PAT v. DAT (2025)

I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The Court has read the following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 018) numbered 461-482 on this motion.

The following papers were considered in connection with Defendant's motion for leave to reargue the Court's Decision and Order dated July 14, 2025: Notice of Motion for Leave to Reargue Pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) dated July 22, 2025; Affidavit of DAT in Support with exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 461—463); Affirmation of PAT in Opposition with exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. No. 476); Affirmation in Reply of Mary Grace Condello, Esq., with exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. No. 477); and all prior pleadings and proceedings herein, including the Court's April 30, 2025 Consolidation Order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 407) and the July 14, 2025 Decision and Order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 457) with Notice of Entry (NYSCEF Doc. No. 459).

II. Procedural Posture

This post-judgment matrimonial proceeding comes before the Court on Defendant's motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR § 2221 [d], challenging this Court's Decision and Order dated July 14, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 457). That decision disposed of two pending applications: Defendant's Motion Sequence No.015, brought by Order to Show Cause, seeking to hold Plaintiff in contempt for alleged failures to contribute to their child's "add-on" and therapy expenses and requesting consolidation of Plaintiff's Family Court enforcement petition; and Plaintiff's Motion Sequence #016, which sought denial of Defendant's motion and a money judgment in the amount of $5,500 for claimed arrears in child support add-on expenses. Defendant now asks this Court to grant leave to reargue and to vacate the July 14, 2025 Decision and Order in its entirety, contending that the Court overlooked or misapprehended both facts and law in rendering its determinations. Plaintiff opposes in all respects except as to the correction of an omission from the July 14, 2025 Decision and Order concerning the April 30, 2025 consolidation order, which she concedes occurred and which she characterizes as a purely clerical omission.

III. Facts

The parties were divorced on August 30, 2022. Their rights and obligations concerning custody, parental access, and financial responsibilities are memorialized in a Custody and Parental Access Settlement Agreement dated March 17, 2022, a Stipulation of Settlement dated June 17, 2022, and a further stipulation dated December 19, 2024 modifying custody and child support so that Defendant became the custodial parent of the parties' daughter, ST, born XX XX, 2011.

On February 20, 2025, Defendant commenced Motion Sequence #015 by Order to Show Cause. He sought a finding of contempt against Plaintiff for alleged nonpayment of her share of various "add-on" expenses, including therapy with Dr. AF, and requested that Plaintiff's then-pending Family Court enforcement petition, filed February 4, 2025, be consolidated into the Supreme Court action. The contempt application claimed that Plaintiff had been directed to contribute to therapy expenses following the Court's orders and the stipulations between the parties yet had failed to do so. The motion annexed documentary materials Defendant contended demonstrated his payments toward qualifying expenses and Plaintiff's failure to remit her proportionate share.

On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff responded with Motion Sequence #016, a cross motion seeking denial of Defendant's contempt application and an affirmative award of $5,500.00 in alleged arrears. She averred that these arrears arose from unpaid "add-on" expenses incurred while she had residential custody of ST, and that such expenses were compensable under the parties' agreements.

On April 30, 2025, the Court issued an order consolidating Plaintiff's Family Court petition into this action and fixing a briefing schedule. The consolidation order (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 407) made explicit that both matters would proceed together under this Index Number, ensuring consistent adjudication of overlapping factual and legal issues.

On June 12, 2025, the Court issued further orders concerning the child's therapeutic care, directing that ST commence therapy with a provider selected by the Attorney for the Child, reappointing Ms. Erin Colgan, Esq., in that role, designating Dr. AF as the treating therapist, and requiring Plaintiff to pay her allocated share of therapy costs. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff attended only one of two scheduled joint sessions and that he himself bore the cost of the attended session. He references the Stipulation of Settlement as contemplating therapeutic involvement between Plaintiff and the child to foster their relationship.

Following the briefing schedule, Plaintiff submitted her opposition to Defendant's motion and her reply in support of her own cross motion. On July 7, 2025, she filed an additional submission that Defendant characterizes as an impermissible "second reply" in violation of the briefing schedule. Plaintiff maintains that the filing was a reply in support of her cross motion (Motion #016), expressly permitted by this Court in a short form order dated June 13, 2025 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 435).

On July 14, 2025, the Court issued its Decision and Order adjudicating both motions. The Court directed that a hearing be held to determine the precise amount of valid reimbursable expenses incurred by each party since October 11, 2024, specifically noting the necessity of fact-finding regarding out-of-network providers, the requirement of mutual consent under the parties' stipulation, and the issue of medical necessity in the absence of such consent. Defendant's request for a money judgment was expressly held in abeyance pending the hearing. The Court granted Plaintiff a money judgment of $5,500.00 in connection with certain arrears she established to the Court's satisfaction with corroborating Our Family Wizard messages, and denied Defendant's contempt application, among other determinations.

Defendant's present motion asserts that the Court's omission of the April 30, 2025 consolidation order from its July 14, 2025 Decision and Order demonstrates an oversight warranting amendment, that Plaintiff's proof supporting the $5,500.00 award was insufficient and should have been rejected, that his contempt application was improperly denied despite compelling proof, and that the Court should have disregarded Plaintiff's July 7, 2025 submission. Plaintiff concedes the omission of the consolidation reference but contends all other aspects of the motion are meritless and do not meet the standard for reargument under CPLR § 2221 [d].

IV. Conclusions of Law

CPLR § 2221 [d] prescribes that a motion for leave to reargue must be identified as such; must be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion; and must not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion. (see Partanio v Federal Realty Inv. Trust, 213 AD3d 685 [2d Dept 2023]; Salcedo v Demon Trucking, Inc., 146 AD3d 839 [2d Dept 2017]; Weiss v Bretton Woods Condominium II, 151 AD3d 905 [2d Dept 2017]).

The purpose of reargument is narrowly confined to enabling a court to correct its own mistakes, factual or legal, in the decision-making process. It is not a vehicle for relitigating issues previously considered, reweighing evidence, or introducing new evidence or arguments that could have been presented earlier. (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Halls, 98 AD3d 718 [2d Dept 2012]). The burden rests squarely on the movant to show that a dispositive fact or controlling principle of law was indeed overlooked or misunderstood in the original determination.

The omission of the April 30, 2025 consolidation order from the July 14, 2025 Decision and Order is undisputed and supported by the record at NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 407. Both parties agree that this consolidation occurred, and this Court acknowledges that the July 14, 2025 Decision should have reflected it. This omission will therefore be corrected nunc pro tunc on reargument.

As to the $5,500.00 arrears award, Defendant's contention is, in substance, that the Court erred in its assessment of the sufficiency and credibility of Plaintiff's proof. The record reflects that Plaintiff presented sworn assertions and documentary support, which the Court found credible under the stipulation requiring equal sharing of certain enumerated expenses. That Defendant offered competing evidence does not establish that the Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" anything; it merely demonstrates a disagreement with the outcome. A reargument motion does not authorize this Court to substitute a different credibility determination for that already made.

Regarding the denial of contempt, the July 14, 2025 Decision expressly recognized Defendant's submissions but concluded that contempt was not warranted based on the facts and governing legal principles. Defendant has not identified any particular fact the Court failed to consider or any controlling law it failed to apply. His disagreement with the conclusion drawn from the record does not satisfy CPLR 2221 [d].

Defendant's objection to the hearing directive similarly fails. The Court determined that certain disputes, including whether specific expenses were out-of-network without consent or medically necessary, could not be resolved on the papers and required evidentiary development. The selection of that procedural course lies within the Court's discretion and is not a product of factual or legal oversight.

With respect to the alleged "second reply," the record reflects that the challenged July 7, 2025 filing was authorized by this Court's June 13, 2025 short form order as a reply in support of Plaintiff's cross motion. The Court was aware of and permitted this procedural step; there was no misapprehension.

Finally, Defendant's introduction of new factual material in reply papers on the instant motion, including insurance reimbursement checks and dental billings, is barred by CPLR § 2221 [d], which prohibits the inclusion of facts not presented on the prior motion. These cannot be considered in deciding whether reargument is warranted.

V. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

The sole basis for amendment is the conceded clerical omission regarding the consolidation order. All other grounds advanced by Defendant either rehash arguments already decided, seek to introduce new factual matter, or challenge discretionary determinations not susceptible to correction under CPLR § 2221 [d].

ORDERED that Defendant's motion for leave to reargue is granted solely to the extent that the July 14, 2025 Decision and Order is amended nunc pro tunc to state that, by order dated April 30, 2025 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 407), this Court consolidated Plaintiff's February 4, 2025 Family Court enforcement petition with this action; and it is further

ORDERED that in all other respects, Defendant's motion for leave to reargue is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that all prior directives, including the scheduling of a hearing to determine the precise amount of valid reimbursable expenses incurred by each party since October 11, 2024, and the holding in abeyance of Defendant's request for a money judgment, remain in full force and effect; and it is further

ORDERED that any relief not expressly granted herein is DENIED.

Dated: August 14, 2025

Staten Island, New York

E N T E R,

HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

Ronald Castorina, Jr., J.