The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 001) numbered 4-28, 30, 40-51 and (Motion No. 002) numbered 32-39 were read on this motion.

Upon the foregoing documents, and on consideration of the oral argument conducted on November 19, 2025, Motion Sequence No. 001 and Motion Sequence No. 002 are resolved and therefore, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request to find the Defendant in Contempt of Court for his alleged failure to comply with terms and conditions of the parties February 9, 2022 Marital Settlement and Support Agreement is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request to find the Defendant, in violation of the Parties' parenting agreement in that the Defendant allegedly failed to bring the Child to any of his medical appointments, hair cut appointments, school activities and extracurricular activities is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that each party advise the other what medical appointments, dental appointments, hair appointments and the like appointments are required for the child monthly, the appointments are to be divided between the Parties' as equally as possible, and each party shall make their half of the appointments and bring the Child to those appointments; and it is further,

ORDERED, that while Parties should consider the Child's best interests in determining invitations for the Child to attend parties, social events, play dates, and the like, shall not be considered as appointments described above; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's summer camp expenses for 2025 is GRANTED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's summer camp expenses for 2025 to the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,437.50 [TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS] within thirty days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's request to cap the cost of camp at $2,000.00 is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's reasonable summer camp expenses within thirty days upon proof provided to the Defendant until such time as childcare is unnecessary; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's tuition, PTA, uniform, and all related expenses for the Child to attend St. Bernadette Catholic Academy is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the arears of the Child's extracurricular activities is GRANTED in the amount of $450.00 [FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS]; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the arrears of the Child's extracurricular activities the amount of $450.00 [FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] within 30 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant's request to cap the cost of Child's extracurricular activities at $500.00 per calendar year is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of all the Child's extracurricular activities up to a cap of $900.00 [NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per year commencing January 1, 2026; and it is further.

ORDERED, that any agreement to exceed the cap on extracurricular activities shall only be binding upon the Parties in a signed writing with specificity as to the amount and activity; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's eyeglass expense from Bensonhurst Family Vision, dated July 26, 2024, is GRANTED in the amount of $242.50 [TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS]; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff fifty percent (50%) of the cost of [*2]the of the Child's eyeglass expense from Bensonhurst Family Vision, dated July 26, 2024, in the amount of $242.50 [TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS] within 30 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the party seeking reimbursement for any medical or medical-related expense for the Child shall provide the reimbursing party with documentation of the expense within fourteen (14) days of the expense having been incurred; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the party reimbursing any medical or medical-related expense for the Child shall reimburse the expense within 14 days of the proof of expense being provided; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's request to restrict Child's procurement of prescription eyeglasses or in the alternative cap Defendant's reimbursable share of Child's prescription eyeglasses at $150.00 per year is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for reimbursement for half of the cost of the Child's 4th Birthday Party is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for modification of Child Support is GRANTED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant pay to the Plaintiff Child Support for the Child RC (DOB XX/XX/2018) in the amount of $170.00 [ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per week commencing on January 1, 2026; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request to modify Defendant's parenting-time is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's overnight parenting-time is modified in that it shall commence on Fridays at 4:30 PM beginning January 2, 2026; and it is further,

ORDERED, that when the Defendant has parenting-time with the Child, Defendant shall ensure that the Plaintiff shall at least one daily telephone/Facetime contact with the Child not to exceeding twenty minutes; and it is further,

ORDERED, that on consent of the Parties, Parties shall use Our Family Wizard for the sole purpose of communication regarding the Child; and it is further,

ORDERED, that in the event of an emergency regarding the health or welfare of the Child, telephonic communication shall be authorized for notification of such emergency; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Parties shall exchange proof of compliance with Settlement Agreement's Life Insurance Policy requirement within 30 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for all pickup and drop offs of the Child by the Defendant shall be curbside only at Plaintiff's current residence or at her brother's home in Richmond County, if she chooses, unless the parties agree otherwise is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that if parties are unable to agree on a pickup and drop off location for the exchange of the Child, the pickup and drop off location shall be the nearest police precinct to the Plaintiff's residence; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 001 request for counsel fees is GRANTED and Plaintiff is awarded counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS], and to be paid by Defendant directly to Plaintiff within 10 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 002 request for counsel fees is [*3]GRANTED and Defendant is awarded counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS], and to be paid by Plaintiff directly to Defendant within 10 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that any relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED.

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

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

Plaintiff MC and Defendant CC entered into a Stipulation of Settlement entitled "Marital Settlement and Support Agreement" on February 9, 2022 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9) and were subsequently divorced in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division Family Part Monmouth County on February 17, 2022. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 8). At the time of the Divorce, Plaintiff was a resident of the State of New Jersey and Defendant was a resident of Richmond County, New York. The Marital Settlement and Support Agreement was incorporated, but not merged into the Judgment of Divorce. (see id).

On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff registered the foreign divorce with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1). On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff served the Defendant with the Notice of the filing of a Foreign Judgment. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 10).

On July 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed Motion Sequence No. 001 by Order to Show Cause seeking: (1) the Court find the Defendant in Contempt of Court for his failure to comply with terms and conditions of the parties February 9, 2022 Marital Settlement and Support Agreement; (2) to compel the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff his fifty percent share of add on expenses for the Parties' Child, RC, born on XX/XX/2018, (Child) retroactive to February 17, 2022 in the amount of Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars and Thirty-Five Cents ($11,779.35); (3) an upward modification of basic child support and child support add on expenses to be paid by the Defendant as and for the support of the Child; (4) to find the Defendant, in violation of the parties parenting agreement in that the Defendant failed to bring the Child to any of his medical appointments, hair cut appointments, school activities and extracurricular activities; and (5) modification of Defendant's parenting time with Child in that when the Child has scheduled medical appointments, hair cut appointments, school activities and extracurricular activities, the Child will remain with the Plaintiff until the end of that event and then the Defendant's parenting time shall commence and that the Plaintiff shall have telephone and/or Facetime contact with the subject child, RC when the subject child is in the care and custody of the Defendant.

Plaintiff further seeks (6) communication between the Parties to be via Our Family Wizard; (7) Defendant to obtain a life insurance policy in the amount of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) for the benefit of the Child, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Parties" February 9, 2022 Marital Settlement and Support Agreement which was incorporated not merged into the Judgment of Divorce entered on February 17, 2022; (8) Defendant to pay interim counsel fees in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) to Plaintiff's counsel for the expenses related to Motion Sequence No. 001; and (9) for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

On September 25, 2025, Defendant filed Motion Sequence No. 002 by Notice of Cross [*4]Motion seeking: (a) denial of the Plaintiff's request to hold the Defendant in contempt for alleged failure to comply with the terms of the Parties' agreement and Judgment of Divorce; (b) denial of Plaintiff's request for counsel fees; (c) denial of Plaintiff's request for $11,779.35 as such sums are not due based upon the terms of the Parties' agreement and/or based upon the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirements set forth therein and/or the fact that payments alleged have been paid; (d) denial of Plaintiff's request for an upward modification as the Defendant's income does not warrant such adjustment and that the allegations set forth by the Plaintiff are not accurate or true; and (e) denial of Plaintiff's request that the Defendant obtain life insurance as he already maintains such coverage since the inception of the action and has continued to maintain such coverage and as such is in compliance with the Parties' agreement.

Defendant further seeks: (f) Plaintiff to provide proof of a life insurance policy for the benefit of the subject child in the amount of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars (150,000.00) in accordance with terms of the Parties' Stipulation of Settlement; (g) modification of the Parties' agreement and directing that the Plaintiff shall not make appointments for the child of any kind or nature barring and emergency as well as any other activities for the child when the Defendant has the child for his overnight alternate weeks or any other parenting-time (h) modification of the Parties' agreement so that the Defendant's parenting-time shall commence on Fridays at 4:30 pm; (i) all pick up and drop offs of the Child by the Defendant shall be curbside only at Plaintiff's current residence or at her brother's home in Richmond County, if she chooses, unless the parties agree otherwise; (j) Plaintiff to cease and desist from enrolling the Child in sporting events, lessons, and extracurricular activities on the weekends that the Defendant has the child absent the Defendant's written consent; and (k) modification of the Parties' agreement to reflect that the Defendant shall not be liable to pay more than 50% of the Child's day camp while the Plaintiff is working and that the Defendant's share shall not exceed the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) in total for such camp.

Furthermore, Defendant seeks: (l) modification of the Parties' agreement to provide a Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) cap per calendar year on Defendant's contribution for Child's extracurricular activities, including but not limited to lessons, equipment, uniforms related to such activities; (m) denial of the Plaintiff's request to hold Defendant in contempt and for counsel fees; (n) Plaintiff to pay to Defendant's counsel the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00) for alleged frivolous motion practice and alleged failure to comply with the terms of the Parties' agreement; (o) Plaintiff to be required to submit all proof of co-pays and any other mandatory add-ons the Defendant is required to pay within 14 days of the Plaintiff's payment of such expenses or that request for reimbursement be forfeited; and (p) Plaintiff procure eyewear for the Child through under the provider issue or that the Defendant's share be capped at the sum of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per year.

Defendant further seeks (q) Plaintiff cease and desist from communicating with the Defendant and that communication only be through Our Family Wizard; (r) dismissal of any remaining relief sought by the Plaintiff in her Order to Show Cause; and (s) such other further and different relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Plaintiff filed opposition to Motion Sequence No. 002 and Reply on Motion Sequence No. 001 on October 24, 2025. Defendant waived Reply on Motion Sequence No. 002. Oral argument was completed on November 19, 2025. This is a Decision and Order on Motion Sequence No. 003 and Motion Sequence No. 004.

Parties were married on XX/XX/2016 in a civil ceremony. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9). There is one child of the marriage; to wit: RC, born XX/XX/2018. (see id). Subsequently, Defendant instituted an action for divorce before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-XXX. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9). On or about February 9, 2022, Parties entered into a "Marital Settlement and Support Agreement", hereinafter referred to as "Settlement Agreement" which resolved all the issues of the parties' divorce action, including maintenance and support of the parties' child. (see id).

On February 17, 2022, the Hon. Angela White Dalton of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division Family Part Monmouth County granted a Dual Judgment of Divorce. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 8). The Settlement Agreement was which was incorporated not merged into the Judgment of Divorce." (see id). The Court [Hon. Angela White Dalton] made no findings of fact as to the adequacy and sufficiency of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, but found that the parties voluntarily entered into the Settlement Agreement, and were ordered to comply with and carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (see id).

The Settlement Agreement contains several provisions relevant to the issues before the court. Under the heading of "Child Support" the Settlement Agreement provides:

The parties agree to share equally the child's extracurricular activity fees including lessons and sports related activities. The parties shall obtain the consent of the other party prior to enrolling the child in any extracurricular activities, which such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. A party shall not be entitled to reimbursement under this Paragraph if he or she fails to obtain prior consent before enrolling the child in extracurricular activities unless same is determined as unreasonably withheld. As to an activity to which each party has consented, each party shall be responsible for ensuring that the child attends his activity, including any practices or social events attendant thereto, during that party's parenting time. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9 at ¶16).

If there is a need for the child to attend any care-programs resulting from WIFE's need for work-related childcare during the school year or in summer, the parties shall share equally the costs. HUSBAND shall pay his one-half share to the Wife on the first of each month, and the Wife will provide proof each month to the Husband that she has paid the funds to the care provider. (see id at ¶17).

Under the heading of "Custody and Parenting Time" the Settlement Agreement provides that "[a]s to [the Child's] medical appointments, dental appointments, hair appointments and the like, the parties will alternate taking [the Child] on such appointments." (see id at ¶12). This section further provides:

Post-Judgment, the parties shall communicate on a regular basis as to what appointments are needed, and Husband shall be responsible for scheduling one-half of said appointments during his parenting time with [the Child], or Husband shall take time during the week to bring [the Child] to the Husband's share of said appointments. The Wife will not be solely responsible for scheduling and managing [the Child's] care schedule, and for ensuring that [the Child] is able to attend his appointments. Consistent [*6]with sharing joint legal custody, the parties shall share this responsibility equally. (see id).

During the Husband's overnight parenting time, the Wife shall have one Face Time call with [the Child], per day, at an appropriate hour, to be decided by the Husband and Wife, ideally at the end of the day so that the Wife may say goodnight to RC. (see id at ¶11).

HUSBAND shall exercise overnight parenting time with the child on an alternate weekend basis commencing on Friday at 6:30 p.m., to Sunday at 6 p.m. The HUSBAND shall have liberal non-overnight parenting time with the child when he does not have overnight parenting time, provided such time does not interfere with the child's school or extracurricular activities. (see id at ¶8).

Under the heading of "Life Insurance" the Settlement Agreement further provides that the Husband and Wife

shall each obtain a life insurance policy on their respective lives with a face value of one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000) dollars naming the child as equal beneficiaries with the other parent (ie/Wife and Husband) as Trustee/Custodian until the child is emancipated. (see id at ¶24).

Under the heading of "Medical Expenses the parties' Settlement Agreement provides

The parties shall share the cost of unreimbursed health bills for the parties' child including but not limited to medical, hospital, pharmacy, dental, optical, orthodontic, psychiatric and/or psychological counseling for the child of any kind or nature, ordinary or extraordinary after the first two hundred fifty ($250) dollars per child per year or other amount established by the Child Support Guidelines is used by WIFE for those purposes. The parties shall share unreimbursed medical expenses for the child equally. The reimbursing party shall pay the other party within fourteen (14) days after being presented with proof of receipt of the Explanation of Benefits from the insurance company or copies of co-pay receipts. (see id at ¶23).

A. Contempt

a. Legal Standard

"A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" (see Matter of Mendoza-Pautrat v Razdan, 160 AD3d 963 [2d Dept 2018] citing Cassarino v Cassarino, 149 AD3d 689 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of Hughes v Kameneva, 96 AD3d 845 [2d Dept 2012]; Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 AD3d 944 [2d Dept 2009]).

"A hearing is required 'if the papers in opposition raise a factual dispute as to the elements of civil contempt, or the existence of a defense'" (see Lundgren v Lundgren, 127 AD3d 938 [2d Dept 2015] quoting El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d 4 [2d Dept 2013]; citing Coyle v Coyle, 63 AD3d 657 [2d Dept 2009]; Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1073 [2d Dept 2008]).

"A hearing is not mandated 'in every instance where contempt is sought; it need only be conducted if a factual dispute exists which cannot be resolved on the papers alone'" (see Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1073 quoting Jaffe v Jaffe, 44 AD3d 825 [2d Dept 2007], quoting Bowie v Bowie, 182 AD2d 1049 [3d Dept 1992]). A [*7]"hearing must be held if issues of fact are raised" (see id quoting Quantum Heating Services, Inc. v Austern, 100 AD2d 843 [2d Dept 1984]; citing Mulder v Mulder, 191 AD2d 541 [2d Dept 1993]).

The movant in a civil contempt motion bears the burden of proof. (see Matter of Mendoza-Pautrat v Razdan, 160 AD3d 963 [2d Dept 2018] citing Vujovic v Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490 [2d Dept 2005]; Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri, 305 AD2d 394 [2d Dept 2003]).

To sustain an application for civil contempt under Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3], a movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence the following:

1. The existence of a clear and unequivocal mandate of the Court;

2. The contemnor's actual knowledge of said order;

3. Willful disobedience of the mandate;

4. Resulting prejudice to the movant's rights.

This extraordinary remedy will not lie absent unequivocal judicial directives and demonstrable willfulness.

b. Merits of Application

Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has failure to abide by the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement due to his alleged failure to bring the Child to the Child's appointments, extracurricular activities and make appointments for the parties' Child as required by the Settlement Agreement. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5 at ¶7). Plaintiff submits Exhibit D in support of this allegation. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 11). The context of the email appears to be the Defendant declining to bring the Child to some event that the child was invited to during the Defendant's parenting-time. (see id).

Plaintiff also provides a copy of email correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 43). On May 8, 2025, among other communication, Plaintiff informs the Defendant, that the Child will be going to a party on the 17th, presumably this party takes place during the Defendant's parenting-time. (see id). Defendant responds

I will pick up RC Friday and I have already made plans for the weekend. Also please don't threaten me that you will make other arrangements, you will not. It's my time with RC this weekend and how I decide to spend [t]he weekend is up to me. RC is a minor he doesn't dictate what the plans will be, and neither do you. (see id).

Plaintiff further contends that she has been blocked by the Defendant and cannot communicate with him regarding our son and that she is unable to speak with the Child one time per day when he is in the care and custody of the Defendant. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5 at ¶7).

Plaintiff submitted Exhibit C and email from the Defendant to the Plaintiff in which Defendant notifies the Plaintiff:

Please do not email me any longer, I had requested months ago to solely communicate via our family wizard. Please download the app and sign up. I will no longer be engaging in any of your emails to demand and dictate how I should spend my time with my son on the weekends legally allotted to me. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 44).

Plaintiff submitted Exhibit E in which Defendant in an email dated September 17, 2025, declined to commit to take the Child to an "event with his friends". (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 46). In another email dated September 23, 2025, Defendant advised the Plaintiff he [*8]already had plans for his weekend of October 3 through October 5, when Plaintiff advised the Child had a game on October 4, 2025. (see id).

Plaintiff further submitted documentation of communications from email and purported communications via Our Family Wizard purportedly demonstrating Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiff's communications. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 45). The communications include sending Defendant a $30.00 dental bill; the date of the Child's football game; Plaintiff notifying the Defendant at what time he may pick up the child; using the child in a toothpaste ad; and advising Defendant that the Child can wear the same shirt the next day. (see id). There were attempts by Plaintiff to call Defendant via Our Family Wizard that were blocked because audio and video calls were not consented to. (see id).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has not paid for the Child's extracurricular activities and has not maintained the Child's health insurance. (see id at ¶8). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant failed to pay to the Plaintiff $2,400.00 for his 50 percent of Plaintiff's work-related childcare in the form of summer camp. (see id at ¶9). Plaintiff Exhibit E, an email chain purporting to originate from Poly Summer camp, which provides a welcome and list of information/items required and deadlines for submissions. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12). Despite Plaintiff's contention that this email contains bills annexed, there is no bill for $4,800.00 [Four Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars and No Cents] from the summer camp provider attached. (see id). Plaintiff's Exhibit F provides an invoice from Poly Summer in the amount of $4,875.00 for the period of June 30, 2025 through August 8, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 13).

The Parties Settlement Agreement is silent as to summer camp; however, the agreement specifically provides as follow:

If there is a need for the child to attend any care-programs resulting from WIFE's need for work-related childcare during the school year or in summer, the parties shall share equally the costs. HUSBAND shall pay his one-half share to the Wife on the first of each month, and the Wife will provide proof each month to the Husband that she has paid the funds to the care provider. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9 at ¶17).

The Second Department has held that a child's summer camp expenses constitute the functional equivalent of day care expenses. (see Fiore v Fiore, 150 AD3d 1205 [2d Dept 2017] citing Micciche v Micciche, 62 AD3d 673 [2d Dept 2009]; Matter of Maiolica v Maiolica, 30 AD3d 603 [2d Dept 2006]; Sieratzki v Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552 [2d Dept 2004]). Accordingly, Defendant is liable for one half of the Child's summer camp expenses.

Plaintiff alleges that the Parties agreed that the Child would attend Catholic School at St. Bernadette Elementary school in Brooklyn, New York and after Plaintiff enrolled the Child in said school, the Defendant made one payment then refused to pay further. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5 at ¶10). Defendant submits bills for school uniforms and payments made to St. Bernadette Elementary school. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 13).

Plaintiff submitted Exhibit F, a somewhat convoluted text communication, purportedly between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in which Defendant allegedly consents to enrolling the child in catholic school. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 47). Plaintiff's Exhibit G is another equally vague communication which seems to indicate that Plaintiff is willing to waive the cost of day camp if Defendant helps her with school tuition. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 48).

Plaintiff's exhibits appear to aver that Plaintiff has incurred costs relating to the Child's [*9]Catholic schooling in the total amount of $15,378.00. These fees are comprised of tuition for 2023 in the total amount of $5,050.00; tuition for 2024 in the total amount of $6,985.00; and tuition for 2025 in the total amount of $1,380.00. Plaintiff further claims Total PTA fees in the amount of $1,150.00 and school uniform fees in the amount of $813.55. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's share is $7,689.00.

The Parties' Settlement Agreement only addresses the issue of the cost of the Child's college education. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9 at ¶18; ¶19). There is no agreement or even any discussion of the Child attending private school for elementary school or high school. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff fails to persuade the Court of the Defendant's alleged consent to pay half the Child's tuition in a private school.

"[A] stipulation of settlement which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability" (see Trimarco v Trimarco, 154 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2017] quoting Sabowitz v Sabowitz, 123 AD3d 794 [2d Dept 2014]; citing D'Iorio v D'Iorio, 135 AD3d 693 [2d Dept 2016]). Accordingly, after considering all the evidence submitted and the best interests of the child, there is no requirement for the Defendant to pay one half of the cost of the Child's private school and related expenses.

c. Conclusion on Contempt Application

There are clearly communication and control issues between the parties. The Settlement Agreement is clear. "Post-Judgment, the parties shall communicate on a regular basis as to what appointments are needed, and Husband shall be responsible for scheduling one-half of said appointments during his parenting time with [the Child], or Husband shall take time during the week to bring [the Child] to the Husband's share of said appointments." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9 at ¶12).

Both Parties need to communicate regarding the child. The Settlement Agreement provides that "[a]s to [the Child's] medical appointments, dental appointments, hair appointments and the like, the parties will alternate taking [the Child] on such appointments." (see id at ¶12). Defendant shares joint legal custody and with that comes joint responsibility. Defendant is expected to carry his half of the responsibilities in the form taking the child to half the medical appointments, dental appointments, hair appointments and the like, just as Plaintiff bears the same responsibility. Both parties are expected to always exercise their responsibilities in the best interests of the child, meaning, for example, if the Child is ill, the Child should be taken to the doctor immediately, not delayed until he can be handed off to the other parent because it is not that parent's turn.

The Parties clearly have a great deal of anger and resentment towards each other. Control issues clashing with communications issues. Defendant's conduct has been far from exemplary, but Plaintiff's approach of throwing everything against the wall in a hodgepodge manner hoping to find something that would stick, fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant a clear and unequivocal mandate contained within the Parties' Settlement Agreement.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request to find the Defendant in Contempt of Court for his alleged failure to comply with terms and conditions of the parties February 9, 2022 Marital Settlement and Support Agreement is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request to find the Defendant, in violation of the Parties' parenting agreement in that the Defendant allegedly failed to bring the Child to any of his [*10]medical appointments, hair cut appointments, school activities and extracurricular activities is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that each party advise the other what medical appointments, dental appointments, hair appointments and the like appointments are required for the child monthly, the appointments are to be divided between the Parties' as equally as possible, and each party shall make their half of the appointments and bring the Child to those appointments; and it is further,

ORDERED, that while Parties should consider the Child's best interests in determining invitations for the Child to attend parties, social events, play dates, and the like, shall not be considered as appointments described above.

B. Arrears on Add-On Expenses

Plaintiff seeks the Defendant to pay Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars and Thirty-Five Cents ($11,779.35) as and for the Defendant's fifty percent share of add-on expenses for the child. Plaintiff's request is handled in the same slipshod way her request for contempt was handled. Other than the Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of half the Child's summer camp in the amount of $4,800.00 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12), in actuality the receipt provided is for $4,875.00 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 13 at 125), the Plaintiff provides no breakdown in her affirmation and relies on various receipts, emails, and bank statements.

