I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 003) numbered 66-81, 93-102 were read on this motion. Upon the following papers read on Plaintiff's cross-motion for pendente lite relief and Defendant's emergency application: Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation of Richard Geller, Esq., Affirmation in Support and Opposition, Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth, Child Support Calculations, exhibits annexed thereto, prior Orders of this Court, and upon all pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein; and after due deliberation thereon, the Court renders the following Decision and Order.

II. Facts

This matrimonial action arises from a marriage solemnized on XX XX, 2011. Two unemancipated children were born of the marriage. The record before the Court reflects that, following the parties' separation and the commencement of this action, the litigation has been marked by extraordinary acrimony, repeated motion practice, and serious allegations bearing upon financial conduct and the welfare of the children.

The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of a brick-and-mortar children's entertainment business operating under the name JFFK, which includes a play space, café, and event venue. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 64; 95; 96; 97). The documentary record, including jointly filed tax returns and Schedules C, (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 98) demonstrates modest net earnings historically, substantial overhead, and significant operational expenses. The Plaintiff credibly asserts that her income has been materially disrupted pendente lite due to caregiving obligations for a medically fragile child, Defendant's interference with her business website and domain, and a flooding event that forced the temporary closure of her business premises while fixed expenses continued to accrue.

The Defendant's financial history, by contrast, reflects a long-standing and substantial earning trajectory in the insurance adjusting industry spanning approximately twenty years. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 63; 98). The record establishes that throughout the marriage Defendant consistently maintained dual income streams, consisting of W-2 employment and 1099 contract work. The jointly filed tax returns annexed to the motion papers document combined annual gross earnings that, in multiple years, exceeded $300,000. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 63; 71; 98).

Notwithstanding this history, Defendant now asserts a precipitous decline in income. However, the record is devoid of documentary substantiation for such claims and is instead replete with evidence of continued access to substantial liquidity. Of particular significance is Defendant's unilateral liquidation of approximately $282,000 in marital investment assets in August and September 2025, followed by large lump-sum expenditures, undertaken without notice, consent, or disclosure, and contemporaneous with the commencement of this action. Plaintiff was left without access to marital funds and compelled to seek emergency relief to preserve the marital estate.

The record further establishes that Defendant unilaterally seized all family vehicles, revoked Plaintiff's electronic access to the Tesla previously used for the children's daily transportation (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 78), withheld original personal and identity documents belonging to the Plaintiff and children, and refused to restore full administrative control of Plaintiff's business website and domain. Defendant admits in sworn submissions that he has withheld such access as leverage pending resolution of financial disputes.

With respect to parenting time, the papers present unrebutted allegations of substance abuse, erratic behavior, and impaired judgment, including conduct that raises serious concerns for both the physical safety and emotional well-being of the children. By Short Form Order dated October 29, 2025, this Court already directed Defendant to submit to drug testing. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 73) Plaintiff now seeks supervised visitation pendente lite and related safeguards.

III. Conclusions of Law

A. Pendente Lite Child Support and Imputation of Income

Domestic Relations Law § 236 B] [7] [a] authorizes the Court to award temporary child support pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (see Domestic Relations Law § 240). While pendente lite awards are inherently provisional, the Court must nevertheless ground such determinations in reliable financial data and statutory principles (see Langone v Langone, 145 Misc 2d 340 [Sup Ct Nassau County 1989]).

It is well settled that the Court is not bound by a party's self-reported income. Trial courts possess broad discretion to impute income based upon a party's past earnings, demonstrated earning capacity, lifestyle, and access to resources (Z.A. v. A.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 50817[U] [Sup Ct Richmond County 2022]; Matter of Moran v. Grillo, 44 AD3d 859 [2d Dept 2007]). A support obligor may not avoid responsibility through unilateral reductions in income or strategic employment decisions (see Davis v Davis, 197 AD2d 622 [2d Dept 1993]; Orlando v Orlando, 222 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1995]).

Here, the record reflects Defendant's decades-long earning history in the same industry, consistent dual income streams, and substantial gross receipts documented in jointly filed tax returns. Defendant's sudden claim of reduced income, unsupported by documentation and temporally aligned with the commencement of this action, is contradicted by evidence of immediate post-separation liquidity and ongoing discretionary spending. Where a high-earning spouse asserts a sudden loss of income under such circumstances, courts are rightly skeptical (see Matter of Muselevichus v. Muselevichus, 40 AD3d 997 [2d Dept 2007]; Tuchman v Tuchman, 201 AD3d 986 [2d Dept 2022]).

The Court further finds that Defendant's unilateral liquidation of marital assets, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, while not income per se, compellingly demonstrates access to cash and earning capacity inconsistent with an inability to pay support (see DeVries v DeVries, 35 AD3d 794 [2d Dept 2006]).Any uncertainty in the calculation of pendente lite income is properly resolved against the party who controls the financial information (see Matter of Strella v Ferro, 42 AD3d 544 [2d Dept 2007]).

Accordingly, for purposes of this pendente lite application only and without prejudice to trial determinations, the Court imputes income to Defendant in the amount of $300,000 per year. The Court further accepts Plaintiff's proposed pendente lite income of $75,000, which exceeds her documented current earnings and reflects a reasonable and conservative attribution given the disruptions established in the record.

