The following documents, numbered 1 to 6, were considered in connection with Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, dated November 13, 2025, (hereinafter "Motion Sequence No. 1"), seeking the entry of an order, inter alia, for the following:

1. Staying the enforcement of the marital home buyout provisions contained in the judgment of divorce entered November 7, 2025, which requires Plaintiff to pay Defendant $156,762.91 as per page 12-14 of the stipulation highlighted Exhibit C;

2. Granting Plaintiff an equitable credit and/or offset, or otherwise adjusting enforcement of that buyout provision, in light of the newly obtained refinance appraisal dated November 10, 2025, attached Exhibit A valuing the marital residence at $490,000 rather than $625,000; See Exhibit A — Appraisal from Bank;

3. Extending Plaintiff's time to complete any refinance or buyout pending the Court's review and determination of this motion; and

4. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

PAPERS         &nbs p;     NUMBERED

This matrimonial action was commenced on November 8, 2024, with Plaintiff's filing of a summons with notice (hereinafter collectively "Summons"),^[FN2] seeking the entry of a judgment of divorce dissolving the parties' marriage pursuant to DRL § 170(7) asserting that the parties' relationship had broken down for a period in excess of six months prior to the commencement of this action, along with granting other ancillary relief deemed proper by this Court including equitable distribution and declaration of separate property.

At the time of commencement of this action, Plaintiff was represented by legal counsel, being Stuart Jeffrey Tanenbaum, Esq., of the Law Office of Stuart Salles, (hereinafter "Plaintiff's Counsel").

On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint ^[FN3] requesting the relief sought in the Summons and asserting that the parties resided with their children at real property known as 216 XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Mt. Vernon, New York 10552 (hereinafter "Marital Domicile"). Simultaneously, Plaintiff filed a statement of net worth, certified by Plaintiff's Counsel and signed by Plaintiff before a notary public on December 26, 2024 (hereinafter "Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth").^[FN4] Section IV(B)(4.2) of Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth provides an estimated current fair market value of the Marital Domicile as $500,000.00, with the amount of mortgage or lien unpaid as $312,000.00.

On April 7, 2025, Defendant appeared in this action with retained counsel being Shari Beth Rackman, Esq., Law Office of Shari B. Rackman, (hereinafter "Defendant's Counsel"). On that date, Defendant filed a verified answer with counterclaim ^[FN5] also seeking the entry of a judgment of divorce dissolving the parties' marriage pursuant to DRL § 170(7) and granting ancillary relief including granting an award of equitable distribution of marital property and declaring separate property.

On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff's Counsel filed a request for judicial intervention,^[FN6] seeking the scheduling of a preliminary conference, after which a Court notice was issued directing a [*2]preliminary conference to be held on May 27, 2025.^[FN7]

On May 27, 2025, a preliminary conference was held after which a preliminary conference order was entered,^[FN8] wherein this Court set forth a series of discovery deadlines including those pertaining to the appointment of neutral experts by July 11, 2025; and, disclosure of retained experts by July 31, 2025.

On July 11, 2025, a compliance conference was held after which an order ^[FN9] was entered extending the previously enumerated discovery deadlines, including the deadline to request the appointment of neutral experts by August 15, 2025; and, the deadline to disclose retained experts by August 19, 2025.

On July 14, 2025, this Court entered an order appointing neutral real property appraiser,^[FN10] appointing Jane Moss Appraisals to prepare an appraisal report setting forth the fair market value, with the valuation date being the current value, of the Marital Domicile, after which a real property appointment acceptance was filed.^[FN11]

On July 29, 2025, a compliance conference was held at which time all parties and counsel appeared. As reflected by the Court transcript from the appearance (hereinafter "7/29/2025 Transcript"), during the conference Plaintiff's Counsel confirmed that the parties were awaiting the receipt of the appraisal report being prepared by the Court appointed neutral:

"THE COURT: August 15th is the deadline to request the appointment of any further neutral experts, but since we are here and I will try to be efficient, plaintiff's counsel, any further neutral experts required at this time?

