I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 005) numbered 123-136, 133-136 were read on this motion. This motion was determined upon consideration of the following papers: the Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause dated October 22, 2025, together with the affirmation and exhibits submitted in support thereof; and the Defendant's affidavit in opposition dated December 26, 2025, together with the exhibits annexed thereto.

II. Facts

This action arises out of a matrimonial matter between the parties, who were married on XX XX, 2006, and are the parents of two children of the marriage, BK (date of birth XX XX, 2007) and AK (date of birth XX XX, 2009). The divorce action was commenced in this Court on May 14, 2024, under Index No. Redacted. A Judgment of Divorce was signed by this Court on November 5, 2025.

By Order to Show Cause filed on October 22, 2025, the Plaintiff sought wide-ranging relief concerning the former marital residence located at XX XXX Avenue, Staten Island, New York, including but not limited to: full occupancy of the residence; primary custody of the child AK; allocation of responsibility for mortgage, water, and carrying charges; inspection of the property; and the assignment of a new broker to effectuate a sale of the premises. In support, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had failed to provide full access to the broker, denied access to a qualified buyer, interfered with the child's education, and impeded the sale of the residence.

The Defendant opposed the application in its entirety. In his affidavit, the Defendant contends that a fully executed contract of sale for the former marital residence was entered into on or about December 8, 2025 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 133), rendering the Plaintiff's application concerning the residence moot. The Defendant further asserted that he had been awarded temporary custody of AK by this Court in or about May 2025, that the child had resided with him since that time, and that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any change in circumstances warranting a modification of custody. The Defendant additionally relied upon provisions of the Judgment of Divorce (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 134) addressing equitable distribution of the marital residence and the handling of expenses and escrowed proceeds.

III. Conclusions of Law

The relief sought by the Plaintiff is expansive and multifaceted, implicating issues of possession and sale of real property, custody, and financial responsibility. However, the Court's authority is not exercised in the abstract; it is guided and circumscribed by the procedural posture of the case and the facts as established in sworn submissions.

With respect to the former marital residence, the Defendant has submitted uncontroverted sworn proof that, after the filing of the Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause, the parties entered into a fully executed contract of sale on December 8, 2025, with an anticipated closing in February 2026. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 135). On this record, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's requests seeking removal of the Defendant from the residence, reassignment of a broker, inspection of the property, or other relief designed to facilitate a sale are rendered academic. Where the relief sought has been overtaken by events, judicial intervention would be superfluous and improper. The Court therefore declines to issue advisory or duplicative directives concerning a property already under contract.

Turning to the Plaintiff's request for a change in custody of the child AK, the Court notes that the Defendant has averred, that this Court previously awarded him temporary custody in or about May 2025, and that the child has resided with him since that time. The Defendant further contends that no material change in circumstances has been demonstrated, and that the Plaintiff's application is predicated upon assertions already litigated or insufficiently substantiated. On the record presented, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish a factual basis warranting the extraordinary relief of modifying an existing custodial arrangement.

Finally, with respect to the Plaintiff's requests concerning responsibility for mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, and other carrying charges, the Defendant relies upon express provisions of the Judgment of Divorce, which provide that the parties' 50/50 equitable distribution of the marital residence shall satisfy obligations for back support and bills, and that proceeds are to be held in escrow pending agreement as to expenses and counsel fees. Absent any competent showing that these provisions have been violated or that enforcement through this motion is appropriate, the Court finds no basis to disturb the framework already established by the Judgment of Divorce.

In sum, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating entitlement to the relief sought, and that significant portions of the application are moot considering subsequent developments expressly documented in the record.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that all relief requested by the Plaintiff and not specifically granted herein is expressly denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that this constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.