SM v SM

Supreme Court, Richmond County

Decided on February 27, 2026

Index No. Redacted

Ronald Castorina, Jr., J.

I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 007) numbered 57-67, 70-78 were read on this motion. The Court has considered the following papers in connection with Plaintiff's motion seeking vacatur of the default judgment dated April 11, 2023, and further seeking downward modification and termination of child support and maintenance:

Notice of Motion and Affirmation in Support with exhibits (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 57, 58); Affirmations of Service (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 59, 67, 70, 72); Affirmations in Opposition (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 65, 73); Reply Affirmations (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 69, 71); and all prior proceedings had herein.

Upon the foregoing papers, and after due deliberation, the Court renders the following Decision and Order.

II. Findings of Fact

A. Post Judgment Motion Practice

This matrimonial action was commenced between Plaintiff SM and Defendant SM and resulted in the entry of a default judgment by this Court on April 11, 2023, addressing, inter alia, [*2]issues of child support, spousal support (maintenance), and related financial obligations arising from the parties' divorce.

By Notice of Motion dated December 4, 2025, Plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to CPLR § 5015 vacating the default judgment entered April 11, 2023, and further seeks downward modification and termination of child support and maintenance. Plaintiff asserts that his income has substantially declined and that the support determinations were based upon financial information that he contends was inaccurate or incomplete. Plaintiff further asserts that the parties' daughter AM attained the age of twenty-one on XX XX, 2024, and is therefore emancipated.

Plaintiff asserts that his present annual income consists of Social Security benefits totaling $18,792 per year and contends that this represents a substantial decrease from the income previously utilized in calculating support. Plaintiff further alleges that the default judgment should be vacated based upon excusable default, newly discovered evidence, and alleged fraud or misconduct, including assertions that adverse weather conditions impeded his ability to appear and that Defendant failed to disclose relevant financial information.

Defendant opposes the motion in its entirety. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to comply with court directives, failed to provide financial documentation requested by the Court, and failed to appear as required, resulting in the entry of the default judgment. Defendant further disputes Plaintiff's claims concerning his financial circumstances and asserts that the support determinations were properly rendered. Defendant acknowledges that the parties' daughter has attained the age of twenty-one but references Domestic Relations Law § 240-d in connection with continuation of support under certain circumstances.

B. Pro Se Status of the Parties

Throughout the pendency of this action and all post-judgment proceedings, both Plaintiff and Defendant appeared and proceeded without legal representation, electing to represent themselves pro se.

The record reflects that this Court, on numerous occasions, advised both parties of their respective legal rights and procedural obligations. The Court expressly informed both parties of their right to retain counsel and afforded them repeated and meaningful opportunities to do so. Notwithstanding such advisements, both parties knowingly and voluntarily elected to proceed without counsel.

The Court further advised both parties that while they were entitled to represent themselves, their pro se status did not relieve them of their obligation to comply with applicable law, court orders, procedural rules, or evidentiary requirements. Both parties were expressly informed that they would be held to the same legal and procedural standards as litigants represented by counsel.

The Court additionally afforded both parties multiple opportunities throughout the proceedings to submit financial disclosure, documentary evidence, and other relevant materials necessary for adjudication of the issues before the Court.

III. Conclusions of Law

A. Motion to Vacate Default Judgment

Plaintiff seeks vacatur of the default judgment pursuant to CPLR § 5015 [a], which [*3]provides that a court may relieve a party from a judgment upon specified grounds including excusable default, newly discovered evidence, or fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.

"Although the courts have adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in matrimonial actions, it is still incumbent upon a [party] seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR § 5015 [a] [1] to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense" (see Capurso v Capurso, 134 AD3d 974 [2d Dept 2015] quoting Farhadi v Qureshi, 105 AD3d 990 [2d Dept 2013]; citing Dervisevic v Dervisevic, 89 AD3d 785 [2d Dept 2011]).

Relief under CPLR § 5015 [a] is not automatic but rests within the sound discretion of the Court. (see id citing Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v Charles, 103 AD3d 683 [2d Dept 2013]; Rivera v Komor, 69 AD3d 833 [2d Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff asserts that adverse weather conditions prevented his appearance and that Defendant engaged in financial misrepresentation. However, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to comply with court directives and failed to provide requested financial documentation.

Upon careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish sufficient evidentiary basis to warrant vacatur under CPLR § 5015 [a]. Plaintiff's assertions consist primarily of conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidentiary proof demonstrating excusable default, newly discovered evidence, or fraud sufficient to disturb the finality of the April 11, 2023 judgment.

Moreover, Plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with procedural requirements, particularly where the Court repeatedly advised Plaintiff of his rights and afforded him opportunities to comply and retain counsel.

Accordingly, the branch of Plaintiff's motion seeking vacatur of the default judgment is DENIED in its entirety.

B. Maintenance (Spousal Support)

Plaintiff seeks downward modification or termination of maintenance obligations established in the April 11, 2023 judgment.

Maintenance was determined as part of the judgment of divorce and remains a valid and enforceable obligation.

"A party seeking to modify a maintenance award must include, in his or her moving papers, a sworn statement of net worth" (see Garcia v Garcia, 104 AD3d 806 [2d Dept 2013] citing 22 NYCRR § 202.16 [k] [2]). "Absent a prima facie demonstration of entitlement to a downward modification, the party seeking modification has no right to a hearing" (see Allen v Allen, 195 AD3d 669 [2d Dept 2021] citing Lewis v Lewis, 43 AD3d 462 [2d Dept 2007]).

Plaintiff has failed to submit competent and complete financial documentation sufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to modification of maintenance.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff was afforded multiple opportunities to submit financial disclosure and failed to do so in a manner sufficient to warrant modification.

Accordingly, the branch of Plaintiff's motion seeking modification or termination of maintenance is DENIED.

C. Termination of Child Support Upon Emancipation

Plaintiff asserts that the parties' daughter AM attained the age of twenty-one on XX XX, 2024. Defendant likewise acknowledges that the child is over twenty-one years of age.

Domestic Relations Law § 240-d, as referenced in Defendant's opposition, provides for continuation of support in certain circumstances involving disability. However, the record presently before the Court does not contain competent medical or legal documentation establishing entitlement to continuation of support beyond the age of twenty-one.

Absent such proof, the Court finds that emancipation occurred upon the child attaining twenty-one years of age.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's obligation to pay prospective child support terminated effective November 13, 2024.

Any arrears accrued prior to that date remain due and owing.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish grounds for vacatur of the default judgment pursuant to CPLR § 5015 [a]. The maintenance provisions of the judgment remain valid and enforceable. However, the parties' child having attained the age of twenty-one, Plaintiff's obligation to pay prospective child support terminated as of the date of emancipation.

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion to vacate the default judgment dated April 11, 2023 is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion seeking modification or termination of maintenance is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's child support obligation is TERMINATED effective XX XX, 2024; and it is further

ORDERED, that any child support arrears accrued prior to XX XX, 2024 remain due and owing; and it is further

ORDERED, that all other relief requested is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: February 27, 2026

Staten Island, New York

HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT