G.E.G.O.D., Petitioner, v. F.S.A.B., Respondent. (2026)

This Decision and Order is being entered following a directive of this Court to file statements of net worth in order for this Court to evaluate the finances of each party, to determine allocation of fees associated with the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator.

Relevant Factual & Procedural Background

The parties have never been married, and have one child among them, being [Redacted](D.O.B.: [Redacted]) (hereinafter the "Child").

Following the birth of the Child, and prior to initiating any actions pertaining to the custody of the Child in the State of New York, while residents of Harris County, in the State of Texas, the parties completed mediation and resolved all issues regarding custody and access of the Child, as well as child support, with such agreement being memorialized in an order adjudicating parentage, dated September 16, 2015 (hereinafter "Texas Custody Order"),¹ with such proceedings being titled [Redacted], and bearing Cause No.: [Redacted]. Generally, the Petitioner was granted sole physical and legal custody of the Child, with Respondent having phased-in access with the Child.

Thereafter, Petitioner moved to the State of New York with the Child, and from 2017-2018, the parties litigated in New York State Family Court regarding requests similar to those now pending before this Court, to modify and enforce the Texas Custody Order, which were ultimately denied by the New York State Family Court.²

However, this Court is advised (although no decision, order or other finding of fact was provided for review) that the Appellate Division, First Department vacated the decision made by the New York State Family Court to deny Respondent's modification application, based on the fact that Respondent was still a resident of Texas at the time of the proceedings, and that the State of Texas had not affirmatively declined to maintain jurisdiction over the custody of the parties' Child.

On January 27, 2020, Hon. Sonya L. Heath, Justice of the 310th Family District Court in Harris County, State of Texas, entered an Order granting the Petitioner's request to decline jurisdiction over further disputes related to custody of the parties' Child (hereinafter "Declined Jurisdiction Order").³ Notably, both parties consent that the State of New York has jurisdiction to hear the applications presently before this Court, following the entry of the Declined Jurisdiction Order.

On September 27, 2021, this matter was commenced by Petitioner with the filing of a summons with notice (hereinafter "Summons"),⁴ seeking the enforcement of the Texas Custody Order pursuant to New York State Domestic Relations Law (hereinafter "DRL") §§ 236 and 240, and simultaneously filing a request for judicial intervention (hereinafter "RJI"),⁵ which incorrectly identified this matter as a contested matrimonial matter, and included a matrimonial addendum identifying the parties' Child by name and date of birth. Thereafter, Hon. Nancy Quinn Koba, J.S.C. was initially assigned to preside over this matter.

Moreover, on that date Petitioner filed Motion Sequence No. 1,⁶ by order to show cause, seeking the entry of an Order granting inter alia the following: (1) enforcement of the Texas Custody Order, to the extent Respondent should be directed to pay child support arrears and any further child support payments being made through the New York State Child Support Collections Unit; and, (2) permitting alternate service of Motion Sequence No. 1 on the Respondent.

On September 30, 2021, Respondent appeared by counsel, with the filing of a notice of appearance by [Redacted] (hereinafter "Respondent's Prior Counsel").⁷

On October 12, 2021, an Order was entered appointing [Redacted]as attorney for the Child (hereinafter "AFC").⁸

On October 22, 2021, an Order was entered appointing Dr. Sherill Sigalos, Ph.D. as a neutral forensic evaluator (hereinafter "Prior Forensic Evaluator"),⁹ to perform a forensic evaluation related to the pending custody applications.

On October 22, 2021, Respondent filed a cross motion, being Motion Sequence No. 2,¹⁰ seeking the entry of an Order granting inter alia the following: (1) on an interim basis, pending the final resolution of Motion Sequence No. 2, granting Respondent increased parenting time with the Child, granting the Respondent the right of first refusal when Petitioner cannot exercise her scheduled parenting time, granting the Respondent daily Skype, FaceTime or other video communication with the Child, granting Respondent's request to immediately place the Child in therapy, granting Respondent's request to immediately share with Petitioner joint decision-making on all major decisions; and, (2) following a hearing regarding custody of the Child, modifying, amending, deleting and adding multiple provisions to and from the Texas Custody Order in the best interests of the Child.

On January 11, 2022, Hon. Thomas Quinones, J.S.C. was assigned to preside over this matter.

On January 26, 2022, while Motion Sequence Nos. 1-2 remained pending before this Court, all parties and the AFC submitted a proposed stipulation on consent, regarding interim relief related to custody and access of the Child, which was so-ordered by the Court on March 11, 2022 (hereinafter "Interim Custody Stipulation").¹¹ The pertinent provisions of the Interim Custody Stipulation read as follows:

"Witnesseth

WHEREAS, the Parties have one (1) child: [Redacted], born [Redacted] ("[Redacted]"), and there are no additional or expected issue;

WHEREAS, there is an Agreed Order Adjudicating Parentage issued in Harris County, Texas and signed on September 16, 2015 ("Agreed Order") governing custody and access of the Child;

WHEREAS, there is a pending Order to Show Cause filed by the Mother in Westchester County on September 27, 2021 seeking, inter alia, enforcement of the Agreed Order (the "Mother's Motion") and a pending Cross-Motion filed by the Father in Westchester County on October 22, 2021 seeking, inter alia, modification of the Agreed Order (the "Father's Cross-Motion");

WHEREAS, by this Interim Stipulation ("Stipulation") the parties wish to resolve certain issues during the pendency of the Mother's Motion and the Father's Cross-Motion;

* * * *

ACCESS PROVISIONS

1.1 Until further written agreement of the Parties or an order of the Court, commencing upon the execution of this Stipulation and continuing until the full resolution of the Mother's Motion and the Father's Cross-Motion, including any resulting hearing, the Parties agree to exercise certain provisions of the Agreed Order pursuant to the terms set forth herein.

1.2 On every Thursday during the regular school term, the Father shall have access time with the Child beginning at 5:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 p.m. except for weeks immediately preceding a Mother's Long Weekend (as defined in this paragraph), during which the Father shall have access time on the Wednesday of that week beginning at 5:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 p.m. For the purposes of this Stipulation, a "Mother's Long Weekend" shall mean any weekend in which the Mother has access time with the Child and where the Child has off from school on the Friday immediately before such weekend.

1.3 All of the Father's regular weekend access time, as set forth pursuant to the terms of PHASE 7 of the Agreed Order, shall be exercised as follows: (1) during such regular weekend access time, the Child shall stay at the Father's New York City residence; (2) during all Long Weekends (as defined below), the Child shall stay with the Father at the Father's New York City residence or, upon reasonable notice given by the Father to the Mother, anywhere in Suffolk County, New York; (3) during all Summer Weekends (as defined below), the Child shall stay with the Father at the Father's New York City residence or, upon reasonable notice given by the Father to the Mother, anywhere in Suffolk County, New York.

1.4 For the purposes of this Stipulation, "Long Weekends" shall mean any weekend in which the Father has access time with the Child and where the Child has off from school on either the Friday immediately before such weekend or the Monday immediately following such weekend.

1.5 For the purposes of this Stipulation, "Summer Weekends" shall mean any weekend that takes place during the time between the last day of the Child's school year and the commencement of the Child's following school year."

On July 26, 2022, Respondent's Prior Counsel filed Motion Sequence No. 3,¹² seeking permission to be relieved as counsel for the Respondent in this matter, seeking a retaining lien, and staying the proceedings for thirty (30) days.

On August 12, 2022, a decision and order was entered resolving Motion Sequence Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter "Decision & Order on Motions 1-2").¹³ In sum and substance, Motion Sequence No. 1 was resolved as moot, being that Respondent was current on his child support obligations, that he agreed to make further payments through the support collections unit, and that the application for alternate service was moot as Respondent had appeared and responded to the Petitioner's application. Motion Sequence No. 2 was referred, in its entirety to be decided following a hearing scheduled to take place on September 21, 2022 and September 23, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

On August 23, 2022, a decision and order was entered resolving Motion Sequence No. 3 (hereinafter "Decision & Order on Motion 3"),¹⁴ granting all requests for relief on default, as Respondent failed to appear for oral argument on the return date of Motion Sequence No. 3, and failed to submit papers in opposition. Moreover, the Decision & Order on Motion 3 granted Respondent's Prior Counsel's request for a thirty (30) day stay of the proceedings, thereby adjourning the hearing regarding the relief requested in Motion Sequence No. 2 to take place from May 8, 2023, to May 12, 2023, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

On August 23, 2022, Respondent's Prior Counsel filed an affidavit of service,¹⁵ confirming Respondent had been served with the Decision & Order on Motion 3.

On October 18, 2022, Petitioner filed Motion Sequence No. 4,¹⁶ which sought: (1) injunctive relief in preventing Respondent from bringing the Child on certain vacations and trips in violation of the Texas Custody Order; (2) enforcing the child support provisions of the Texas Custody Order; and, (3) renewing Petitioner's opposition to the pending cross-motion, being Motion Sequence No. 2, with new facts not available at the time of the Decision & Order on Motions 1-2.

On October 21, 2022, Motion Sequence No. 4 was conformed,¹⁷ directing that Motion Sequence No. 4 be served on Respondent by overnight mail by October 24, 2022; providing a briefing schedule; and, directing that the parties appear virtually on December 6, 2022 to engage in oral argument regarding Motion Sequence No. 4.

On November 1, 2022, Petitioner filed an affidavit of service,¹⁸ confirming Respondent had been served with Motion Sequence No. 4.

On December 6, 2022, a virtual appearance was held wherein Petitioner, Petitioner's counsel, and the AFC appeared before the Court, with Respondent failing to appear.

On December 19, 2022 an Order was entered (hereinafter "Decision & Order on Motion 4"),¹⁹ which granted that portion of Petitioner's request in Motion Sequence No. 4 to oppose and dismiss Motion Sequence No. 2, thereby vacating the need for the hearing scheduled to take place as previously scheduled in May of 2023, vacating the forensic evaluation in progress by the Prior Forensic Evaluator, and further resolving Motion Sequence Nos. 1-2 and 4 by directing that the Interim Custody Stipulation survive the denial of Motion Sequence No. 2, and remain in effect permanently amending and supplementing the Texas Custody Order.

On March 10, 2023, this matter was transferred to the undersigned, who has thereafter presided over this matter.

On January 28, 2026, Respondent filed Motion Sequence No. 6,²⁰ requesting inter alia a modification of the Texas Custody Order, in that (1) Respondent would have primary physical custody of the Child (2) setting new regular, summer vacation, and holiday access with the Child, as well as travel schedules with the Child; (3) seeking sole legal custody of the Child, or alternatively joint legal custody of the Child; (4) removing any restrictions on Respondent's access with the Child; (5) appointing a new neutral forensic evaluator; and, (6) finding Petitioner in contempt for violating the Texas Custody Order. Motion Sequence No. 6 was conformed  ²¹ on the same date, directing the following: (1) denying all immediate relief requested on an ex-parte basis pending the outcome of Motion Sequence No. 6; (2) Respondent was directed to serve Petitioner with Motion Sequence No. 6 by February 11, 2026; (3) answering submissions and/or cross motions by Petitioner were to be filed by February 25, 2026; and, (4) Respondent was to file any answering submissions to any cross motions by March 11, 2026, with no reply submissions being accepted, also being the return date of Motion Sequence No. 6 and any cross motion filed, with no appearances.

On February 25, 2026, Petitioner timely filed an opposition to Motion Sequence No. 6 and a cross motion being Motion Sequence No. 7,²² seeking inter alia: (1) denial of Motion Sequence No. 6 in its entirety, except for the appointment of a new neutral forensic evaluator; (2) enforcing prior provisions included within the Texas Custody Order; (3) re-appointing the AFC; (4) finding Respondent in contempt for violating the Texas Custody Order and the Interim Custody Stipulation; (5) seeking the entry of money judgments for all child support and medical support arrears; (6) directing the production of certain financial and personal information from Respondent; and, (7) seeking attorneys' fees associated with the pending applications.

On March 10, 2026, Respondent filed a request  ²³ to extend time to submit an answering submission to Motion Sequence No. 7, which was granted,²⁴ permitting counsel to file an answering submission to Motion Sequence No. 7 by March 13, 2026, also making same the new return date of Motion Sequence Nos. 6-7.

On March 12, 2026, Respondent filed an answering submission to Motion Sequence No. 7.²⁵

On May 22, 2026, a decision and order was entered (hereinafter "Motion Decision 6-7"),²⁶ wherein this Court: (1) re-appointed the AFC, to be effectuated by further Order of re-appointment following applications regarding the allocation of the AFC's fees; (2) directed that a new neutral forensic evaluator would be appointed only following the selection of a neutral forensic evaluator and following applications related to allocation of fees for said neutral forensic evaluator, with such oral argument to take place at a status conference to be held on June 1, 2026; and, (3) referred the remainder of the relief requested in Motion Sequence Nos. 6-7 to be resolved following a hearing, which would be scheduled at the June 1, 2026 status conference.

On May 22, 2026, Respondent served a copy of Motion Decision 6-7 with notice of entry  ²⁷ pursuant to this Court's directive.

On May 27, 2026, this Court entered an Order  ²⁸ granting Respondent's request to adjourn the status conference to June 15, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

On June 9, 2026, this Court entered a further Order  ²⁹ granting Petitioner's request to adjourn the status conference to June 17, 2026 at 2:00 p.m.

On June 17, 2026, all parties and counsel appeared before the Court for a status conference regarding Motion Sequence Nos. 6-7, wherein the parties engaged in settlement discussions and the Court granted the parties additional time to discuss settlement in hopes of reaching a global resolution on all remaining issues, whereafter an Order  ³⁰ was entered memorializing the appearance and directing that the parties return on July 17, 2026 for a further settlement conference.

On July 17, 2026, a settlement conference was held before the undersigned, wherein all parties and counsel appeared before the undersigned, and the AFC appeared virtually via Microsoft TEAMS, whereafter a transcript of the proceeding was submitted to the Court, so-ordered and filed (hereinafter "7/17/2026 Transcript").³¹ During the conference, an attempt was made to resolve the issues raised by the parties in Motion Sequence Nos. 6-7, being previously referred to a hearing for final determination, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, but no resolution was reached. Thereafter, the parties agreed to the re-appointment of the AFC, as set forth in Motion Decision 6-7, including an agreement on the allocation of fees associated with the AFC, being paid 50% by Petitioner and 50% by Respondent.³²

However, the parties were not in agreement on the allocation of fees associated with the Court's determination requiring the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator. As a result, the Court discussed need to evaluate the parties finances with respect to allocating the fee associated with appointing a neutral forensic evaluator, wherein both counsel advised that they were not in a position to make statements on the record regarding their respective client's finances and agreed to submit fully executed statements of net worth by a date certain with the parameters set forth by the Court with respect to what should be contained within said statement of net worth:

"THE COURT: I want to deal with the cost first. It's my responsibility and the case law is very clear on this, when I determine fee allocations to understand the party's finances, so if you feel comfortable I'm going to ask you a bunch of questions about your client's finances now, or I'll give you until Wednesday of next week to submit a statement of net worth with attached tax returns and any pay stubs.

RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: I'm not in a position, Judge, to answer any questions about my client's finances at this time.

THE COURT: He's right next to you. I'm going to give you a precursor so you know exactly what I'm going to ask you. Plaintiff's Counsel, you pay attention too. In the last year, the last reporting cycle for taxes 2025, what did your client have regarding income from all sources, W-2, 1099, K1's, et cetera, et cetera. With reference to dividends and other investment income, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera; does his current income deviate from that substantially meaning more than $50,000, above or below what he previously made. I'm going to be asking the same question to Plaintiff's Counsel. Further, if you tallied up all of your client's assets, real property, investment accounts, bank accounts, antiques, et cetera, et cetera, what would that number be. How many liabilities does he have. If you subtracted those numbers what is his net value in equity. I need to really understand all of that along with any financial concerns you want to bring up, and then I can hear that from the plaintiff's side and that will give me the ability to decide what the appropriate allocation could be.

Even though the parties are here with lawyers, I'm also making it very clear I will entertain applications for interim legal fees, and you'll have the ability to without further leave of the Court to submit orders to show cause to that effect. I will direct you to talk to your client, you can do it off the record. Plaintiff's Counsel, you could [do] the same and I want to know what your position is. You can either make statements on the record but I'll make this very clear, there might come a time where this information is turned over in discovery or I direct it to be turned over, and the lawyers words matter.

So when I have statements of net worth in my Court I let them be very, very careful because you're an attorney and you're an officer of the Court, I'm speaking to all the lawyers in this room and words matter, so if you're making a representation to me regarding something that I ask you, it better be correct. So talk to your clients about that, and you let me know whether or not you want to make those statements today or if you want to file a statement of net worth with any tax returns, I'll give you until Friday of next week. Talk to your client.

* * * *

THE COURT: We're back on the record. Appearances remain the same. We'll start with Plaintiff's Counsel, what's your position regarding payment, has it changed regarding the disclosure of finances, do you want to do it on the record?

PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: I'm prepared to do it on the record. I suspect everyone should submit a statement of net worth at some point in time. My client —

THE COURT: Well, I don't have plaintiff's before me at this time.

PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: So obviously if custody changes and support is an issue, that will be an issue. I think we may have an application for fees incorporated in the motion that's before you but it was really to insert the child support payments which were in arrears for years and was paid only after we filed our motion when we appeared in front of you, that's when the payment was made. But obviously we haven't focused on finances because that's not why we're here. But my client earned, approximately, $165,000 last year. Years earlier she was earning low 200's, her income has been going down. She started to help her husband who has a catering business and went on payroll for $3,000 a month as well, that started recently, and she receives $2,000 a month in child support. That's the sum and substance of her income.

THE COURT: So in total what would you project her annual income is as we sit here today?

PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: I would say 3,000, it would be close to $200,000. But her base is 125, she stands to make additional funds, she runs conferences so it depends on the number of people participating in conferences, assets, she's on title to a home and cars, it's about $60,000 in brokerage accounts she inherited from her grandmother at some point in time, but I am trying to be precise. There isn't a significant amount of liquidity, it's really a home and some cars.

THE COURT: But even without the liquidity if you took all of her assets, whether they were retirements, tax impacted homes, net equity, et cetera, et cetera, what would you say your client's net worth is?

PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: That one I wouldn't even feel comfortable opining on because I don't know anything about the home, I don't know about the mortgage, I don't know about the cars but I'm happy to do what I need to do to give you a good faith estimate.

THE COURT: I understand. So we might have to have a situation where you submit a net worth statement and I might not be in a position where I make a decision today. Defendant's Counsel?

RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: I am not in a position to make a statement on the record regarding my client's financial circumstances. We would need to submit that in writing via a net worth statement, I would ask that we be permitted to have two weeks to submit that instead of one.

THE COURT: Plaintiff's Counsel, any objection to that?

PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: No objection.

THE COURT: Ms. [Redacted]?

ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD: No objection, your Honor, but I do want to give the Court some information regarding Dr. Sigalow, if you wish.

THE COURT: Let me just do this first, so we're going to July 31st, please, for both parties to submit a statement of net worth. Please remember you have to submit three months of pay stubs, and also your last filed tax return, federal, state and local if it applies with all of your schedules, so I can see it. You're going to upload that to NYSCEF, please do not redact it unless there is a basis to do so, and if you redact it you're going to submit a hard copy submission to me pursuant to the Court rules so I can see the entirety of the documents and I'll make a decision whether or not further redaction should be permitted or if it should be filed on NYSCEF without any redactions at all. Any other issues on that, Plaintiff's Counsel?

PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Defendant's Counsel?

RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL: No, Judge" [emphasis added].³³

Following the July 17, 2026 conference an Order was entered directing inter alia the following (hereinafter "7/17/2026 Order")³⁴ :

"1. Attorney For The Child —[Redacted] is appointed as the AFC for the parties' Child, with such appointment being effectuated by separate Order filed simultaneously with this Order, and the parties shall pay an initial retainer of $10,000.00 to the AFC, with fees and disbursements being paid at a rate of $450.00 per hour, with such initial retainer being paid by July 22, 2026, and by such date counsel filing on NYSCEF affirmations confirming their portion of the AFC's initial retainer has been provided. Counsel [Redacted] is directed to advise this Court as to the need for replenishment of her retainer upon funds being depleted, and prior to any hearings or trials scheduled to provide the Court and counsel with a requested hearing/trial retainer so that this issue may be addressed prior to any hearing/trial.

2. Forensic Evaluator - Prior to July 22, 2026, all parties shall file respective letters on NYSCEF indicating the names of forensic evaluators that their client's request this Court to appoint for purposes of completing a forensic evaluation in this matter. As noted above, the Court will determine the availability of the prior forensic evaluator appointed and make such re-appointment if possible, and if same does not have availability will enter an order of appointment after having reviewed the proposed names by all counsel. By July 31, 2026, both parties shall file on NYSCEF, through their counsel, a fully completed statement of net worth along with three (3) months of paystubs from any employment of the respective parties and their last filed income tax returns (Federal, State, Local/Foreign Jurisdictions), to permit this Court to evaluate the parties' finances prior to making a determination as to the allocation of fees for the forensic evaluator " [emphasis added].

Simultaneously, this Court entered a re-appointment Order  ³⁵ formally re-appointing the AFC in this matter.

On July 30, 2026, this Court entered an Order  ³⁶ granting the Petitioner's request to extend her deadline to file a statement of net worth to August 7, 2026.

On August 3, 2026, this Court entered an Order  ³⁷ granting the Respondent's request to extend his deadline to file a statement of net worth to August 7, 2026.

On August 7, 2026, this Court entered an Order  ³⁸ granting the Respondent's second request, extending both parties deadline to file respective statements of net worth to August 28, 2026.

On August 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a statement of net worth (hereinafter "Petitioner's SNW").³⁹

On August 28, 2026, Respondent filed a statement of net worth, being signed by the Respondent, failing to provide any W-2s, 1099s, K1s, income tax returns of any kind, and/or recent paystubs; and, failing to be certified by Respondent's counsel (hereinafter "Respondent's SNW").⁴⁰ Simultaneously, Respondent's counsel filed a letter with the Court (hereinafter "Counsel Letter"),⁴¹ being an unsworn document, which in sum and substance advised the Court that Respondent's counsel was unable to certify Respondent's SNW due to the "complicated nature of Defendant's (Respondent's) finances"; confirms her client has not filed income tax returns since 2023, although does not attach returns from the tax year 2023; requests that this Court accept Respondent's SNW without counsel's certification; and, requests that this Court not take a negative inference based on counsel's claim to be unable to certify the document. Notwithstanding the fact that the Counsel Letter was unsworn, this Court will accept the document as Respondent's position regarding the form and substance of Respondent's SNW filed with this Court.

Legal Analysis

A. Need to Appoint Neutral Forensic Evaluator and Responsibility to Allocate Fees Following Financial Inquiry.

The use of mental health experts as appointed professionals to prepare evaluation reports for presentation to a court making determinations involving the custody and access of minor children is permitted as set forth in DRL § 240(a-3):

"(a-3) Court ordered forensic evaluations involving child custody and visitation.

(1) The court may appoint a forensic evaluator on behalf of the court to evaluate and investigate the parties and a child or children in a proceeding involving child custody and visitation provided that the child custody forensic evaluator is a psychologist, social worker or psychiatrist who is licensed in the state of New York and has received within the last two years, a certification of completion for completing the training program pursuant to paragraph (o) of subdivision three of section five hundred seventy-five of the executive law."

This section of the DRL works in concert with both statewide and local rules pertaining to how forensic evaluators are to be appointed and how the cost of same should be borne. 22 NYCRR § 202.18 speaks generally to the authority of the court to appoint experts in domestic relations litigation, noting that the cost of such neutral expert shall be paid as the Court directs:

"In any action or proceeding tried without a jury to which section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law applies, the court may appoint a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other appropriate expert to give testimony with respect to custody or visitation, and may appoint an accountant, appraiser, actuary or other appropriate expert to give testimony with respect to equitable distribution or a distributive award. In the First and Second Judicial Departments, appointments shall be made as appropriate from a panel of mental health professionals pursuant to Parts 623 and 680 of this Title. The cost of such expert witness shall be paid by a party or parties as the court shall direct" [emphasis added].

The manner by which a court may then appoint a member of the mental health professionals panel is set forth in 22 NYCRR § 680.5, which includes the form of an appointment Order, further confirming the Court's responsibility to determine which party/parties should be responsible for the cost of such expert:

"(b) Order of Appointment. The court appointing a mental health professional shall issue a written order setting forth the terms and conditions of the appointment including the purpose and scope of the evaluation, method and rate of compensation and by whom such compensation is to be paid. A copy of the order shall be provided to the mental health professional and to every party to the case, including the attorney, if any, for each child. The written order shall also contain a notice that the parties may submit any complaints or concerns regarding the conduct of the assigned mental health professional panel member to the mental health professionals oversight committee" [emphasis added].

Furthermore, 22 NYCRR § 680.7 sets forth how those appointed will be compensated for their services, which delineate separate directives for those appointed for those of insufficient means and others appointed who will be paid by the parties:

"(a) The compensation for mental health professionals appointed pursuant to Judiciary Law § 35 or County Law § 722-c shall be set in accordance with guidelines promulgated by the Chief Administrator of the Courts. Applications for payment for services rendered pursuant to those sections shall be submitted for approval to the court that appointed the panel member on forms authorized by the Chief Administrator of the Courts or by the appropriate local fiscal authority.

(b) The compensation of mental health professionals appointed in cases in which their fees shall be borne in whole or in part by the parties shall be at rates fixed by the court in accordance with the charge for such services prevailing in the community and the financial circumstances of the parties. Such compensation shall not exceed a sum certain to be set forth in the order of appointment, which sum shall be based on the selected rate and the estimated number of hours required to perform the necessary services, except that if, in the judgment of the mental health professional, the number of hours required to perform the necessary services is likely to exceed the number set forth in the order of appointment, the professional may make application to the court to amend that order by increasing the number of hours accordingly. The application shall be made by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the party or parties responsible for the payment of the fee" [emphasis added].

