J.M.S., Plaintiff, v. L.M.B-S., Defendant. (2026)

Factual and Procedural History

On November 17, 2025, this matrimonial action was commenced with the filing of a summons and complaint, seeking the dissolution of the parties' marriage due to the purported irretrievable breakdown of their relationship pursuant to New York Domestic Relations Law ("DRL") § 170(7), along with other ancillary relief.¹ Plaintiff J.M.S. simultaneously served Defendant L.M.B-S. with notice regarding continuation of health coverage, automatic orders, and guideline maintenance, as well as a child support standards chart. Proof of personal service of the summons, complaint, and DRL notices on December 13, 2025 was filed thereafter, on January 13, 2026.² Defendant did not file an answer to the complaint.

On January 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed a preliminary conference request via a request for judicial intervention,³ and the Court sent a notice of preliminary conference to both Plaintiff and Defendant, scheduling a conference on March 25, 2026, at 10:30 AM.⁴ A conference was held on that date before the Matrimonial Court Attorney Referee, at which Defendant failed to appear, but participated by phone.

A compliance conference was scheduled thereafter on May 12, 2026 at 2:45 PM,⁵ but was adjourned, upon Defendant's request, to June 4, 2026.⁶

On the June 4, 2026 conference date, Defendant failed to appear. Plaintiff filed the Note of Issue, and the Court scheduled a pre-trial conference for June 29, 2026 at 1:30 PM.⁷ Defendant called prior to that conference to state that she would not be appearing. The Court thereafter scheduled an inquest for July 15, 2026 at 9:30 AM. Defendant was advised that, should she fail to appear, a default judgment would be entered, and the matter would be heard and decided in her absence.⁸ Notice of the inquest was sent via regular mail and email to Defendant.⁹

On July 15, 2026, an inquest was held before the undersigned wherein appearances were made by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, with Defendant failing to appear or request an adjournment. The Court proceeded with the inquest in the absence of Defendant, during which Plaintiff was the only witness to present testimony. The Court finds that Plaintiff was a credible witness based upon its assessment of Plaintiff's character, temperament, and sincerity (see D.A. v B.B., 88 Misc 3d 1230[A] at *6 [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2026]). The court transcript of the inquest is filed herewith ("Transcript").

Legal Analysis

Grounds for Dissolution

Pursuant to DRL § 170(7):

"An action for divorce may be maintained by a husband or wife to procure a judgment divorcing the parties and dissolving the marriage on any of the following grounds:

* * *

(7) The relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath. No judgment of divorce shall be granted under this subdivision unless and until the economic issues of equitable distribution of marital property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of child support, the payment of counsel and experts' fees and expenses as well as the custody and visitation with the infant children of the marriage have been resolved by the parties, or determined by the court and incorporated into the judgment of divorce."

A spouse's statement under oath that the marriage was irretrievably broken for a period of six months is, by itself, sufficient to establish a cause of action for divorce as a matter of law (see Hoffer-Adou v Adou, 121 AD3d 618 [1st Dept 2014]).

Plaintiff filed an affirmation of irretrievable breakdown, stating that the relationship between husband and wife had broken down irretrievably for a period of more than six months at the time of commencement.¹⁰ Further, during the inquest, Plaintiff testified that Defendant moved out of the marital residence on August 1, 2023, and resided in her own rented accommodations thereafter.¹¹ Although they briefly resided together again in October 2025, Plaintiff moved out of the marital residence that same month.¹²

Based upon the submissions made to this Court, along with the testimony and evidence received at the Inquest, Plaintiff's request is granted to the extent that a judgment be entered granting Plaintiff a divorce in her favor and against Defendant, dissolving forever the bonds of matrimony existing between Plaintiff and Defendant upon the grounds of the Irretrievable Breakdown of the Relationship pursuant to DRL § 170(7).

Equitable Distribution of Marital Assets, Declaration of Separate Property, and Allocation of Debts

Domestic Relations Law § 236 mandates that the court must determine the rights of the parties to a divorce action in their separate and marital property and provide for the disposition of the property in the final judgment (see DRL § 236[B][5][a]). In determining the equitable distribution of marital property, the court is required to consider 14 specific factors, as well as any other factor the Court finds just and proper (see DRL § 236[B][5][d]). Although the Court is not required to engage in a "point-by-point catechistic discussion" of each factor under DRL § 236(B)(5)(d) (see Sykes v Sykes, 43 Misc 3d 1220[A] [Sup Ct, New York Cnty 2014]), its reasoned decision must set forth the factors it considered and reasons for its decision. The factors that the Court should consider are as follows:

"(1) the income and property of each party at the time of marriage, and at the time of the commencement of the action;

(2) the duration of the marriage and the age and health of both parties;

(3) the need of a custodial parent to occupy or own the marital residence and to use or own its household effects;

(4) the loss of inheritance and pension rights upon dissolution of the marriage as of the date of dissolution;

(5) the loss of health insurance benefits upon dissolution of the marriage;

(6) any award of maintenance under subdivision six of this part;

(7) any equitable claim to, interest in, or direct or indirect contribution made to the acquisition of such marital property by the party not having title, including joint efforts or expenditures and contributions and services as a spouse, parent, wage earner and homemaker, and to the career or career potential of the other party. The court shall not consider as marital property subject to distribution the value of a spouse's enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree, celebrity goodwill, or career enhancement. However, in arriving at an equitable division of marital property, the court shall consider the direct or indirect contributions to the development during the marriage of the enhanced earning capacity of the other spouse;

(8) the liquid or non-liquid character of all marital property;

(9) the probable future financial circumstances of each party;

(10) the impossibility or difficulty of evaluating any component asset or any interest in abusiness, corporation or profession, and the economic desirability of retaining such asset or interest intact and free from any claim or interference by the other party;

(11) the tax consequences to each party;

(12) the wasteful dissipation of assets by either spouse;

(13) any transfer or encumbrance made in contemplation of a matrimonial action without fair consideration;" and

"(14) whether either party has committed an act or acts of domestic violence, as described in subdivision one of section four hundred fifty-nine-a of the social services law, against the other party and the nature, extent, duration and impact of such act or acts."

(DRL § 236[B][5][d]). It is further appropriate for the Court to allocate responsibility for the payment of debts between the parties involved in a matrimonial action (see Goddard v Goddard, 256 AD2d 545 [2d Dept 1998]; see also Dellafiora v Dellafiora, 54 AD3d 715 [2d Dept 2008]).

Initially, the Court must determine what the assets are (Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 161 [2010] ["[T]he initial determination of whether a particular asset is marital or separate property is a question of law, subject to plenary review on appeal"]). When making a determination as to equitable distribution of marital property, a court must first determine the value of such property (see Niles v Niles, 126 AD2d 874 [3d Dept 1987]). A court may exercise discretion in denying equitable distribution of an asset to the extent insufficient evidence is presented at trial regarding valuation of the subject asset (see Horn v Horn, 145 AD3d 666 [2d Dept 2016]; D'Amato v D'Amato, 96 AD2d 849, 850 [2d Dept 1983] ["A determination must be made as to the net value of each asset before determining the distribution thereof"]; see Brevilus v Brevilus, 41 AD3d 630, 631 [2d Dept 2007]). "In circumstances where proof of value is insufficient to make a determination, the court has discretion to, among other things, appoint a neutral appraiser and to direct that such appraiser be paid by one or both parties" (Van Wood v Van Wood, 142 AD3d 661 [2d Dept 2016]; see e.g. McDicken v McDicken, 109 AD2d 734, 735[2d Dept 1985)."

Here, Defendant was provided with several opportunities to appear in this action and meaningfully participate in financial disclosure through the discovery process. Nonetheless, Defendant failed to appear or provide any financial disclosure and therefore has prevented this Court from ascertaining the information needed to determine the entire scope of the parties' finances. Insofar as the Court has been provided no financial information from Defendant pertaining to her income, expenses, assets and liabilities, and Defendant interfered with Plaintiff obtaining an appraisal of the marital property, the Court therefore makes negative inferences against her in the determinations made herein (see Racquel L.J. v Derwin J.J., 64 Misc 3d 1221, 2019 NY Slip Op 51219 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2019]).

First, the Court takes notice of the Statement of Net Worth submitted to the Court by Plaintiff prior to the inquest, as well as his retirement date-of-marriage statement.¹³ Those submissions, along with the inquest testimony, reflect the following assets: a marital residence, checking account, and a retirement account.

According to the Statement of Net Worth, the parties have one checking account with joint funds with an action commencement balance of $74.

Plaintiff has a retirement account through his employer, [redacted].¹⁴ The date-of-marriage balance of the account was $9,900.75.¹⁵ The date-of-commencement balance was $58,557.¹⁶ During the inquest, Plaintiff asked to retain the entirety of his retirement. Plaintiff does not believe that Defendant has a retirement account.¹⁷

Plaintiff's Statement of Net Worth places the value of the marital residence at $200,000. According to the Statement of Net Worth, the parties purchased the property for approximately $84,900,¹⁸ but its current fair market value is unknown insofar as Defendant would not cooperate with an appraiser to evaluate the house.¹⁹ The Statement of Net Worth also indicates that the mortgage has a balance of approximately $46,000, while Plaintiff placed the balance at $45,000 during the inquest.

