HN v MS

Supreme Court, Richmond County

Decided on March 17, 2026

Index No. Redacted

Ronald Castorina, Jr., J.

I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a], the Court has considered the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff's Affirmation, and exhibits annexed thereto; the Attorney Affirmation in Support with exhibits; the Defendant's Attorney Affirmation in Opposition; and all prior pleadings and proceedings had herein. Oral argument was conducted on the record in court on March 17, 2026.

II. Findings of Fact

This matrimonial action arises from a marriage entered into on XX XX, 2007, from which four unemancipated children were born, all of whom remain dependent upon the financial stability, continuity, and lawful support of the parties. The record before this Court reflects not an isolated instance of noncompliance, but a sustained, escalating, and calculated course of conduct by the Defendant demonstrating a persistent disregard for judicial authority and a deliberate effort to evade the clear mandates of this Court.

By Short Form Order dated March 3, 2025, the Defendant was directed to pay pendente lite child support in the amount of $1,500 per month. The Defendant failed to comply with that obligation. On June 17, 2025, after being directed by the Court to bring his arrears current, the Defendant tendered a $3,000 check in open court. That check was subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. This act is of particular significance. It was not merely a failure of payment; it constituted an affirmative misrepresentation to the Court that compliance had been achieved. Such conduct reflects not inadvertence, but calculated deception.

Thereafter, the Defendant continued a pattern of partial, sporadic, and ineffective payments. A subsequent $3,000 payment in July did not cure the arrears, and no sustained effort was made to comply with the existing order. The Defendant's conduct thus necessitated further judicial intervention.

By Decision and Order dated August 12, 2025, this Court imposed comprehensive and unequivocal financial obligations upon the Defendant. He was directed to pay child support in the amount of $3,081.75 per month and spousal maintenance in the amount of $1,896.91 per month, both retroactive to July 9, 2025. He was further directed to pay 72% of statutory add-on expenses, remit counsel fees in the amount of $15,000, contribute $10,800 toward a court-appointed forensic evaluator, and bring current the mortgage and utilities associated with the marital residence, after which the parties would share those carrying charges. Each of these directives was clear, precise, and immediately enforceable.

The Defendant's response to this Order was not compliance, but continued and intensified noncompliance. The record reflects that the Defendant issued another $3,000 check which was returned for insufficient funds. He failed to make consistent payments toward his support obligations. He did not remit the ordered counsel fees. He did not contribute to the forensic retainer. He did not bring the mortgage or utilities current. Instead, he engaged in conduct calculated to frustrate enforcement.

Among the most troubling aspects of this conduct was the Defendant's use of a minor child as an intermediary for payment. The Defendant transmitted funds to the parties' child with the expectation that the child would then remit those funds to the Plaintiff, thereby delaying payment and improperly involving the child in the parties' financial disputes. The Defendant also [*2]issued checks payable to the child rather than to the Plaintiff, further evidencing a deliberate effort to circumvent the Court's directives.

As a direct consequence of this conduct, arrears accrued in the amount of $18,414.64 for support alone. This figure does not include the Defendant's failure to satisfy other independent obligations imposed by the Court.

Simultaneously, the Defendant failed to comply with the Court's directives concerning the marital residence. The Plaintiff asserts, upon information and belief, that the mortgage and utilities were not brought current, placing the residence, a significant marital asset with substantial equity, at risk of foreclosure. During this period, the Plaintiff was compelled to assume sole responsibility for essential household expenses to maintain a habitable home for the parties' children.

The Defendant likewise failed to comply with the Court's directive to contribute to the forensic evaluator's retainer and failed to remit the $15,000 in counsel fees awarded by the Court.

Of particular significance is the Defendant's conduct with respect to marital assets during the pendency of this action. The Plaintiff asserts, upon information and belief, and the Defendant admitted under oath on the record during oral argument on this motion, that the Defendant divested himself of business interests and transferred ownership or stock interests during the pendency of this action. These alleged transfers occurred contemporaneously with the Defendant's assertion of financial inability.

The Court finds that the timing, nature, and context of these alleged transactions give rise to a compelling inference that they were not undertaken in the ordinary course of business, but rather were effectuated to reduce apparent income, shield assets, and frustrate equitable distribution. The record further supports the inference that such conduct may have been undertaken in concert with others, including family members or closely aligned individuals, to place assets beyond the reach of the Plaintiff and the Court.