Moreover, the Appellate Division, Second Department has made it abundantly clear that allocation of fees related to forensic evaluators without considering the parties' financial circumstances is a reversable error (see Fernandez v. Saunders, 174 AD3d 531 [2d Dept 2019]; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2d Dept 2008]; Klutchko v. Baron, 1 AD3d 400 [2d Dept 2003]).

Here, the Court clearly determined, based on the factual allegations provided by the parties, that there is a need for the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator in order for this Court to make custody determinations regarding the parties' Child, and the pending applications included within Motion Sequence Nos. 6-7. Consequently, this Court will appoint Robert J. Verno, Ph.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Verno"), as a neutral forensic evaluator in this matter, as will be set forth herein-below, and as will be outlined in a separate Order of appointment.

Therefore, it is this Court's responsibility to determine, based on a thorough review of the financial circumstances of the parties, by whom Dr. Verno's fees shall be paid. In order to engage in such necessary financial review, this Court attempted to engage in an examination of the parties' finances on-the-record during the July 17, 2026 appearance, at which time both Petitioner's counsel and Respondent's counsel made clear that they could not provide this Court with accurate information regarding their client's finances for purposes of allocating the neutral forensic evaluator's fees; and, requested that this Court instead permit them time to file respective statements of net worth.

This Court agreed to the submission of statements of net worth from each party in order to address its responsibility to review the financial circumstances of each party prior to allocating fees for the forensic evaluator. However, it appears, based on review of Respondent's SNW and the Counsel Letter, that Respondent's SNW provided a deficient financial document for this Court's review, further failing to provide any W-2s, 1099s, K1s, income tax returns of any kind, and/or recent paystubs to substantiate the minimal financial information included therein. Furthermore, based on the Counsel Letter, Respondent's counsel intentionally did not certify Respondent's SNW, citing to the "complicated nature of Defendant's (Respondent's) finances", requested that this Court accept Respondent's SNW without counsel's certification; and, requested that this Court not take a negative inference based on her inability to certify the information included therein. Additionally, Respondent's counsel seems to indicate that because this is not a matrimonial matter, the lack of her certification of Respondent's SNW is of no consequence. Based on the reasons set forth herein-below, this Court finds Respondent's SNW significantly defective, missing necessary supporting documentation, and finds Respondent's position regarding certification of said document unavailing and without merit.

B. Form of Statements of Net Worth and Necessary Attorney Certification.

As a financial evaluation tool, statements of net worth have consistently been used by the Courts to evaluate the financial circumstances of parties, including situations when the Court must use its authority to allocate fees (see A.S. v. A.B., 88 Misc 3d 1248(A) [Sup Ct. Kings Cnty 2026]; see also Lang v. Lang, 72 AD3d 1255 [3d Dept 2010]).

The Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court (hereinafter "22 NYCRR § 202") outline the form in which statements of net worth should be filed and presented to the Court. Specifically, 22 NYCRR § 202.16(b), which sets forth specific rules related to the filing of statements of net worth in matrimonial actions and family court actions, providing: "[s]worn statements of net worth, except as provided in subdivision (k) of this section, exchanged and filed with the court pursuant to section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law, shall be in substantial compliance with the Statement of Net Worth form contained in appendix A of this section."

Review of the form included in the aforementioned appendix lists eight separate categories of information including: (1) family data; (2) expenses; (3) income; (4) assets (5) liabilities; (6) assets transferred; (7) legal & expert fees; and, (8) other data. The form notes on the last page that required attachments include, "Retainer Agreement; most recent W-2, 1099s, K1s, Income Tax Returns, and Two Most Recent Paystubs, Any Written Agreements between the Parties (Prenuptial, Postnuptial, Separation, etc.)" [emphasis added]. Importantly to this Decision and Order, the form included in the aforementioned appendix makes clear on page 26 of that document, that the parties' attorney must certify the contents of the statement.

22 NYCRR § 202.16(e) sets forth a sweeping directive in matrimonial actions that every paper served and/or filed to the Court must be certified by counsel appearing before the Court:

"(e) Certification of Paper and Obligations of Counsel Appearing Before the Court.

(1) Every paper served on another party or filed or submitted to the court in a matrimonial action shall be signed as provided in section 130-1.1a of this Title" [emphasis added].

Based on the text of this rule, it is clear that 22 NYCRR § 202.16(e) acts as a reminder to all attorneys appearing before the Court on matrimonial cases of the responsibilities and ethical considerations of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1a, rather than providing a new ethical responsibility for matrimonial matters. For reference, the relevant portion of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1a reads as follows: "(b) Certification. By signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in section 130-1.1(c) of this Subpart " Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the filing of any paper by an attorney appearing before the Court should be signed and contents of such papers certified, regardless of whether or not same is filed in a matrimonial proceeding.

In fact, the trial Court in Rosen v. Rosen, 161 Misc 2d 795 [Sup Ct Queens Cnty 1994], very succinctly expresses this interpretation of 22 NYCRR § 202.16(e), making clear that the standard of certifying papers for matrimonial attorneys is not a new or different standard than certification of papers in other matters, but that it appears the Court rules wanted the matrimonial bar to be reminded of their responsibility:

"It should first be understood that 22 NYCRR § 202.16(e) imposes no new ethical responsibilities on lawyers in matrimonial cases. It has never been permissible for an attorney to submit, or participate in submitting, evidence which the attorney has reason to know is substantially false (see, e.g., Matter of Neuwirth, 39 AD2d 365, 334 N.Y.S.2d 206, People v. Appel, 120 AD2d 319, 509 N.Y.S.2d 438). The Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated as joint rules of the Appellate Divisions, 22 NYCRR Part 1200, impose an ethical standard at least as stringent. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1200.33(a):

In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:

* * *

(2) Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law ...

(3) Conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal.

(4) Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.

(5) Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.

Every submission of statements of fact by an attorney, in every case, thus carries with it the attorney's implicit assurance that the attorney has no knowledge that it is false. This does not mean, of course, that the attorney is required to vouch for the testimony of each witness personally. To the contrary, an attorney is forbidden from doing so (22 NYCRR 1200.37(c)(4)). Thus, the certification rule simply takes the assurance already implicit in an attorney's presentation of evidence, and requires the matrimonial attorney to make it explicit. The attorney is required to do no more than certify that he has complied with minimal standards of candor and honesty. The reason for the imposition of the certification requirement clearly is to impress upon the matrimonial bar the necessity for such compliance" [emphasis added].

Here, the parties had the ability to allow the Court to engage in a financial inquiry on the record for purposes of allocating fees associated with the appointment of a forensic evaluator as they were unable to stipulate to such allocation, however the parties instead chose to prepare statements of net worth to ensure accuracy of the financial circumstances of each party. The Court initially provided two (2) weeks to prepare respective statements of net worth, thereafter granting an adjournment of one (1) week, and thereafter granting a second adjournment of an additional three (3) weeks, for a total of six (6) weeks for the parties to prepare the directed financial disclosure. While Petitioner filed Petitioner's SNW, being filed in complete form, with supporting documents and certified  ⁴² by Petitioner's attorney, Respondent filed Respondent's SNW which failed to provide a substantial amount of required financial information, failed to include as attachments any W-2s, 1099s, K1s, income tax returns of any kind, and/or recent paystubs; and, wherein Respondent's counsel intentionally omitted her signature claiming she could not certify the document, but advised this Court that her certification was not necessary and requested that no negative inference be taken as a result.

Clearly, this Court required not only the submission of Respondent's SNW, including all necessary documents directed by 22 NYCRR § 202.16, but that the document be certified pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.16(b); § 202.16(e); and, § 130-1.1a. In violation of this Court's directive, Respondent filed document with this Court that was not substantially compliant with 22 NYCRR § 202.16(b), failing to be supported by the documents required within the form provided in appendix A of that rule, and as such has failed to provide this Court with the financial information directed in the 7/17/2026 Order. Moreover, after intentionally filing a defective financial document with this Court, Respondent's counsel intentionally failed to certify the document, and seems to indicate in the Counsel Letter that this Court should overlook these glaring defects simply based on the complexity of her client's finances and the fact that this is not a matrimonial proceeding. This Court cannot overlook such obvious deficiencies, and as set forth herein-below, must take these into consideration when determining the fee allocation between the parties for the appointment of the neutral forensic evaluator.

C. Allocation of Fees Associated With Neutral Forensic Evaluator and Negative Inference Related To Respondent's Defective Statement of Net Worth.

Courts have consistently taken negative inferences when a party fails to file a full and complete statement of net worth, and/or supplemental statement of net worth pursuant to its directives for financial disclosure (see W.G.G. v. J.D.S.-G., 83 Misc 3d 535 [Sup Ct Nassau Cnty 2024] [Trial Court took negative inference when a party failed to file a sworn to statement of net worth]; A.S. v. M.S., 79 Misc 3d 1243(A) [Sup Ct Westchester Cnty 2023] [Trial Court took negative inference when a party failed to provide a supplemental statement of net worth prior to trial as directed by Court]; S.A. v. K.F., 22 Misc 3d 1115(A) [Sup Ct. Kings Cnty 2009] [no negative inference was taken because Trial Court found testimony of party credible]). Here, Respondent was unable to provide financial information on-the-record to the Court during the July 17, 2026 conference, at the parties' request the Court permitted the submission of statements of net worth, and this Court granted six (6) weeks to complete the necessary financial disclosure in the form of statements of net worth. This Court finds Respondent's SNW to be significantly deficient for several reasons, as set forth herein-below.

At the outset, Respondent's SNW claims annual gross income of $143,728.00 which Respondent claims is "based on 2025 draft income tax return", however Respondent provides this representation after confirming that no tax return has been filed on behalf of the Respondent for the tax year 2025,⁴³ and failing to provide any "draft" tax return reviewed in consideration of providing this information. Moreover, as set forth herein-above, Respondent further failed to provide any W-2, 1099s, K1s, income tax return, and/or paystubs, as required by rule. Therefore, this Court is unable to confirm, to any degree, the accuracy of Respondent's SNW as it relates to his current gross income. This Court cannot consider a "draft" tax return, which has not yet been filed, which has not been provided to this Court for review, in order to make a determination for fees as outlined herein.

