I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 008) numbered 214-226, 228-239, were read on this motion.

This motion arises in a matrimonial action wherein all issues of custody and parenting time were resolved by written agreement executed on September 11, 2025, leaving only the financial components of child support and counsel fees for judicial determination. The October 3, 2025, Decision and Order resolved those remaining issues after review of the parties' submissions and the evidentiary record established at the hearing convened in September 2025.

Upon the foregoing documents, and on consideration of the oral argument conducted on October 22, 2025, Motion Sequence No. 008 is resolved and therefore, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 008 seeking reargument pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [d] and renewal pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [e] of the Court's Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025, is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further,

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

Plaintiff MA and Defendant VA were married in Richmond County, New York on XX XX, 2023. There is one child of the marriage, to wit: WRA, born XX XX, 2024. There is no other child as a result of this marriage, and no other child is expected. Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce on or about June 17, 2024.

On October 9, 2025, Defendant pro se filed Motion Sequence No. 008 by Order to Show Cause seeking (1) a temporary stay of all enforcement of the Court's Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025 pending determination of this motion; (2) reargument pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [d] and renewal pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [e] of the Court's Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025; (3) to vacate the child-support award and recalculate under the CSSA for the parties' 50/50 schedule using current Defendant's current income proof deeming Plaintiff the higher earner; (4) denial Plaintiff's counsel-fee application in its entirety; (5) the Court to provide twenty-one (21) additional days after the Defendant's service of this Order to Show Cause on the Plaintiff for Defendant to provide a fuller brief in support of his motion, prior to opposition being due; and (6) such other relief as is just and proper.

On October 9, 2025, the Court signed the Motion Sequence No. 008 Order to Show Cause, denying Defendant's request for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Stay due to Defendant's Failure to provide 202.7 [f] notice. Plaintiff filed opposition on October 15, 2025. Defendant filed additional documentation in furtherance of his Order to Show Cause on October 21, 2025.

Oral argument was completed on Motion Sequence No. 008 on the record on October 22, 2025. At each procedural juncture, both parties were afforded notice and opportunity to be heard. Defendant's submissions have been accepted notwithstanding his self-represented status, and the Court has liberally construed all such filings in the interest of substantial justice.

Plaintiff MA and Defendant VA were married in Richmond County, New York on XX XX, 2023. There is one child of the marriage, to wit: WRA, born XX XX, 2024. There is no other child as a result of this marriage, and no other child is expected. Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce on or about June 17, 2024 by the filing of a summons and verified complaint. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1).

On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of net worth. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 2). On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a demand for discovery and inspection. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 3). Defendant filed an answer with counterclaims on September 20, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 4). Defendant further filed a demand for discovery on September 20, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5).

On October 15, 2024, the Court, Hon. Paul Marrone, scheduled a preliminary conference for December 19, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 7). On November 11, 2024, Defendant filed a consent to change attorney pro se. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 8). [*2]Defendant filed a statement of net worth on December 9, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 10). On December 19, 2024, Defendant filed an emergency petition for custody. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 11). Defendant filed a second demand for discovery and inspection on December 23, 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 13).

The Court, Hon. Paul Marrone, denied Motion Sequence No. 001 on January 7, 2025 and further consolidated Richmond County Family Court matter Docket #V-XXXXX-24, Docket #V-XXXXX-24, and Docket #F-XXXXX-24 into this matter. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 32).

Prior to March 26, 2025, the matter was reassigned from Hon. Paul Marrone to Hon. Catherine DiDomenico. On June 3, 2025, the Court, Hon. Catherine DiDomenico, appointed Defendant counsel pursuant to Judiciary Law to represent Defendant only as to the issues of custody and parenting-time. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 115). The Court further appointed pursuant to the Judiciary Law § 35 [8] an attorney for the child. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 116). On July 2, 2025, Hon. Catherine DiDomenico, recused from the matter. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 119).

On July 21, 2025, a hearing was Ordered on the issues of custody and parenting-time. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 127-130). The hearing commenced on September 2, 2025 and continued on September 10, 2025, and September 11, 2025. On September 11, 2025, parties were able to execute a Final Custody and Parenting-Time Agreement resolving all issues of the matrimonial action, except for child support and counsel fees. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 188; 189). On October 3, 2025, The Court issued a Decision and Order on the issues of Child Support and Counsel Fees. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 212).

The motion before the court invokes both subdivisions [d] and [e] of CPLR § 2221. Although cast as s single application, the requests for reargument and renewal are analytically discrete and governed by separate statutory predicates. Each will therefore be addressed in turn so that the record reflects a complete and transparent exercise of judicial discretion.

The court takes judicial notice of its own prior orders of the filings in this action as reflected on NYSCEF. All such documents form part of the integrated record of this proceeding.

A. Reargument pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [d]

"A motion for leave to reargue 'shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion'. While the determination to grant leave to reargue lies within the sound discretion of the court" (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Weiss, 237 AD3d 1003 [2d Dept 2025] quoting CPLR § 2221 [d] [2]; citing Degraw Constr. Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc., 178 AD3d 772 [2d Dept 2019 see also, Long v. Long, 251 AD2d 631 [2d Dept 1998]; Hoey-Kennedy v Kennedy, 294 AD2d 573 [2d Dept 2002]; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. PMI Newco, LLC, 225 AD3d 941 [3d Dept 2024]).

"[A] motion for leave to reargue 'is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented'" (see id quoting McGill v. Goldman, 261 AD2d 593 [2d Dept 1999] citing Emigrant Bank v Kaufman, 223 AD3d 650 [2d Dept 2024])

Courts retain flexibility in the interests of justice but do not sit to offer serial "second looks" absent a demonstrable oversight. (see Loris v S & W Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 729 [3d Dept 2005]; Hitchcock v Abbott, 9 AD3d 563 [3d Dept 2004]; Mangine v Keller, 182 AD2d 476 [1st Dept 1992]; Pinto v Pinto, 120 AD2d 337 [1st Dept 1986]).

Defendant here rests his whole argument on the belief that "the Court has misinterpreted the facts and circumstances of this case and ultimately arrived at an incorrect, unreasonable, and detrimental decision." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 215). Defendant offers as evidence his 1040 federal income tax return for 2024. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 218). This tax return reports the total amount from W-2(s) is $21,726.00. (see id).

Previously, Defendant submitted his statement of net worth, reporting an annual total income of $46,000.00, including earnings and rental income. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 162). Defendant's REDACTED 2024 W-2 reported gross earnings in the amount of $17,602.04. (see id at page 29). Defendant's REDACTED LLC 2024 W-2 reports gross earnings in the amount of $2,374.40. (see id at page 31). Defendant's W-2 income here totals $19,976.44. The W-2 amount now submitted by the Defendant is $1,749.56 more than the amount previously considered by the Court in its Decision and Order on Child Support and Counsel Fees. Further, Defendant also reported $389.00 in taxable interest, $433.00 in qualified dividends, and $461.00 in ordinary dividends. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 218).

The Court also notes that the Defendant failed to include in his taxable income reported to the federal government his rental income. Defendant testified he earned rental income in the amount of $1,600.00 per month. (tr at 58, lines 12-16). Regarding this rental income, the Defendant attempts to submit new facts that were not in evidence at the time of the Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025. Defendant submits a self-serving typed statement that is not even signed, dated, October 8, 2025, allegedly reporting that three days after the Decision and Order of this Court dated October 3, 2025, Defendant's tenant vacated on October 8, 2025 and this tenant had not paid rent since July 27, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 219). Rental income must be considered when determining income under the CSSA. (see Matter of Peddycoart v MacKay, 145 AD3d 1081 [2d Dept 2016]).

Defendant further submits as an exhibit, the very same Plaintiff's statement of net worth that the previously Court considered. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 173; 220). Defendant's evidence in support of his motion is merely the resubmission of facts and evidence already received and considered by the Court or self-serving declarations of changes in circumstances, since the Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025.

"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]).

The motion thus seeks not to correct an oversight but to re-argue matters already analyzed and resolved, precisely what CPLR § 2221 [d] forbids. (see eg, Long v. Long, 251 AD2d 631 [2d Dept 1998]; Hoey-Kennedy v Kennedy, 294 AD2d 573 [2d Dept 2002]; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. PMI Newco, LLC, 225 AD3d 941 [3d Dept 2024]; Loris v S & W Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 729 [3d Dept 2005]; Hitchcock v Abbott, 9 AD3d 563 [3d Dept 2004]; Mangine v Keller, 182 AD2d 476 [1st Dept 1992]; Pinto v Pinto, 120 AD2d 337 [1st Dept 1986], supra).

The Court's prior Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025 fully considered Defendant's sworn statement of net worth [NYSCEF 162], his W-2 earnings from REDACTED and REDACTED LLC, and his testimony concerning recurring rental income. Each evidentiary component was weighed in determining the imputed income and child-support calculation. The current submission does not disturb those findings. Indeed, the newly proffered figures largely corroborate the Court's prior analysis and thereby reinforce the correctness of the initial determination.

B. Renewal pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [e]

"A motion for leave to renew 'shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination' (CPLR § 2221 [e] [2]) and 'shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion' (CPLR § 2221 [e] [3]" (see Constructamax, Inc. v Dodge Chamberlin Luzine Weber, Assoc. Architects, LLP, 157 AD3d 852 [2d Dept 2018] citing United Med. Assoc., PLLC v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 125 AD3d 959 [2d Dept 2015]; Ali v Verizon NY, Inc., 116 AD3d 722 [2d Dept 2014]).

"Leave to renew is not warranted where the factual material adduced in connection with the subsequent motion is merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the original motion" (see id quoting Varela v Clark, 134 AD3d 925 [2d Dept 2015] quoting Stone v Bridgehampton Race Circuit, 244 AD2d 403 [2d Dept 1997]).

The party moving for renewal must provide a reasonable justification for its failure to present the new facts on the prior motion. (see CPLR § 2221 [e]). The party moving to renew must provide the court with a reasonable excuse for its failure to present the new facts on the prior motion. (see Kornblum v Blank Rome Tenzer Greenblatt, 39 AD3d 482 [2d Dept 2007]; Kaufman v Kunis, 14 AD3d 542 [2d Dept 2005]).

Here, Defendant has completely and utterly failed at all thresholds. Defendant has failed to provide any credible new facts not offered on the prior motion that would have changed the Court prior Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025. Defendant has further failed to offer any reasonable excuse for his failure to present the purportedly new facts on the prior motion.

Having afforded careful review to every paper and argument submitted, the court finds no basis in law or equity to disturb its prior determination.

Defendant has not demonstrated that the Court overlooked or misapprehended a controlling principle of law or a material fact. CPLR § 2221 [d] affords no relief where, as here, the motion merely repackages arguments weighed and rejected in a reasoned decision. Further, the Defendant has failed to provide any credible new facts not offered on the prior motion that would have changed the Court prior Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025 and has not offered any reasonable excuse for his failure to present his purportedly new facts on the prior motion.

The Court's Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025, determining child support and counsel fees was grounded in the Court's considerable discretion in determining whether income should be imputed to a party based upon the credibility of the evidence provided. (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, it is

ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion Sequence No. 008 requesting reargument pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [d] and renewal pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [e] of the Court's Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025 is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further,

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

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