MR. TANENBAUM: Not at this time, Judge. The court did appoint a real estate appraiser for the marital residence at the last appearance and we are waiting to proceed with that.

THE COURT: Very good. Defendant's counsel, any further neutrals needed?

MS. RACKMAN: No, your Honor."^[FN12]

During that conference, the 7/29/2025 Transcript also confirms that the parties and counsel were again advised that in addition to any Court appointed neutral experts, the parties had the right to retain their own experts:

"THE COURT: Obviously you have the opportunity to call your own experts, fly them in [*3]here and have rebuttal experts, but talk to your clients about the expense associated with that.^[FN13]

On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff's Counsel filed the second statement of net worth of Plaintiff certified by Plaintiff's Counsel and signed by Plaintiff before a notary public on August 1, 2025 (hereinafter "Plaintiff's Second Statement of Net Worth").^[FN14] Section IV(B)(4.2) of Plaintiff's Second Statement of Net Worth provides an estimated current fair market value of the Marital Domicile as $540,000.00, with the amount of mortgage or lien unpaid as $307,000.00.

On November 3, 2025, a conference was held wherein all parties and counsel appeared, at which, time this Court was presented with a written stipulation of settlement (hereinafter "Stipulation of Settlement") resolving all of the issues arising out of the requested dissolution of the parties' marriage to the Court,^[FN15] after which the parties were subject to an allocution and this Court so-ordered the Stipulation of Settlement.

In the preamble portion of the Stipulation of Settlement, the plain reading of the document confirmed the parties' mutual intent to set forth a full and complete resolution of all issues in this action within the terms set forth therein after being fully satisfied with the financial discovery completed:

"WHEREAS, each party has been advised of their rights to obtain full disclosure of the other party's financial condition, including income, expenses, assets, liabilities and assets transferred, and have obtained full and satisfactory disclosure of such; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to settle the aforesaid action for divorce and all questions relating thereto, and to settle their financial, property and other rights and obligations arising out of the marriage and otherwise;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:"^[FN16]

Within the substantive provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement, the parties further confirmed their unquestionable confirmation that they sought for the terms within the document to be binding upon them with the terms being incorporated, but not merged into a judgment of divorce to be entered after completion of financial discovery:

"1. Settlement. The Wife, as Defendant in the aforesaid action for divorce, hereby consents to the Husband, as Plaintiff, obtaining a judgment of divorce on the grounds of the irretrievable breakdown in relationship. Various financial and property rights, and other privileges, obligations and matters with respect to the Husband and Wife arising [*4]out of their marital relationship are set forth in this Stipulation. The parties agree that the provisions of this Stipulation shall be incorporated in any judgment or decree of divorce, and that this Stipulation shall survive, and not be merged in, any judgment, decree or order which may be issued.

* * *

2. Pending Litigation.***The parties consent to the submission of this action on the uncontested calendar upon affidavit and the other necessary papers required and waive their right to personally appear in court. Such submission shall be on five days' notice. In the pending action for divorce between the parties, no relief shall be sought by either party which shall be different or inconsistent with the provisions contained herein and the provisions of this agreement shall, subject to the approval of the court, be incorporated, but shall not merge, in any decree or judgment granted herein by the court and shall in all respects survive the same being forever binding and conclusive upon the parties.

* * *

18. Full Disclosure. Each party has been given the opportunity to make an independent inquiry into the complete financial circumstances of the other, and acknowledges that he or she is satisfied with their knowledge or believe of the income, assets, property and financial prospects of the other, is aware of all separate property and all marital property as defined in Section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law, and is satisfied with the waiver of full disclosure and discovery.

* * *

19. Merger and Survival. Parties hereto agree that the provisions of this Stipulation shall be submitted to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, as a stipulation of settlement of the pending action for divorce by the Husband as Plaintiff against the Wife as Defendant. All of the provisions of this Stipulation shall be incorporated in any judgment or decree of divorce. This Stipulation shall survive, and not be merged in, any judgment, decree and order, and the parties hereto shall remain bound to the performance of this Stipulation in accordance with the terms hereof."^[FN17]

The Stipulation of Settlement further set forth language confirming that the agreement was complete and that it could only be modified with the same formalities as the parties entered into the Stipulation of Settlement:

"21. General Provisions. This Stipulation is entire and complete and embodies all understandings and agreements between the parties. No oral statement or prior written matter outside of this Stipulation shall have any force or effect. This Stipulation shall not be amended, modified, discharged or terminated except by a writing executed and acknowledged by the party sought to be bound."^[FN18]

The parties further acknowledged that they had been represented by legal counsel in the preparation and execution of the Stipulation of Settlement, being satisfied with the legal [*5]assistance provided by their respective counsel, with the understanding that if either sought to set aside the Stipulation of Settlement or any part thereof, that they would be required to pay the other's legal fees:

"16. Legal Representation. In connection with this Stipulation, the Husband has had the benefit of the advice of the Law Offices of Stuart Salles, Esq., 225 Broadway, Suite 1900, New York, New York 10007, independent counsel of his own selection. The Wife has had the benefit of the Law Office of Shari B. Rackman, 120 White Plains Road, Suite 420, Tarrytown, New York 10591. Each party shall be responsible for payment of their own attorney fees, if any. Each party acknowledges that all of the matters embodied in this Stipulation, including all terms, covenants, conditions, waivers, releases and other provisions contained herein, are fully understood by him or her; that he or she is entering into this Stipulation freely; voluntarily and after due consideration of the consequences of doing so; and that this Stipulation is valid and binding upon him or her. The parties represent that no other attorney has represented either with respect to this matter, that both have received proper and adequate legal advice from any counsel selected and that the parties are satisfied with such legal advice.

* * *

Should any party seek to set aside this agreement or any portion thereof and be unsuccessful in such effort, that party shall be fully and solely responsible for all costs and legal fees incurred by the other party. Settlement of any such action in favor of the opposing party or withdrawal of same shall entitle the other party to costs and fees. All costs and fees shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the termination or settlement of any such proceeding."^[FN19]

With respect to the Marital Domicile, the parties addressed their agreement as to the manner within which this asset would be addressed, initially setting forth the manner wherein Plaintiff would be able to engage in a buy-out of Defendant's interest in the property:

"13. Equitable Distribution. The parties hereto warrant and represent that they have considered their rights to equitable distribution under the laws of the State of New York and by this agreement wish to resolve all of their financial rights and obligations arising out of the marital relationship thereby making their own distribution of marital property.

* * *

Real Estate:

a. 216 XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Mount Vernon, New York 10552:

1. The Husband is the titled owner of a single-family home located at 216 XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Mount Vernon, New York 10552 ("The Marital Residence"), which was purchased in 2018. The parties agree that the Marital Residence is marital property. It is currently subject to a mortgage held by Rocket Mortgage, with a principal balance of $311,474.18 as of November 16, 2024. Pursuant to a court-ordered appraisal dated August 31, 2025, the Marital Residence is valued at $625,000. The equity is $313,525.82. Each party's portion is $156,762.91.

* * *

The parties agree that the Husband shall buy-out the Wife's interest to the Marital Residence within 120 days of the complete execution of this Stipulation of Settlement. Such buy-out shall be in the amount of $156,763.91.

* * *

The Husband obtained a recent pre-approval for a home equity loan in the amount of $123,212.27, with a net cash total received of $118,773.22, from Figure Lending LLC. The Husband shall pay the Wife the net proceeds he received from a home equity loan, which may differ from the pre-approval as it has expired at this time, but not less than $115,000. Any balance remaining between $156,762.91 and the money received by the Wife from the home equity loan shall be paid by the Wife from the Husband's half of the sale proceeds of the parties' Co-op referenced below more fully."^[FN20]

The parties then provided terms by which the Marital Domicile would be sold and proceeds distributed in the event Plaintiff failed to complete a buy-out of Defendant:

"In the event the Husband is unable to proceed with a buyout of the Wife's interest or fails to qualify to do so within 120 days, the Marital Residence shall be listed for sale with an agreed upon licensed real estate broker, no more than 20 days following the notice of failure to qualify or expiration of the 120 day period. The property shall remain listed until sold, and shall be relisted forthwith if a listing expires before a sale is effectuated or in the event that the parties enter into a Contract of Sale on which they do not close. Both parties shall diligently and timely execute all documents necessary to effectuate the initial listing, or any subsequent listing, and shall diligently and timely execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the sale of the Marital Residence, including but not limited to attending the closing in person or through a power of attorney (in the event a party is physically incapable of signing or attending the closing). The parties agree to accept any offer within 5% of the listing price from a bona fide purchaser, unless mutually agreed otherwise by the parties, in writing. In the event no viable offer within 5% of the asking price is received by the parties within 45 (forty-five) days of the listing, and unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, in writing, the asking price shall be reduced by 5%, and shall continue to be reduced by an additional 5% following each 45 (forty-five) day period thereafter. Notwithstanding the above reductions, the sales prices shall never fall below 20% of the initial asking price, absent mutual agreement of the parties, in writing. An open-house shall be permitted at least once per month at reasonable hours, and the Wife shall make the home available for showings on a reasonable basis. The Wife shall leave the home broom-clean at closing. It shall be the responsibility of the Wife to clean out the home in advance of the closing. The parties shall each receive half of the net sale proceeds, after subtracting closing costs, taxes, fees, customary seller's expenses, and any real estate attorney fees in the event the parties' choose to use one real estate attorney. As of commencement the mortgage principal balance was $311,474.18."^[FN21]

Following the Court having so-ordered the Stipulation of Settlement, at the same conference, counsel in the presence of the parties presented this Court with a proposed findings of fact which was entered on consent (hereinafter "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"),^[FN22] and a proposed Judgment of Divorce which was entered on consent (hereinafter "Judgment of Divorce").^[FN23]

The Judgment of Divorce includes the following provision:

"ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties on November 3, 2025, an original of which is on file with this Court and incorporated by reference, shall survive and shall not be merged into this judgment, and the parties are hereby directed to comply with all legally enforceable terms and conditions of said agreement as if such terms and conditions were set forth in their entirety herein;

* * *

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant shall be served with a copy of the judgment, with notice of entry, by Plaintiff within 20 days of such entry; "

On November 7, 2025, a notice of entry of the Judgment of Divorce was filed by Plaintiff's Counsel.^[FN24]

On November 21, 2025, Motion Sequence No. 1,^[FN25] was filed by Plaintiff, as a self-represented litigant, as an order to show cause, which was conformed by the Court and filed,^[FN26] directing: (1) by November 26, 2025, Plaintiff to serve Motion Sequence No. 1 on Defendant and Defendant's Counsel; and (2) providing December 9, 2025, as the return date for Motion Sequence No. 1, at which time all parties and counsel were directed to appear in person to engage in oral argument with this Court setting a briefing schedule if necessary.

In support of his application, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit, asserting that his relief was warranted:

"I am the Plaintiff in this action and I submit this Affidavit in support of my Order to Show Cause for post—judgment relief.***The parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement on November 3, 2025. A Judgment of Divorce incorporating that stipulation was filed and entered on November 7, 2025. Under the Stipulation and Judgment, the marital residence was valued at $625,000 based on the appraisal obtained during the divorce process. My buyout obligation to the Defendant was calculated using that figure, resulting in a required payment of $156,762.91. See Stipulation Exhibit C. On November 10, 2025-three days after the Judgment of Divorce was entered-I received a new [*6]refinance appraisal from Rocket Mortgage in connection with my pending refinance application. That appraisal valued the marital home at $490,000. A true and accurate copy of that appraisal is attached as Exhibit A. See Exhibit A. This refinance appraisal was not available to me at the time the stipulation was signed or when the Judgment was entered. I am bringing this application promptly after receiving this new valuation. Immediately upon receiving the appraisal, I provided it to my former attorney, to the Defendant and to the Defendant's attorney in order to ensure that all parties had the same information. A copy of my e-mail transmitting the appraisal to Defendant's counsel is attached as Exhibit B. The difference between the $625,000 valuation used in the Judgment and the $490,000 appraisal is approximately $135,000 (about 22%). Because the buyout amount of $156,762.91 was calculated using the higher valuation, enforcing the buyout amount without review would result in a significant and unjust overpayment. I am only requesting that the Court stay enforcement of the buyout provision and consider granting an equitable adjudgment, offset, or credit on this newly discovered valuation evidence. Exhibit A. I make this application in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. I remain ready to comply with the Judgment once the Court reviews this issue and determines the appropriate equitable enforcement."^[FN27]