Applying the statutory formula for two children up to the CSSA income cap, Defendant's basic child support obligation is properly calculated at $3,062.76 per month, together with 80% of statutory add-on expenses, including unreimbursed medical and healthcare costs. Plaintiff has [*2]expressly limited her pendente lite request to this capped amount, reserving her rights as to income above the statutory threshold.

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 [b] [7] [a], child support must be made retroactive to the date of application (see Ross v Ross, 157 AD2d 652 [2d Dept 1990]; Caviolo v Caviolo, 155 AD2d 410 [2d Dept 1989]; Khalily v Khalily, 99 AD2d 482 [2d Dept 1984]).

B. Supervised Visitation and Drug Testing

The paramount consideration in matters of visitation is the best interests of the children. While it is generally presumed that meaningful access to both parents serves those interests, that principle is not absolute. A court may impose supervised visitation where unsupervised contact would be inimical to a child's welfare (see Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022 [2d Dept 2007]).

Supervised visitation is not punitive and does not constitute a deprivation of meaningful access; rather, it is a protective measure designed to safeguard children while preserving the parent-child relationship (see Abranko v Vargas, 26 AD3d 490 [2d Dept 2006]). Courts may consider not only physical safety, but also emotional well-being, stability, and judgment (see Matter of Kristine Z. v. Anthony C., 19 Misc 3d 1106[A] [Sup Ct Monroe County 2008]).

The record before the Court contains sworn allegations of substance abuse, erratic behavior, and impaired judgment, including allegations of impaired driving, which have not been rebutted by Defendant. Considering these concerns, and consistent with this Court's prior Short Form Order directing drug testing, supervised visitation pendente lite is warranted.

Courts are expressly authorized to require random drug testing as a component of visitation without improperly conditioning access (see Welch v Taylor, 981 NYS2d 777 [2d Dept 2014]; Palmeri v Palmeri, 972 NYS2d 709 [2d Dept 2013]; Landau v Landau, 625 NYS2d 239 [2d Dept 1995]). The safeguards requested are narrowly tailored, evidence-based, and focused on the children's safety.

C. Accounting for Dissipated Marital Assets

Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [2] imposes automatic restraints prohibiting the dissipation of marital assets upon commencement of a matrimonial action. Defendant's unilateral withdrawal and diversion of approximately $282,000.00 in marital funds, undertaken without disclosure or consent, constitutes a prima facie violation of those restraints.

An accounting is necessary to preserve the marital estate, ensure transparency, and prevent further prejudice pending equitable distribution. Defendant's conduct in this regard is properly considered in connection with interim relief and counsel fees.

D. Business Website Credentials

The record establishes that Plaintiff's business website and domain constitute the backbone of her livelihood. Defendant's admitted refusal to restore full administrative access, expressly characterized by him as leverage, constitutes impermissible economic interference and defiance of Court authority. Immediate turnover of all credentials is required, together with injunctive relief barring further interference.

E. Return of Personal Documents

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 234, the Court is empowered to direct the return of personal property. Defendant's continued possession of original identity documents and vehicle titles belonging to Plaintiff and the children serves no legitimate purpose and materially interferes with Plaintiff's ability to manage basic affairs and care for the children. Immediate return is warranted.

F. Interim Counsel Fees and Sanctions

Domestic Relations Law §§ 237 and 238 create a rebuttable presumption in favor of awarding interim counsel fees to the less-monied spouse so as to prevent the more affluent spouse from wielding economic advantage (see O'Shea v O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187 [1999]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]). Such awards are intended to preserve parity and ensure meaningful access to justice (see Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61 [2d Dept 2008]).

Here, the economic disparity between the parties is stark, and Defendant's conduct, including asset dissipation, noncompliance with Court directives, and meritless emergency motion practice, has unnecessarily multiplied litigation and expense. Under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, the Court may impose sanctions for frivolous conduct undertaken to harass, delay, or gain improper advantage.

The record supports the imposition of interim counsel fees and sanctions to compensate Plaintiff and deter continued abuse of the judicial process (S.T. v M.T., 2025 NY Slip Op 51607[U] [Sup Ct Richmond County 2025]).

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's cross-motion (Motion Seq. #3) is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant shall pay pendente lite basic child support in the sum of $3,062.76 per month, retroactive to the date of Plaintiff's application, together with 80% of statutory add-on expenses; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant's visitation with the children shall be supervised at all times pendente lite, and Defendant is prohibited from operating any motor vehicle with the children in his care; and it is further

ORDERED, that no transition to unsupervised visitation shall occur absent further order of this Court upon proof of sustained compliance with court-ordered drug testing; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant shall provide a full accounting of all marital funds withdrawn or transferred between August and September 2025; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant shall immediately deliver to Plaintiff, through counsel, all login credentials and administrative access to [REDACTED WEB ADDRESS] and is enjoined from further interference; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant shall immediately return all original personal documents belonging to Plaintiff and the children; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant shall pay interim counsel fees to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined upon submission of appropriate proof; and it is further

ORDERED, that such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper is granted.