In opposition papers, the Defendant offers only a conclusory assertion that he now earns approximately $52,000 annually following the alleged loss or divestiture of business interests. Then subsequently at oral argument, Defendant alleges that he is now unemployed and was fired by his brother. These assertions are unsupported by any documentary evidence. The Defendant has provided no tax returns, no bank records, no pay statements, no sworn financial disclosure, and no accounting of assets or liabilities.

III. Conclusions of Law

The law governing civil contempt is well settled and reflects the judiciary's inherent authority to enforce its lawful mandates and ensure compliance with its orders. A party seeking a finding of civil contempt must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of that order, and that the contemnor disobeyed the order (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]). Once these elements are established, willfulness may be inferred, and the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to demonstrate a defense, including an inability to comply (see Matter of Weiss v Rosenthal, 195 AD3d 730 [2d Dept 2021]; Lugo v Torres, 174 AD3d 595 [2d Dept 2019]).

Here, the Plaintiff has satisfied each element by clear and convincing evidence. The Orders at issue are lawful, clear, and unequivocal. The Defendant's knowledge thereof is not disputed. The record establishes repeated, ongoing, and multifaceted noncompliance across [*3]multiple independent obligations.

The Defendant's attempt to rebut the presumption of willfulness rests solely upon an unsubstantiated claim of financial inability. This defense fails as a matter of law. It is well settled that a claim of inability to comply must be supported by competent, detailed, and credible financial proof. Conclusory assertions are insufficient (see Grasso v LaRocca, 54 AD3d 760 [2d Dept 2008]; Yeager v Yeager, 38 AD3d 534 [2d Dept 2007]). The Defendant has submitted no such proof. The complete absence of financial documentation is dispositive.

The Court therefore expressly finds that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate an inability to comply. On the contrary, the record supports the conclusion that the Defendant possessed, or had access to, sufficient financial resources to comply, at least in part, with his obligations, and that his failure to do so was the product of willful refusal rather than financial incapacity.

The Defendant's conduct affirmatively demonstrates willfulness. The repeated issuance of checks returned for insufficient funds reflects a deliberate attempt to create the illusion of compliance while avoiding actual payment. The use of a minor child as an intermediary reflects a calculated effort to frustrate enforcement and delay receipt of funds. The failure to comply with multiple distinct and independent financial obligations imposed by the Court demonstrates a systemic disregard for judicial authority.

Most compelling is the Defendant's apparent conduct in transferring or divesting business interests during the pendency of this action. Such conduct, undertaken in violation of the automatic orders, is probative of intent. It supports a reasonable and permissible inference that the Defendant engaged in asset dissipation or concealment, potentially in concert with others, including family members, for the purpose of frustrating equitable distribution and evading his financial obligations. The automatic orders exist precisely to prevent such conduct. Their violation reinforces the conclusion that the Defendant's noncompliance was willful.

The Court finds the Defendant's opposition to be wholly lacking in credibility. It is unsupported by evidence, contradicted by the record, and insufficient as a matter of law. No triable issue of fact is raised. A hearing is not required where, as here, the opposition fails to present any bona fide factual dispute.

Accordingly, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Defendant's violations were willful, deliberate, and contumacious.

With respect to counsel fees, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a] establishes a presumption in favor of awarding fees to the less monied spouse. The Plaintiff has incurred substantial legal fees solely as a result of the Defendant's misconduct. An award of counsel fees is warranted to ensure fairness and to deter continued noncompliance.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's motion is granted in all respects; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Defendant, MS, is adjudged in civil contempt of court for his willful, deliberate, and contumacious failure to comply with the Decision and Order dated August 12, 2025; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Defendant shall purge his contempt by both paying to the Plaintiff the sum of $18,414.64, representing arrears of child support and spousal maintenance, and fully complying with all outstanding provisions of the Decision and Order dated August 12, 2025, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Decision and Order with notice of entry; and it is [*4]further

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff is awarded counsel fees in the amount of $7,500, payable by the Defendant within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Decision and Order with notice of entry; and it is further

ORDERED, that the conference scheduled for April 6, 2026 is vacated; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Defendant, MS, shall appear personally before this Court on May 5, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. for sentencing on the issue of civil contempt, regardless of whether the contempt has been purged; and it is further

ORDERED, that in the event the Defendant fails to appear as directed, a warrant shall issue for his arrest to secure his appearance before this Court.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: March 17, 2026

Staten Island, New York

HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT