Stolarzewics v Smilist Dental Smithtown

District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District

Decided on March 25, 2026

Index No. SC-28-26/SM

Paul L. Damato, J.

After having reviewed Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Waive Court Costs, Fees, and Expenses, and deliberating on the facts and applicable law, for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby determines that Plaintiff's request for waiver of the required Court charges to initiate and prosecute litigation is hereby denied.

Court Review, Analysis and Decision

Norbert W. Stolarzewics, the Plaintiff-Movant for Waiver of Costs, Fees and Expenses has provided several documents outlining his financial history including income and expense obligations, as well as an indication of his medical condition. More specifically, he provided a credit card statement, medical records regarding chiropractic treatments, a Stoney Brook Medicine record and Zwanger Pesiri MRI scheduling for a lumbar exam that appears related to the chiropractic treatments. He also provided income related data including Turbo Tax filed Federal and State Income Tax filings, and related schedules, for his 2025 Federal 1040 and NYS IT 201 filings.

Based on a totality of the circumstances analysis of the obligations provided, recognition of medical concerns, and income tax records, the Court finds there is no necessity for a waiver of required costs and fees incurred by other taxpayers and litigants in Suffolk County. The Federal tax filing reflects a 2025 Federal Adjusted Gross Taxable Income for single filing status of $49,209 and the 2025 NYS filing reflects an Adjusted Gross Taxable Income of $41,209. His Federal return generated a $1,077 refund and his State return generated a $395 net tax due, leaving a net credit to him of $682.

State courts have previously recognized that even a marginal financial position is sufficient to be denied a waiver. See Dolan Properties, Inc. v. Schoolcraft, 75 Misc 2d 1084, 350 NYS2d 292 (1973) where a minimal positive cash flow of $126 per month allowed for disqualification; and Kirk v. Kirk, 41 AD2d 594, 340 NYS2d 594 (1973) where a party on public assistance was denied a waiver given the limited amount of the required fees. Based on the data provided, the Court does not believe a subsidy of litigation expenses is warranted. It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's application for a waiver of required Court costs, fees and expenses is denied.

Dated: March 25, 2026

Hon. Paul L. Damato, JDC