I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The Court has considered the motion papers, the opposition papers, and the so-ordered stipulation resolving the discovery issues. All other branches of the motion having been resolved by stipulation, the sole issue remaining for determination is Defendant's request for an award of interim counsel fees incurred in connection with discovery-related motion practice.

This action for divorce was commenced by Plaintiff in August 2024. Defendant interposed an Answer and Counterclaims in November 2024. At the preliminary conference in December 2024, Plaintiff was directed to produce a sworn Statement of Net Worth and financial disclosure in accordance with the Uniform Civil Rules.

The record reflects that Plaintiff failed to timely provide the required Statement of Net Worth and failed to produce full financial disclosure within the deadlines imposed by court order. Subsequent short form orders directed Plaintiff to cure these deficiencies and provide updated disclosure. Plaintiff ultimately filed a Statement of Net Worth that was incomplete, consisting of only limited financial information, and thereafter produced discovery responses that omitted or incompletely produced multiple categories of financial records. Written demands to cure these deficiencies were issued, yet significant disclosure remained outstanding.

As a result of Plaintiff's continuing failure to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders, Defendant filed a motion seeking discovery sanctions and interim counsel fees. While that motion was pending, the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation in October 2025 resolving the substantive disclosure disputes and setting forth Plaintiff's continuing obligations to produce outstanding materials. The stipulation did not resolve the issue of counsel fees, which was expressly left for judicial determination.

Defendant seeks an interim award of counsel fees on the ground that Plaintiff's repeated noncompliance with court-ordered disclosure necessitated motion practice. Plaintiff opposes the fee request, contending that any disclosure delay was not willful or contumacious and that sanctions are therefore unwarranted.

The parties' submissions identify the controlling standards. A court may impose sanctions, including attorney's fees, for a party's failure to comply with discovery obligations or court ordered disclosure under CPLR § 3126. The statute vests discretion in the Court to fashion such relief as is just.

Sanctions are generally reserved for conduct that is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see Schiller v Sunharbor Acquisition I, LLC, 152 AD3d 812 [2d Dept 2017]; Parker Watchman, LLP v Laraia, 131 AD3d 1215 [2d Dept 2015]). Willful and contumacious conduct may be inferred from repeated failure to respond to discovery demands or comply with discovery orders without a reasonable excuse (see Wolf v Flowers, 122 AD3d 728 [2d Dept 2014]). Conversely, where delay results from negligence, inadvertence, or law office failure accompanied by a reasonable excuse, sanctions may be unwarranted (see All Island Estates Realty Corp, v Roma Imported Car Center, Inc., 229 AD3d 744 [2d Dept 2024]).

The purpose of CPLR § 3126 is not punitive but to ensure compliance with disclosure obligations. Additionally, any award of attorney's fees must be reasonable under the circumstances (see Brantly v Brantly, 89 AD3d 881 [2d Dept 2011]). Sanctions may also be imposed where authorized by statute or court rule (see 150 Centreville, LLC, v Lin Assocs. Architects, PC., 963 NYS2d 819 [Sup Ct, Queens 2013]).

The record demonstrates a sustained pattern of Plaintiff's failure to comply with disclosure obligations and multiple court-ordered deadlines. Plaintiff did not timely provide a sworn Statement of Net Worth, did not produce complete financial disclosure as required, and failed to cure substantial deficiencies even after repeated written demands and subsequent court orders. The necessity of entering into a so-ordered stipulation compelling further disclosure confirms that the deficiencies were real and unresolved at the time motion practice was initiated.

Plaintiff's opposition asserts that any delay was not willful or contumacious and that some disclosure was ultimately provided. However, the Court is not persuaded that partial or belated compliance excuses repeated disregard of explicit court orders or prolonged failure to produce fundamental financial information in a matrimonial action. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant was compelled to undertake motion practice to secure compliance with discovery obligations and court directives. Such conduct supports an award of counsel fees pursuant to CPLR § 3126.

A. Reasonableness of the Fee Award

Defendant's counsel has provided sworn evidence of the time expended, hourly rates, and disbursements incurred in connection with this motion practice. The work performed included review of deficient disclosure, repeated communications with opposing counsel, communications with the client, and preparation and filing of the motion. Additional time was anticipated for reply and court appearance.

After considering the nature of the work performed, the extent of Plaintiff's noncompliance, and the procedural posture of the case, the Court exercises its discretion to fix an interim counsel fee award in the amount of $4,500.00 [Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents]. This amount fairly compensates Defendant for the legal fees reasonably incurred as a direct consequence of Plaintiff's disclosure failures, while remaining proportionate to the services rendered and the relief obtained (Brantly v Brantly, 89 AD3d 881 [2d Dept 2011]).

No evidentiary healing is necessary, as the record sufficiently supports this determination.

Plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with discovery obligations and court-ordered disclosure necessitated Defendant's motion practice. An interim award of counsel fees is warranted under CPLR § 3126. The sum of $4,500.00 [Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents] constitutes a fair and reasonable award based upon the record before the Court.

All other branches of the motion having been resolved by stipulation, the Court now determines only the issue of counsel fees.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant's application for interim counsel fees is GRANTED; and it is further;

ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant the sum of $4,500.00 [Four Thousand [*2]Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents] as interim counsel fees incurred in connection with Motion Sequence #001, within thirty (30) days of service of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry; and it is further;

ORDERED, that this award is made without prejudice to further applications for counsel fees upon appropriate application.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.