Plaintiff's documentation includes receipts totaling at follows:

a. Summer Camp 2024 & 2025

The Parties agreed to an equal split in the cost of childcare in their separation agreement. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9 at ¶17). The Second Department has held that a child's summer camp expenses constitute the functional equivalent of day care expenses. (see Fiore v Fiore, 150 AD3d 1205 [2d Dept 2017] citing Micciche v Micciche, 62 AD3d 673 [2d Dept 2009]; Matter of Maiolica v Maiolica, 30 AD3d 603 [2d Dept 2006]; Sieratzki v Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552 [2d Dept 2004]). Accordingly, Defendant is liable for one half of the Child's summer camp expenses. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's summer camp expenses for 2025 is GRANTED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's summer camp expenses for 2025 to the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,437.50 [TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS] within thirty days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's request to cap the cost of camp at $2,000.00 is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's reasonable summer camp expenses within thirty days upon proof provided to the Defendant until such time as childcare is unnecessary.

b. St. Bernadette Catholic Academy Tuition, PTA, and Related Expenses

The Parties' Settlement Agreement only addresses the issue of the cost of the Child's college education. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9 at ¶18; ¶19). There is no agreement or even any discussion of the Child attending private school for elementary school or high school. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff fails to persuade the Court of the Defendant's alleged consent to pay half the Child's tuition in a private school.

"[A] stipulation of settlement which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability" (see Trimarco v Trimarco, 154 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2017] quoting Sabowitz v Sabowitz, 123 AD3d 794 [2d Dept 2014]; citing D'Iorio v D'Iorio, 135 AD3d 693 [2d Dept 2016]). The Court, having considered all the evidence submitted and the best interests of the child, finds that there is no requirement for the Defendant to pay one half of the cost of the Child's private school and related expenses.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's tuition, PTA, uniform, and all related expenses for the Child to attend St. Bernadette Catholic Academy is DENIED.

c. Add-on Extracurricular Activity Expenses

The evidence provided documents various sports activities for the Child totaling a total amount of $917.87. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 13). Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement and failed to obtain the Defendant's consent to enroll the Child in some of these activities. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 33). Defendant specifically contests payment to Amazing Athletes, Bernadette soccer, Next Level Sports and TeamSnap. (see id).

The Parties' Settlement Agreement provides

The parties agree to share equally the child's extracurricular activity fees including lessons and sports related activities. The parties shall obtain the consent of the other party prior to enrolling the child in any extracurricular activities, which such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. A party shall not be entitled to reimbursement under this Paragraph if he or she fails to obtain prior consent before enrolling the child in extracurricular activities unless same is determined as unreasonably withheld. As to an activity to which each party has consented, each party shall be responsible for ensuring that the child attends his activity, including any practices or social events attendant thereto, during that party's parenting time. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9 at ¶16).

At this juncture, the evidence provided is contradictory. There is no clear evidence of what activities the Child was previously enrolled in and what actives where added without consent. It is reasonable, for a child of this age and physical well being to be enrolled in activities and the Parties' Settlement Agreement anticipates the Child being enrolled in such activities.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the arears of the Child's extracurricular activities is GRANTED in the amount of $450.00 [FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS]; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the arrears of the Child's extracurricular activities the amount of $450.00 [FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] within 30 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant's request to cap the cost of Child's extracurricular activities at $500.00 per calendar year is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of all the Child's extracurricular activities up to a cap of $900.00 [NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per year commencing January 1, 2026; and it is further.

ORDERED, that any agreement to exceed the cap on extracurricular activities shall only be binding upon the Parties in a signed writing with specificity as to the amount and activity.

d. Co-payment Expenses

The evidence provided by the Plaintiff documents one medical expense for the Child in the amount of $485.00 as evidenced by a paid bill, dated July 26, 2024, for eyeglasses from Bensonhurst Family Vision. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 13 at page 56). Defendant provides in his affidavit a litany of medical co-pays paid to the Plaintiff, but does not specifically reference the July 26, 2024 eyeglass invoice. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 33 at ¶20).

The parties shall share the cost of unreimbursed health bills for the parties' child including but not limited to medical, hospital, pharmacy, dental, optical, orthodontic, psychiatric and/or psychological counseling for the child of any kind or nature, ordinary or extraordinary after the first two hundred fifty ($250) dollars per child per year or other amount established by the Child Support Guidelines is used by WIFE for those purposes. The parties shall share unreimbursed medical expenses for the child equally. The reimbursing party shall pay the other party within fourteen (14) days after being presented with proof of receipt of the Explanation of Benefits from the insurance company or copies of co-pay receipts. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9 at ¶23).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's eyeglass expense from Bensonhurst Family Vision, dated July 26, 2024, is GRANTED in the amount of $242.50 [TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS]; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the of the Child's eyeglass expense from Bensonhurst Family Vision, dated July 26, 2024, in the amount of $242.50 [TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS] within 30 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the party seeking reimbursement for any medical or medical-related expense for the Child shall provide the reimbursing party with documentation of the expense within fourteen (14) days of the expense having been incurred; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the party reimbursing any medical or medical-related expense for the Child shall reimburse the expense within 14 days of the proof of expense being provided; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's request to restrict Child's procurement of prescription eyeglasses or in the alternative cap Defendant's reimbursable share of Child's prescription eyeglasses at $150.00 per year is DENIED.

e. 4th Birthday Party

Plaintiff provides the Court with an email receipt forwarded to the Plaintiff from Pump It Up in Freehold, New Jersey, dated June 12, 2022 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 13 at page 73). This receipt references a 4th Birthday party for the Child described as "Classic 24 Kids Weekend" in the amount of $539.00. (see id). The Notation on the bill is "Would Not Split".

While it would have been very nice if the Parties were at a point in their post-marital relationship where they could join together to celebrate an event for the Child, the Parties are not at that point yet. There is no requirement for the Defendant to share in the cost of any celebratory event that the Plaintiff chooses to host for the child.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for reimbursement for half of the cost of the Child's 4th Birthday Party is DENIED.

C. Modification of Child Support

"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 [*12]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's statement of net worth, as of June 16, 2025, reflects a gross income of $80,792.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 15). Defendant's statement of net worth, as of September 18, 2025, reflects a gross income of $58,202.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 35).

"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]).

"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 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 based on the evidence provided by the Parties, the Court does not impute any additional income to either party and calculates Child Support based on the incomes provided by the parties.

"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]).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for modification of Child Support is GRANTED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant pay to the Plaintiff Child Support for the Child RC (DOB XX/XX/2018) in the amount of $170.00 [ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per week commencing on January 1, 2026.

D. Modification of Parenting-Time

Plaintiff seeks modification of Defendant's parenting-time with Child in that when the Child has scheduled medical appointments, hair cut appointments, school activities and extracurricular activities, the Child will remain with the Plaintiff until the end of that event and then the Defendant's parenting time shall commence and that the Plaintiff shall have telephone and/or Facetime contact with the subject child, RC when the subject child is in the care and custody of the Defendant.

Plaintiff's request to modify Defendant's parenting-time is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's overnight parenting-time is modified in that it shall commence on Fridays at 4:30 PM beginning January 2, 2026; and it is further,

ORDERED, that when the Defendant has parenting-time with the Child, Defendant shall ensure that the Plaintiff shall at least one daily telephone/Facetime contact with the Child not to exceeding twenty minutes.

E. Communication Between Parties

On consent, Parties ORDERED to use Our Family Wizard for the sole purpose of communication regarding the child; and it is further,

ORDERED, that in the event of an emergency regarding the health or welfare of the Child, telephonic communication shall be authorized for notification of such emergency.

F. Life Insurance Policy

Parties ORDERED to exchange proof of compliance with Settlement Agreement's Life Insurance Policy requirement within 30 days.

G. Pickup and Drop off Location

Defendant's request for all pickup and drop offs of the Child by the Defendant shall be curbside only at Plaintiff's current residence or at her brother's home in Richmond County, if she chooses, unless the parties agree otherwise is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that if parties are unable to agree on a pickup and drop off location for the exchange of the Child, the pickup and drop off location shall be the nearest police precinct to the Plaintiff's residence.

H. Counsel Fees

"Domestic Relations Law § 238 authorizes a court, in its discretion, to award counsel fees in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of a divorce judgment" (see Yakobowicz v. Yakobowicz, 2023 NY App Div LEXIS 3019 [2d Dept 2023] quoting Tuchman v Tuchman, 201 AD3d 993 [2d Dept 2022] citing Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b], [c]). "[A] court may require . . . [one] party [to] pay counsel fees to enable the other party to carry on or defend the action or proceeding as, in the court's discretion, justice requires, having regard [for] the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties" (see id citing Maddaloni v Maddaloni, 163 AD3d 794 [2d Dept 2018]).

In exercising its discretion to award fees, the court has considered the financial circumstances of the parties and the circumstances of the case as a whole, including the relative merits of the parties' positions and whether either party has delayed the proceedings or engaged in unnecessary litigation (see id citing Tuchman v. Tuchman, 201 AD3d 993 [2d Dept 2022]).

Parties here have clearly failed to communicate. Both Motion Sequence No. 001 and Motion Sequence No. 002 could have easily been prevented, and the parties could have saved thousands of dollars in legal fees had they both communicated clearly and cooperated completely in a timely matter. There clearly was some resistance by both parties to cooperate and comply with the stipulation of settlement. Both parties, in their own way have still not moved past the animosities and seek to maneuver the situation to their own advantage. Each party seems to want to use the Child as a pawn to get back at the other by monopolizing the other party's time with the Child with appointments for the Child, such as haircuts and doctor's appointments, while at the same time minimizing their financial responsibility for the costs associated with the Child's care.

There is plenty of blame to pass around between the parties, but the most regrettable part is their refusal to put their animosities behind them and put their Child's welfare first. Plaintiff should recall that, Defendant should be able to spend some quality time with his child, creating memories and bonding together. Defendant should recall that he has not only a financial responsibility for the Child, but has all the responsibility of shared custody, which includes the [*14]not only fun activities but the not fun ones of visits to doctors and barber shops.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 001 request for counsel fees is GRANTED and Plaintiff is awarded counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS], and to be paid by Defendant directly to Plaintiff within 10 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 002 request for counsel fees is GRANTED and Defendant is awarded counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS], and to be paid by Plaintiff directly to Defendant within 10 days.

It is hereby ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request to find the Defendant in Contempt of Court for his alleged failure to comply with terms and conditions of the parties February 9, 2022 Marital Settlement and Support Agreement is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request to find the Defendant, in violation of the Parties' parenting agreement in that the Defendant allegedly failed to bring the Child to any of his medical appointments, hair cut appointments, school activities and extracurricular activities is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that each party advise the other what medical appointments, dental appointments, hair appointments and the like appointments are required for the child monthly, the appointments are to be divided between the Parties' as equally as possible, and each party shall make their half of the appointments and bring the Child to those appointments; and it is further,

ORDERED, that while Parties should consider the Child's best interests in determining invitations for the Child to attend parties, social events, play dates, and the like, shall not be considered as appointments described above; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's summer camp expenses for 2025 is GRANTED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's summer camp expenses for 2025 to the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,437.50 [TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS] within thirty days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's request to cap the cost of camp at $2,000.00 is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's reasonable summer camp expenses within thirty days upon proof provided to the Defendant until such time as childcare is unnecessary; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's tuition, PTA, uniform, and all related expenses for the Child to attend St. Bernadette Catholic Academy is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the arears of the Child's extracurricular activities is GRANTED in the amount of $450.00 [FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS]; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff fifty percent (50%) of the cost of [*15]the arrears of the Child's extracurricular activities the amount of $450.00 [FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] within 30 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant's request to cap the cost of Child's extracurricular activities at $500.00 per calendar year is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of all the Child's extracurricular activities up to a cap of $900.00 [NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per year commencing January 1, 2026; and it is further.

ORDERED, that any agreement to exceed the cap on extracurricular activities shall only be binding upon the Parties in a signed writing with specificity as to the amount and activity; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for Defendant to pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Child's eyeglass expense from Bensonhurst Family Vision, dated July 26, 2024, is GRANTED in the amount of $242.50 [TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS]; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the of the Child's eyeglass expense from Bensonhurst Family Vision, dated July 26, 2024, in the amount of $242.50 [TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS] within 30 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the party seeking reimbursement for any medical or medical-related expense for the Child shall provide the reimbursing party with documentation of the expense within fourteen (14) days of the expense having been incurred; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the party reimbursing any medical or medical-related expense for the Child shall reimburse the expense within 14 days of the proof of expense being provided; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's request to restrict Child's procurement of prescription eyeglasses or in the alternative cap Defendant's reimbursable share of Child's prescription eyeglasses at $150.00 per year is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for reimbursement for half of the cost of the Child's 4th Birthday Party is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for modification of Child Support is GRANTED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant pay to the Plaintiff Child Support for the Child RC (DOB XX/XX/2018) in the amount of $170.00 [ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] per week commencing on January 1, 2026; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request to modify Defendant's parenting-time is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's overnight parenting-time is modified in that it shall commence on Fridays at 4:30 PM beginning January 2, 2026; and it is further,

ORDERED, that when the Defendant has parenting-time with the Child, Defendant shall ensure that the Plaintiff shall at least one daily telephone/Facetime contact with the Child not to exceeding twenty minutes; and it is further,

ORDERED, that on consent of the Parties, Parties shall use Our Family Wizard for the sole purpose of communication regarding the Child; and it is further,

ORDERED, that in the event of an emergency regarding the health or welfare of the Child, telephonic communication shall be authorized for notification of such emergency; and it [*16]is further,

ORDERED, that the Parties shall exchange proof of compliance with Settlement Agreement's Life Insurance Policy requirement within 30 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for all pickup and drop offs of the Child by the Defendant shall be curbside only at Plaintiff's current residence or at her brother's home in Richmond County, if she chooses, unless the parties agree otherwise is DENIED; and it is further,

ORDERED, that if parties are unable to agree on a pickup and drop off location for the exchange of the Child, the pickup and drop off location shall be the nearest police precinct to the Plaintiff's residence; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 001 request for counsel fees is GRANTED and Plaintiff is awarded counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS], and to be paid by Defendant directly to Plaintiff within 10 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 002 request for counsel fees is GRANTED and Defendant is awarded counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.00 [FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS], and to be paid by Plaintiff directly to Defendant within 10 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that any relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED.

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

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