On December 9, 2025, appearances were made by Plaintiff as a self-represented litigant, Defendant and Defendant's counsel, and oral argument was received.

[1] Request for Stay.

Pursuant to CPLR § 2201, "Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just," which is applicable to all New York State Courts exercising civil jurisdiction.^[FN28] Upon review of decision staying the enforcement of certain portions of a divorce judgment, the Second Department Appellate Division affirmed, noting:

"A court, pursuant to CPLR 2201, may sua sponte grant a stay of proceedings in an action that is pending before it (see, Sternberg v. New York Water Serv. Corp., 94 AD2d 723, 462 N.Y.S.2d 609). The term 'pending', as used in CPLR 2201, means 'captioned', and an action keeps its caption whatever the status of the judgment rendered in it (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2201:9, at 7)" (Halloran v. Halloran, 161 AD2d 562 [2d Dept 1990]; see also, Coburn [*7]v. Coburn, 109 AD2d 984 [3d Dept 1985] [Affirming sua sponte stay of enforcement of a custody order]).

In the event a stay is granted, a court may exercise discretion in setting forth terms to condition the stay (see, Ilton v. Stage St. Realty Corp, 212 AD2d 760 [2d Dept 1995]). Stays may be granted in both underlying matrimonial actions, or post-judgment applications where the trial court determines such relief appropriate (see, Lynch v. Lynch, 79 AD2d 675 [2d Dept 1980]). However, the denial to grant a stay will be upheld when the movant seeks to stay the enforcement of the terms of a stipulation of settlement incorporated, but not merged, into a judgment of divorce, where those terms are not unlawful:

"The plaintiff contends that a stay of enforcement of the parties' judgment of divorce, which was based on a stipulation of settlement that was incorporated but not merged into the judgment, was warranted because the stipulation did not comply with the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 240(1—b)(h). The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the stipulation complied with Domestic Relations Law § 240(1—b)(h) (see Lewis v. Goldberg, 6 AD3d 395, 774 N.Y.S.2d 369; Gallet v. Wasserman, 280 AD2d 296, 722 N.Y.S.2d 226). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly declined to stay enforcement of the judgment of divorce" (see, Bhandary v. Bhandary, 50 AD3d 612 [2d Dept 2009]).

Here, for the reasons set forth below, this Court declines to enter a stay of this post-judgment litigation and/or the enforcement of the Stipulation of Settlement and/or the Judgment of Divorce as the Court determines that there is no basis to do so.

[2] Request for Modification of Stipulation of Settlement/Judgment of Divorce.

"A stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation" (Meccio v. Meccio, 76 NY2d 822 [1990]). Where a settlement agreement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is "clear and unambiguous on its face," the parties' intent will be determined "from within the four corners of the instrument" (Id.). "An ambiguity exists only if the contract is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation" (Nappy v. Nappy, 40 AD3d 825 [2d Dept 2007]). "A court's fundamental objective in interpreting a contract is to determine the parties' intent from the language employed and to fulfill their reasonable expectations" (Landmark Ventures, Inc. v. H5 Tech., Inc., 152 AD3d 657 [2d Dept 2017]). An unambiguous agreement "must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms" (MHR Capital Partners LP v. Presstek, Inc., 12 NY3d 640 [2009]).

Here, the parties entered into the Stipulation of Settlement which is a binding contract and includes terms which were clear and unambiguous on their face setting forth Plaintiff's obligations pertaining to the Marital Domicile, with respect to his option to either buy-out Defendant's share or to move forward with the sale of the property in the event he elects not to engage in the buy-out or cannot do so. Those terms, largely recited above, further confirm that the parties engaged in discovery, waived further discovery, agreed that the Stipulation of Settlement would be a final resolution of the issues arising out of the requested dissolution of their marriage and that those terms would be incorporated by reference, but not merged, into the Judgment of Divorce. The record further confirms that the parties, both represented by counsel (having confirmed their respective satisfaction with the legal services provided to them by their [*8]own counsel in the drafting and execution of the Stipulation of Settlement), were also subject to an allocution by this Court prior to the Stipulation of Settlement being so-ordered.

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals has recognized the inherent power of a Court over its own judgments to exercise discretion to set aside or modify judgments:

"The whole power of the court to relieve from judgments taken through 'mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect' is not limited by section 724; but in the exercise of its control over its judgments it may open them upon the application of any one for sufficient reason in the furtherance of justice. Its power to do so does not depend upon any statute, but is inherent, and it would be quite unfortunate if it did not possess it to the fullest extent" (see, Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 NY 325 [1889]; see also, Halloran v. Halloran, 161 AD2d 562 [2d Dept 1990] ["Furthermore, the Supreme Court has inherent power to set aside, correct or modify its own orders"]).

Irrespective of this authority, in the context of matrimonial actions and post-judgment applications made seeking the modification of equitable distribution provisions set forth in a judgment of divorce, one recent decision set forth the applicable law in an extremely erudite manner:

"While a court of equity generally has authority to modify its own judgments, "permitting the modification of the equitable distribution provisions of a judgment of divorce 'would effectively undermine the finality of [matrimonial] judgments.' " Welsh v. Lawler, 282 AD2d 977, 724 N.Y.S.2d 522 (3d Dept. 2001) (quoting Siegel v. Siegel, 132 AD2d 247, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517 [2d Dept. 1987]). Indeed, "while the law permits modification of child support and maintenance awards there is no comparable provision allowing modification of equitable distribution awards." Wasserman v. Wasserman, 103 AD3d 793, 959 N.Y.S.2d 451 (2d Dept. 2013).

Here, the Defendant's argument that the parties' post-judgment relationship entitles him to an Order modifying equitable distribution must fail, as it is well settled that courts cannot modify equitable distribution awards based on changes in circumstances *830 that took place after the judgment was entered. McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 70 AD3d 1129, 895 N.Y.S.2d 228 (3d Dept. 2010) (citing Siegel v. Siegel, supra.); Wasserman v. Wasserman, supra" (see, V.F. v. L.F., 74 Misc 3d 825 [Nassau Cty Sup 2022]).

Accordingly, it would be wholly improper for this Court to grant the relief sought by Plaintiff in the instant application, which would amount to a modification of the Stipulation of Settlement and Judgment of Divorce, as it would not only undermine the finality of the Judgment of Divorce but disregard the bargained for exchange engaged in by the parties with the assistance of counsel which resulted in the drafting of the Stipulation of Settlement, the terms of which are incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce. While Plaintiff asserts that the appraisal report was not available prior to the entry of the Judgment of Divorce, that fact is of no legal consequence, as the many terms recited above contained on the Stipulation of Settlement confirmed that the parties had completed discovery and were waiving any further discovery. Plaintiff argues that the application of the present terms would result in an unjust outcome due to the new appraisal report providing a lesser value of the property then what was agreed upon by the parties in the Stipulation of Settlement, such agreement being based on the Court appointed [*9]neutral real property appraiser's report. However, granting the requested relief would result in a truly unjust result, as would granting Defendant an upward modification in her equitable distribution pertaining to the subject property, if the new appraisal resulted in a higher value than the value of the property set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.

[3] Other Requested Relief.

Any relief requested not expressly granted herein is denied.

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that by December 10, 2025, Defendant's counsel shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry on Plaintiff, and by that date shall file proof of service with the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall order a copy of the court transcript, pay the entire cost of the transcript from the December 9, 2025, appearance and submit to the Court to be so-ordered by January 9, 2026; 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.