Supreme Court, Richmond County

Decided on April 8, 2026

Index No. REDACTED

Ronald Castorina, Jr., J.

[*1]

I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 002) numbered 10-11, 13-15 were read on this motion. The following papers considered on the application by Defendant OM for an Emergency Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraining Order, seeking, inter alia, the return of a companion animal, personal property, and medical records, and for a finding of contempt: Order to Show Cause; Affirmation of OM in Support, dated March 25, 2026, with annexed exhibits; Affidavit in Support of Notification; and Plaintiff's pro se Verified Answer in Opposition, with annexed exhibits. Oral argument was completed on April 7, 2026.

II. Findings of Fact

This is a matrimonial action pending in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, in which Plaintiff seeks annulment. The present application arises within that action.

The record reflects that the parties have also been involved in proceedings in Family [*2]Court, including matters relating to orders of protection and prior directives. Such proceedings form part of the background of the dispute but do not supplant this Court's authority to determine the issues presently before it.

Defendant OM, proceeding pro se, avers under penalty of perjury that she presently resides in a confidential domestic violence shelter within the State of New York. She further avers that she resides there with her minor child; however, the record does not establish that said child is a child of the marriage. Defendant asserts that she lacks independent income, financial resources, and access to certain personal and medical documentation.

The submissions establish that in or about September 2025, the parties acquired a companion animal, specifically a cat known as "MM." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 10 at ¶3). Defendant asserts that MM functions as an emotional support animal within her household for herself and her minor child. (see id). Defendant further avers that she was the primary caretaker of the animal and Plaintiff had demonstrated no interest in or capacity for MM's welfare. (see id at ¶4). Defendant maintains that Plaintiff's only involvement regarding MM consisted of sending Defendant text messages and photographs complaining that the litter box needed to be cleaned. (see id).

Defendant further maintains that MM is currently overdue for a required vaccination and Defendant has been unable to have MM vaccinated because Plaintiff continues to withhold MM. (see id at ¶5). Defendant avers that she was solely responsible for all veterinary care throughout the marriage. (see id).

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has retained possession of the cat and has refused to return the animal. (see id at ¶6). Defendant further alleges that the continued deprivation of the animal has caused hardship. (see id at ¶3).

The record further reflects that, pursuant to a prior Order dated March 14, 2026, Defendant was authorized to retrieve personal property from the marital residence on March 25, 2026. (see id at ¶13). Defendant asserts that the retrieval was impeded and that certain items, including the cat MM, were not returned. (see id at ¶16).

Defendant further avers that Plaintiff is the monied spouse, earning approximately $177,000 to $178,000 annually, while Defendant presently lacks income. (see id at ¶29). In opposition, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, submits a Verified Answer disputing Defendant's allegations. Plaintiff denies wrongful withholding of the cat and asserts that Defendant was afforded an opportunity to retrieve her belongings.

The Court is thus presented with competing sworn accounts concerning possession of the cat MM.

III. Conclusions of Law

The relief sought is equitable in nature and may be determined upon the papers. A hearing is not required where the Court can resolve the issue through application of equitable principles. This action is one for annulment. The pendency of such relief does not divest this Court of its authority to address property-related and equitable issues arising from the marital relationship.

The Court emphasizes that the companion animal at issue is not a child of the marriage, and the determination herein is grounded in equitable considerations applicable to property and companion animals. The Court further notes that the minor child referenced in Defendant's submissions is not established to be a child of the marriage, and no custodial issues are before the Court.

Defendant invokes Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B], which reflects that companion [*3]animals are to be considered with due regard for their care and wellbeing.

In balancing the equities, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated that she resides in a domestic violence shelter, lacks independent financial resources, and asserts that the cat MM serves an important role within her household. Plaintiff, identified as the monied spouse, disputes Defendant's claims but does not provide evidentiary submissions sufficient to overcome the equities advanced by Defendant.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the balance of equities weighs in favor of Defendant.

The Court further finds that the record does not establish a basis for contempt.

Finally, the Court finds that no evidence has been presented concerning the value or classification of the cat MM for purposes of equitable distribution. Such issues are reserved.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the application of Defendant/Counter-Petitioner OM is granted to the extent set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff ID shall produce the cat known as "MM" for transfer on April 20, 2026, at 6:30 p.m., at the 122nd Precinct of the New York City Police Department, Richmond County; and it is further

ORDERED, that both parties shall appear at the above time and location; and it is further

ORDERED, that the transfer of the cat shall be effectuated without any direct or indirect contact between the parties, and in strict compliance with any existing orders of protection; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall present the cat in a secure and appropriate carrier suitable for the safe transport of a cat, and shall ensure that the animal is delivered in a condition reasonably consistent with its health and wellbeing; and it is further

ORDERED, that at the time of transfer, Plaintiff shall provide written information, if any exists, concerning the cat's dietary needs, feeding schedule, medical history, medications, and any ongoing care requirements, which shall be left with the carrier for retrieval by Defendant; and it is further

ORDERED, that upon completion of the transfer, Defendant shall have exclusive possession of the cat "MM" pending further order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff is enjoined and restrained from interfering with Defendant's possession of said cat; and it is further

ORDERED, that any issues concerning the classification, valuation, or equitable distribution of the cat known as "MM" are reserved for future determination; and it is further

ORDERED, that the branch of the application seeking a finding of contempt is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that all other relief requested and not expressly granted herein is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 8, 2026

Staten Island, New York

HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT