]preliminary conference order."

On October 27, 2025, Defendant's counsel filed a letter ^[FN10] requesting a pre-motion conference to address Defendant's application for the appointment of neutral experts which set forth:

"The undersigned represents the Defendant/Wife in the above-referenced matrimonial action. The Plaintiff/Husband's attorney is Frank John Salvi, Esq. A Preliminary Conference on the above-referenced action was held on July 28, 2025. An EBT of the Plaintiff/Husband was held on October 22, 2025. On the PC Stipulation/Order and Husband's Statement of Net Worth, there is only reference to one business entity known as L&K. During the Husband's deposition, it was discovered that he has been the sole owner of a previously undisclosed corporation which the wife was not aware of, with a very similar sounding name, known as L&M. This "parallel corporation" also had business financial accounts and filed tax returns which were concealed from disclosure in the Husband's Statement of Net Worth and was also not referenced on his personal income tax returns. A Post-EBT demand for documents has been served by our office upon Plaintiff. In accordance with the Order of this Court dated October 1, 2025, [REDACTED], "all requests of Court appointed neutral experts shall be made" by October 31, 2025. Accordingly, the Defendant prays for an Order directing the following: 1. A neutral business appraisal of L&K. 2. A neutral business appraisal of L&M. 3. An "income stream analysis" from all sources of income, including real estate rental income, for a determination of child support and spousal support. At the Preliminary Conference, and for prior real property appraisal orders in this action, the Court directed that the Plaintiff/Husband pay for 100% of the cost of same, subject to reallocation at trial. Defendant requests that the above be paid 100% by the Plaintiff/Husband subject to reallocation at trial."

On October 28, 2025, an Order was entered,^[FN11] directing that a pre-motion conference be held on November 5, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., to address the application for the appointment of neutral experts.

On November 5, 2025, a conference was held before the undersigned wherein all parties and counsel appeared, and the Court received oral argument from counsel with respect to Defendant's application for the appointment of neutral experts. Defendant's counsel asserted that Plaintiff failed to disclose his ownership interest in L&M in Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth and only disclosed the assets during Plaintiff's Deposition wherein he disclosed that he was the sole shareholder, director and officer. Defendant's counsel asserted the need for a valuation of both L&M and L&K, and thereafter asserted that an income stream analysis was necessary for Plaintiff. Defendant's counsel noted that Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth included expenses well in excess of his stated income, while not providing any debt that would explain the source of funds for payment of the expenses above the available income of Plaintiff. Defendant's counsel further noted his belief that during a short time the parties have accumulated a number [*3]of parcels of real estate and vehicles despite the stated finances.

With respect to the payment of the requested experts, Defendant's counsel noted that Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth provided $50,000.00 in available funds within stated financial accounts as of the date of commencement of this action and noted that while he now believes that only $16,000.00 remains available in these accounts that this Court should not rely upon Plaintiff's representations as to his finances as he asserted that Plaintiff lacked credibility. He requested that the Court appoint Gerald DeFeo as the neutral expert to conduct the valuations of L&M and L&K, and Plaintiff's income stream analysis. While acknowledging that he had not spoke to Mr. DeFeo regarding a projected expense for services to be rendered if appointed, Defendant's counsel estimated the valuation reports to be a cost of between $15,000.00 and $20,000.00 for both valuations, along with an estimated cost of $7,500.00 for the preparation of an income stream report.

Voicing his opposition to the appointment of neutral experts, Plaintiff's counsel asserted that he found the requested appointments unnecessary noting that the parties do not have the financial resources to provide payment for such expenses arguing that Plaintiff is providing payment of all of the family expenses alone, while Defendant makes no contributions. With respect to the omission of the second business entity from Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth, he stated that this was an unintentional error. Plaintiff's counsel further asserted that despite Plaintiff's claims of accumulated wealth that the parties' vehicles and real properties were encumbered by loans. With respect to Plaintiff's financial accounts, Plaintiff's counsel advised the Court that funds were utilized from the accounts since commencement of this action for the payment of the parties' living expenses, that Plaintiff had approximately $30,000.00 available in liquid funds and offered statements for these accounts which were marked as Court exhibits.^[FN12] Plaintiff's counsel asserted that these funds were needed for the payment of living expenses including business expenses including one invoice from H.T.G.S, dated November 5, 2025, addressed to L&K seeking the sum of $14,405.18.

NYCRR § 202.18 pertaining to testimony of court-appointed expert witnesses in matrimonial proceedings:

"In any action or proceeding tried without a jury to which section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law applies, the court may appoint a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other appropriate expert to give testimony with respect to custody or visitation, and may appoint an accountant, appraiser, actuary or other appropriate expert to give testimony with respect to equitable distribution or a distributive award. In the First and Second Judicial Departments, appointments shall be made as appropriate from a panel of mental health professionals pursuant to Parts 623 and 680 of this Title. The cost of such expert witness shall be paid by a party or parties as the court shall direct."

22 NYCRR § 202.16(f)(3) sets forth Court rules pertaining to the manner within which preliminary conference shall be held, including how neutral experts may be appointed, "The court also may direct that a list of expert witnesses be filed with the court within 30 days of the conference from which the court may select a neutral expert to assist the court."

These provisions of the Court Rules confirm that the while a trial Court may appoint a financial expert witness to provide testimony with respect to equitable distribution or a distributive award, the determination to make such an appointment is within the discretion of the Court (Haymes v. Haymes, 157 AD2d 506 [1st Dept 1990]). In Haymes, during the course of a matrimonial action the trial Court had denied the wife's application for the appointment of an independent appraiser to evaluate the husband's real estate interests which was upheld as the Appellate Division determined that the action was at an early stage with on-going discovery, wife had obtained an expert and wife failed to establish that the complexity of the husband's interests necessitated such appointment (Id.).

If having determined that the appointment of a neutral expert is needed, the Court further has discretion in what expert will be appointed which will not be disturbed by absent an abuse of discretion (Pryba v. Pryba, 70 AD3d 1109 [3rd Dept 2010] [determining that the trial Court failed to set forth its reasoning for rejecting Plaintiff's arguments against the appointment of a specific expert requiring reversal and remitting to permit the trial Court to articulate its rationale or, in its discretion to appoint another neutral expert]).

Here, while Defendant requests the appointment of a neutral expert to conduct business valuations for two separate corporations and to prepare an income stream analysis report for Plaintiff's income, Defendant has failed to identify any funds available to provide payment of such an expert if appointed which he estimated to be nearly $30,000.00. To the contrary, Defendant's counsel acknowledged that his client had less than $1,000.00 in liquid funds available, while Plaintiff's counsel advised that his client had approximately $30,000.00 in liquid funds available with the need to continue to provide payment of the parties' living expenses and operation costs for his businesses, which he noted owed approximately $15,000.00 to vendors leaving approximately $15,000.00 in net liquid funds available.

Notably, neither party has objected to the appointment of a neutral expert due to the request that Gerald DeFeo be appointed to fill such role, nor has the Court declined to make such an appointment due to the request that he be appointed, however as noted below the Court has determined that such appointment is not warranted due to the lack of funds for such an appointment to be made.

While this Court does not disregard the potential benefit of the appointment of a neutral expert as requested by Defendant's counsel, neither party has advised this Court of any funds available, either through liquid funds, assets that may be sold to obtain such funds, or through an income stream for such appointment. The parties have also failed to identify any such expert willing to accept this appointment on a pro bono basis. Accordingly, The Court must decline to grant Defendant's application without prejudice to make such application again in the event that funds are located to permit such appointment. Further, the parties remain able to retain their own experts with respect to any of the issues arising out of the requested dissolution of the parties' marriage pursuant to the prior decisions and orders entered by this Court.

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff's application is denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Defendant's application is denied without prejudice; and it is hereby further

ORDERED that unless modified herein, all prior decisions and orders entered in this action shall remain in effect; and it is further

ORDERED that by November 10, 2025, Defendant's counsel shall serve a copy of this [*4]Decision and Order with Notice of Entry on Plaintiff's counsel by e-mail and NYSCEF filing, and by that date shall file proof of service with the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that any relief requested not expressly granted herein is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.