At the inquest, Plaintiff testified that he and Defendant jointly purchased the marital residence on the date of their marriage, July 11, 2015.²⁰ Defendant moved out of the marital residence on August 1, 2023, but moved back in October 2025; Plaintiff thereafter vacated the marital residence on October 31, 2025.²¹ Defendant stated during the inquest that he would like to be awarded the marital residence or "buy [Defendant] out" if the Court ordered the marital residence sold.²² Plaintiff explained that, although Defendant has been living in the marital residence, she has not been paying the mortgage on the property, which is approximately $545 per month, or the property insurance, which has lapsed.²³ If awarded the marital residence, Plaintiff states that he would remove Plaintiff from the mortgage encumbering the property.²⁴

Plaintiff states that all personal property has already been divided between the parties, and each party would retain their own vehicles, if any (Plaintiff does not own the vehicle he uses, and Defendant's vehicle is allegedly defunct).²⁵

Based upon the evidence and testimony received at the inquest, as well as the DRL factors set forth above, the Court makes the following determinations as to equitable distribution of marital assets and declarations of separate property:

1) Marital Residence

First, with respect to the marital residence, this Court was not provided with any evidence sufficient for a determination to be made regarding the valuation of the marital residence such as an appraisal report. Instead, this Court was offered Plaintiff's speculative approximation of what he believed the fair market value of the property was at the time of his submission of the Statement of Net Worth, $200,000.00, without any support provided for that position. The lack of information regarding the fair market value of the property is largely due to Defendant's obstruction. However, the Court also was not provided with any statement or other proof with respect to the balance owed on the mortgage other than Plaintiff's speculation that there is about $45,000 left owed. Accordingly, as this Court was neither provided with an appraisal report to obtain the fair market value of the marital residence nor a payoff statement for the mortgage encumbering the property, no mechanism exists for this Court to determine the net equity in the property.

Based upon the foregoing, without presentation of a recent appraisal report providing the fair market value of the marital residence, this Court determines that the marital residence is a marital asset which must be valued and sold with the net proceeds being distributed pursuant to percentages determined by this Court to be equitable. Turning first to the allocation of the net proceeds between the parties, this Court determines that such net proceeds should be distributed between the parties equally. In making this determination, the Court has considered the default of the Defendant, the allocation of marital assets having been made herein, and the DRL factors set forth above.

To effectuate these determinations, it is hereby determined that the Marital Domicile is a marital asset to be distributed in the following manner:

• The Marital Domicile fair market value shall be determined by an appraisal report to be prepared by September 14, 2026(hereinafter "Appraisal Report") by a New York State Licensed Real Estate Appraiser, the cost of which is to be paid by Defendant.

• The Marital Domicile shall be listed for sale by October 15, 2026 at the fair market value set forth in the Appraisal Report (hereinafter "List Price"), by a New York State Licensed Real Estate Broker.

• Plaintiff shall be solely responsible for all carrying costs associated with the marital residence, including, but not limited to, mortgage payments, real estate taxes and property insurance, utilities, snow removal, landscaping, and regular repairs and maintenance. At closing, Plaintiff shall receive as a credit from the percentage of the net proceeds of the sale of the marital residence received at closing payable to Defendant, fifty percent of any payments made by him toward the mortgage principal paydown following the date of this decision (hereinafter "Post Decision Mortgage Credit").

• Plaintiff shall ensure that the interior and exterior of the marital residence is kept clean; signage is placed on the property listing the property for sale to the extent same is permitted by any homeowner association and/or local ordinances; and that a lock box be placed on the property.

• The parties shall cooperate with the marketing and transfer of the marital residence, including, but not limited to: [1] executing any transfer documents; and, [2] appearing at a closing. Any offers for the purchase of the marital residence within 2.5% of the List Price shall be accepted, with the understanding that Plaintiff shall have the right of first refusal to purchase at the same terms as accepted by the parties pursuant to this Decision and Order.

• The proceeds received from the sale shall be distributed in the following manner and order:

• Payoff of any mortgages and/or equity lines of credit which encumber the property;

• Payoff of any other liens which encumber the property;

• Payment of any usual and ordinary transfer expenses (including, but not limited to: title fees, real estate transfer taxes, real estate broker commissions, and real estate attorneys' fees);

• Payment of any remaining net proceeds to the parties in the following manner: Plaintiff fifty percent (50%) and Defendant fifty percent (50%) minus credits due Plaintiff including Post-Decision Mortgage Credit. To the extent that the application of credits due to Plaintiff from Defendant's share of the net proceeds exceed the amount Defendant is due from her fifty percent (50%) share of the net proceeds of the sale of the marital residence, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the balance due within thirty (30) days of the closing on the marital residence and if such payment is not made in full, Plaintiff shall be permitted to file with notice of settlement a proposed money judgement for the amount then due.