Separate from gross income, this Court turned to Respondent's assets in an attempt to further evaluate the Respondent's finances for purposes of allocating appropriate fees. However, this Court notes that §§ IV (A-E, G, H, I, K, L) of Respondent's SNW, regarding checking and savings accounts; investment accounts, securities/stock options/broker accounts; real estate; retirement accounts; vehicles; business interests; cash surrender value (life insurance); accounts receivable; funds held in an electronic payment application (venmo, paypal, etc.); and, cryptocurrency, were left completely blank by the Respondent,⁴⁴ providing no information whatsoever for this Court to consider. While Respondent identified certain tangible personal property (watches, unknown "heirlooms", "various artworks", etc.), no value or further identifying information was provided to this Court regarding such property.⁴⁵ Conversely, Respondent was able to, with specificity, outline $2,375,771.00 in liabilities,⁴⁶ being unsecured debts owed by him; and, was able to confirm he spends approximately $52,355.00 in monthly expenses ($628,260.00 annual expenses),⁴⁷ with a substantial amount of same claimed to be paid for by other individuals (family members, his current wife, etc.). Notably, it appears that the approximately $52,000.00 in monthly expenses does not take into consideration monthly costs for housing, utilities, insurance, maintenance, and household help, which Respondent claims are "unknown" to him.

Lastly, as set forth in detail herein-above, Respondent's counsel was required to certify Respondent's SNW pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.16(b); § 202.16(e); and, § 130-1.1a., and intentionally failed to do so.

Petitioner's SNW confirmed a gross annual income of $118,822.00,⁴⁸ being based off of her 2024 Federal income tax return (also attached to Petitioner's SNW), and further making clear to this Court that a supplemental statement of net worth may be required once Petitioner's 2025 Federal and State income tax returns are filed, of which are on extension, but provided for this Court an estimated 2025 income based on Petitioner's 2025 1099 of $203,941.00,⁴⁹ to be taken into consideration for this Court's financial inquiry. Further, Petitioner's SNW was substantially compliant, providing information regarding Petitioners, monthly expenses, assets and liabilities; and, both signed by the Petitioner and certified by Petitioner's counsel, as required.

If this Court accepted the numbers as provided by Petitioner's SNW and Respondent's SNW for purposes of allocation fees associated with the appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator, the total combined income of the parties would be approximately $347,669.00,⁵⁰ and assuming this Court agreed to a pro-rata split between the parties based on their current income, same would be 59% paid for by Petitioner and 41% paid for by Respondent. However, this Court cannot overlook the glaring deficiencies within Respondent's SNW, and the statements made within the Counsel Letter, which confirm Respondent's own counsel's inability to certify this document. For the reasons set forth herein-above, and the abundance of case law that permits such inferences to be made, this Court must take a negative inference based on the lack of information provided to this Court within Respondent's SNW, and its lack of certification by Respondent's counsel, being both deficient in form and in violation of the requirement that such document be certified. Consequently, based on such negative inference, the fee associated with Dr. Verno's appointment will be paid for as follows: 20% by Petitioner and 80% by Respondent, subject to reallocation by this Court, with such appointment and fee allocation being further memorialized in a separate appointment Order.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Robert J. Verno, Ph.D., shall be appointed as the neutral forensic evaluator in this matter (hereinafter "Neutral Forensic"), with such appointment being effectuated by separate Order of Appointment filed simultaneously with this Decision and Order; and, it is further

ORDERED that based on the reasons set forth herein-above, the fee associated with the appointment of the Neutral Forensic shall be paid for as follows: 20% by Petitioner and 80% by Respondent, with such fee allocation being included within the separate Order of Appointment, subject to reallocation by this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that by September 15, 2026, Respondent's counsel, shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry on Petitioner via NYSCEF filing; and by that date, shall file a copy of the Notice of Entry and Affidavit of Service; and it is further

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: September 14, 2026

White Plains, New York

ENTER:

HON. JAMES L. HYER, J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 4.

2.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 68.

3.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 181.

4.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1.

5.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 14-15.

6.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 2-13.

7.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 16.

8.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 18.

9.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 19.

10.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 20-63.

11.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 87.

12.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 91-97.

13.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 99-100.

14.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 102.

15.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 103.

16.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 104-126.

17.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 127.

18.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 128.

19.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 132.

20.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 162-184.

21.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 185.

22.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 196-218.

23.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 220-223.

24.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 224.

25.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 225-246.

26.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 248-249.

27.    See, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 250-253.

28.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 255.

29.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 257.

30.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 258.

31.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 278. Note: The Transcript consistently refers to Petitioner as "Plaintiff" and Respondent as "Defendant", however this is a mistake given the nature of this proceeding.

32.    See, 7/17/2026 Transcript Pg. 8:16-25-Pg. 10:1-25.

33.    See, 7/17/2026 Transcript, Pg. 32:2-25-Pg. 37:1-17.

34.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 260.

35.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 261.

36.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 272.

37.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 274.

38.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 276.

39.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 281.

40.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 279.

41.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 280.

42.    See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 281, Pg. 17.

43.   Note: Respondent's counsel makes clear in the Counsel Letter that Respondent has not filed tax returns for either the 2024 or 2025 tax years.

44.    See, Respondent's SNW § IV(A-E, G, H, I, K, L), Pg. 8-9.

45.    See, Respondent's SNW § IV (F), Pgs. 8-9.

46.    See, Respondent's SNW § V, Pgs. 10-12.

47.    See, Respondent's SNW § II, Pg. 2-6.

48.    See, Petitioner's SNW § III, Pg. 6.

49.    See, Petitioner's SNW § III(a).

50.   Note: This figure assumes Petitioner's 2025 income was $203,941.00 as outlined in Petitioner's SNW.

James L. Hyer, J.