This action arises from a long history of litigation between the parties. Plaintiff, Stephen Lichaw, and defendant, Alisa Lichaw, were married, but they divorced in 2010. Plaintiff now seeks to enforce a money judgment against defendant. The judgment at issue, $14,142.50 in attorney fees, was entered by the New Jersey Family Court, Bergen County, on March 21, 2013, and stems from a January 2013 consent order that amended the parties' earlier matrimonial settlement agreement. In addition to awarding attorney fees, the consent order imposed custodial obligations on defendant, including a duty to support the father-daughter relationship between plaintiff and the parties' then-minor daughters.

On February 19, 2025, plaintiff served a subpoena on defendant (as a judgment debtor) to obtain bank-account and place-of-employment information to enforce the judgment in Supreme Court, New York County (Hagler, J.). (NYSCEF No. 4 at 4, ¶ 4.)

Motion sequence 001 arises from the dispute over plaintiff's attempt under CPLR 5224 to enforce the New Jersey money judgment with interest. (NYSCEF No. 14 at 2, ¶ 4.) Initially, plaintiff moved enforce the judgment and to hold defendant in contempt for failing to respond to a court-issued information subpoena requiring her to disclose her bank account and employment information. (NYSCEF No. 7.) Plaintiff has since withdrawn the motion (see NYSCEF No. 85), but only after defendant cross-moved for sanctions against plaintiff under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (see NYSCEF No. 39). The cross-motion is granted.

On motion sequence 002, plaintiff moves to domesticate the New Jersey judgment and to add defendant's maiden names to the judgment's caption. The motion is denied.

On motion sequence 004,^[FN1] defendant moves to seal five specific exhibits containing confidential personal information. The motion is granted.

On motion sequence 005, defendant moves to seal the entire docket in this action. The motion is denied.

The motions are consolidated for disposition.

Defendant cross-moves under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1)-(3) to sanction plaintiff for [*2]frivolous conduct. According to defendant, plaintiff filed meritless claims to prolong the resolution of litigation and filed materially false affidavits in connection with motion sequence 001—which plaintiff has since withdrawn. (See NYSCEF No. 40 at ¶¶ 29-31.) Defendant asks this court to dismiss the action and award attorney fees and costs to defendant. The cross-motion is granted.

Defendant says that plaintiff should be sanctioned because plaintiff mailed an incomplete subpoena to defendant but represented on motion sequence 001 that he properly served the subpoena. Plaintiff sent defendant only a single page of the subpoena; the mailing did not include the questionnaires. (See NYSCEF No. 48.) Nor did plaintiff include a required return envelope. (See id.) And defendant also emailed plaintiff to inform him that the mailing was defective. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, court concludes that the record does not reflect that plaintiff maliciously intended to send defendant an improper subpoena or make a misrepresentation to the court.

Defendant also argues that this court should award sanctions against plaintiff, because, she asserts, plaintiff has long engaged in frivolous litigation. Plaintiff has filed four lawsuits across three jurisdictions aimed at reviving defendant's custodial obligations. All were dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn.^[FN2] These lawsuits were brought to harass defendant. (See Ray v Ray, 232 AD3d 497, 499-500 [1st Dept 2024] [imposing sanctions when plaintiff engaged in persistent pattern of meritless litigation by filing six separate lawsuits between 2010 and 2020, all dismissed at the pleading stage]; Weissman v Weissman, 116 AD3d 848, 849 [2d Dept 2014] [granting sanctions for frivolous litigation when plaintiff, after repeated denials on prior motions, filed a plenary action seeking the same relief].)

Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that he would abandon this litigation if defendant helped restore his relationship with their daughters. (See NYSCEF No. 41 at 4 [stating plaintiff will drop enforcement of $14,142.50 judgment once relationship with his daughters is restored]; NYSCEF No. 46 at 2 [stating that the lawsuits were prompted by defendant's failure to honor an earlier promise to help restore the father-daughter relationship]; see also NYSCEF No. 37 at ¶11 [reiterating that resolution of judgment was contingent on family reconciliation].)

These admissions reveal that plaintiff's motive is not simply to enforce a valid monetary judgment but also to pressure defendant and their daughters into renewed contact.^[FN3] Although this court is sympathetic to plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant and acknowledges his underlying desire to reconnect with his children, judicial resources may not be used to pursue personal grievances through baseless litigation. (See NYSCEF No. 84 [plaintiff's email to defendant's [*3]attorney in which he states that he would forgive the judgment if defendant could get the parties' daughters to contact plaintiff].)

The cross-motion for sanctions against plaintiff under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is granted. Defendant is awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in opposing plaintiff's now-withdrawn motion (mot seq 001). The court declines to dismiss this judgment-enforcement action. It is undisputed that plaintiff was issued a judgment against defendant.

On this motion, plaintiff moves to amend the caption of the 2013 judgment to reflect defendant's maiden name. The motion is denied.

It is not entirely clear to the court whether plaintiff has domesticated the judgment. The parties dispute whether plaintiff has met the CPLR 5403 mailing requirement, which requires the judgment creditor to mail the judgment debtor a notice that he registered the foreign judgment in New York. Defendant claims she never received the notice. (NYSCEF No. 15 at ¶ 16.) Plaintiff represents that he mailed the notice. (See NYSCEF No. 28 at ¶ 4; see also NYSCEF No. 33 [letter from plaintiff's attorney in the divorce action to defendant's attorney noting that the judgment was indexed in New York].) Even assuming plaintiff adhered to the mailing requirement, he identifies no basis to modify a judgment first entered 12 years ago to reflect that defendant no longer calls herself by plaintiff's surname.

On motion sequence 004, defendant moves to seal five exhibits she submitted in support of her cross-motion for sanctions against plaintiff in motion sequence 001. (NYSCEF Nos. 53-57.) These exhibits contain sensitive information about the parties' family dynamics, plaintiff's conduct, and the emotional impact on the parties' daughters. The documents include affirmations and legal memorandums describing a pattern of estrangement, litigation threats, and allegations of coercive communication by plaintiff. On motion sequence 005, defendant moves to seal the entire docket, because this action revolves around, and includes submissions of documents from, the earlier matrimonial action.

Defendant seeks sealing under 22 NYCRR 202.5 (e), 22 NYCRR 216.1, and Domestic Relations Law § 235 due to the sensitive nature of the information contained in the exhibits. Plaintiff opposes defendant's sealing motion and claims that defendant's motive is to protect herself from reputation harm.

Title 22 NYCRR 202.5 (e) authorizes parties to omit or redact confidential personal information (CPI) from court filings. Title 22 NYCRR 216.1 requires a movant to demonstrate good cause for sealing that outweighs general presumption of public access. For instance, a court will balance competing interests between the public's right of access to judicial documents and the parties' privacy. (See Applehead Pictures LLC v Perleman, 80 AD3d 181, 191-192 [1st Dept 2010] [holding that courts have discretion to seal when private harm outweighs the public [*4]interest in access and the case involves sensitive content].) And, in matrimonial actions, certain documents, such as pleadings, affidavits, separation agreements, and conclusions of law, are confidential under Domestic Relations Law § 235.

Defendant's motion to seal the entire docket (mot seq 005) is denied. This action arises from plaintiff's action to enforce the judgment he received in the underlying matrimonial action. This action does not arise from the matrimonial action itself. (See Bich v Bich, 69 Misc 3d 874, 875 [Sup Ct, NY County 2020] [holding that DRL § 235 does not require sealing when the action is "not a matrimonial action, does not arise from or concern a written separation agreement, and does not involve a minor child"].) Nor does defendant provide good cause to seal the entire docket under 22 NYCRR 202.5 (e) or 22 NYCRR 216.1. It is unavailing that plaintiff has submitted documents from the matrimonial proceedings in a nonmatrimonial court action. (See Bich, 69 Misc 3d at 876 ["That papers filed in a non-matrimonial action might disclose embarrassing or private information about adult individuals is not enough, standing alone, to warrant placing the action as a whole under seal."].)

On the other hand, defendant's motion to seal NYSCEF Nos. 53-57 (mot seq 004) is granted. Those exhibits contain deeply personal narratives and legal arguments closely tied to the family's post-divorce conflict. The exhibits include personal affirmations describing plaintiff's strained relationship with his daughters. This court concludes that good cause exists to seal those documents: Disclosure poses a substantial risk of emotional harm and will advance no public interest. The motion to seal those documents is granted.^[FN4]

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendant's cross-motion for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (mot seq 001) is granted, and defendant is awarded the costs and attorney fees incurred in opposing plaintiff's motion/making this cross-motion, with the amount of those attorney fees to be determined by motion made on notice within 30 days of service of this order by defendant; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend judgment and add defendant's maiden name (mot seq 002) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant's motion to seal NYSCEF Nos. 53-57 (mot seq 004) is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed, upon service on him of a copy of this order with notice of its entry, to seal the documents appearing at NYSCEF Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, [*5]and 57; and to separate these documents and to keep them separate from the balance of the file in this action; and it is further

ORDERED that thereafter, or until further order of this court, the Clerk of the Court shall deny access to the said sealed documents to anyone (other than the staff of the Clerk or the court) except for counsel of record for any party to this case and any party; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant's motion to seal the entire docket in this action (mot seq 005) is denied.