2) Plaintiff's Retirement

Second, with respect to Plaintiff's retirement account, statements have been submitted to the Court providing the date-of-marriage amount and commencement-date-amount for the account. Plaintiff requests that he be awarded sole interest in the same. Based upon the submissions made to this Court, along with the evidence and testimony received at the inquest, the Court awards Defendant her share of Plaintiff's 401(k) pursuant to the formula expressed in Majauskas v Majauskas, (61 NY2d 481 [1984]).

3) Joint Checking Account

Insofar as no further testimony was provided with respect to the checking account, based upon the submissions to the Court, the Court directs that the Joint Checking Account be closed and the account balance split equally between the parties.

Other than the joint mortgage, which has a balance of approximately $45,000, Plaintiff testified that there are no joint debts between the parties.²⁶ Based upon the submissions made to this Court, evidence and testimony received at the inquest, and the foregoing, the parties are hereby each directed to be solely responsible for their own debt and hold the other harmless from the payment of same. Notwithstanding this determination, both parties shall be equally responsible for any liens or encumbrances against the marital residence, including, but not limited to, the mortgage on same to be addressed as set forth herein.

Maintenance

" '[I]n any matrimonial action, the court, upon application by a party, shall make its award for post-divorce maintenance pursuant to the provisions' set forth in the statute (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; see Hughes v Hughes, 198 AD3d 1170, 1173 [3d Dept 2021]). In setting the amount of the award, the provisions of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) require that the court first determine the presumptive amount of maintenance pursuant to the statutory formulas in paragraph (c) and, second, determine whether other factors under paragraphs (d) and (e) support deviating from the presumptive amount (see Mahoney v Mahoney, 197 AD3d 638, 639 [2d Dept 2021]; Iannazzo v Iannazzo [appeal No. 2], 197 AD3d 959, 961-962 [4th Dept 2021]). Where there is a deviation from the presumptive amount reached by application of the relevant formula, the court should explain the reasons for that deviation (see generally Severny v Severny, 210 AD3d 419, 419 [1st Dept 2022]). Nonetheless, a party in a matrimonial action may waive spousal maintenance and support (see Messina v Messina, 143 AD2d 735 [2d Dept 1988]).

During the inquest, Plaintiff waived spousal maintenance and support.²⁷ In any event, Plaintiff testified that he is employed by a wire company located in Camden, New York, and that his income for 2025 was approximately $52,000.²⁸ He testified that Defendant is the store manager at a Dollar General, where she has been employed for approximately 15 years.²⁹ She has a high school diploma and all of her work experience has been in retail.³⁰ Plaintiff testified that, in her position at Dollar General, Defendant earns approximately $60,000 per year.³¹ Plaintiff provides health insurance for the minor child and stated that he would continue to do so.³²

Accordingly, based upon the submissions made to this Court, evidence and testimony received at inquest, and the foregoing, neither party shall be responsible for spousal maintenance to the other.

Custody and Visitation

It is well settled law that the court shall examine various factors in making a custodial determination to ensure the best interests of the children (Francisco v Francisco, 298 AD2d 925 [4th Dept 2002]). Among the factors to be considered are the quality of the parental guidance provided by the custodial parent, the ability of each parent to provide for the children's emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the children, the relative fitness of each parent, attitude toward the other parent and that parent's relationship with the children, position of the Attorney for the Children ("AFC") and wishes of the children, keeping siblings together, a showing of harm if child's residence is changed, and the length of time the present custody arrangement has been in effect (see Friederwilzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]; Matter of Salvanti v Salvanti, 221 AD2d 541 [2d Dept 1995]). The existence or absence of any one factor is not determinative since the court is to consider the totality of the circumstances (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Maher v Maher, 1 AD3d 987 [4th Dept 2003]).

The parties have one child together, born [redacted]. Plaintiff testified that, since the time that Defendant originally moved out of the marital residence on August 1, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant have shared custody of the child 50/50. Plaintiff explained that Defendant does not currently have a vehicle, so he provides transport for the child and facilitates the shared schedule, which depends in part on Defendant's work schedule, which changes.³³ Plaintiff would like the current arrangement to continue and therefore requests joint legal, shared physical custody of the child.³⁴

The AFC was only able to meet with Plaintiff and the child; Defendant did not respond to the AFC's communications.³⁵ The AFC explained that the child would like to maintain the current schedule and the AFC agrees that a shared arrangement is beneficial.³⁶

Based upon the submissions made to this Court, along with the testimony and evidence received at the inquest, the Court determines that the current custody arrangement has been effective for this family, and with the AFC's support, the Court awards joint legal, shared physical custody of the child, and finds that such arrangement is in the child's best interests.

Child Support

"The Child Support Standards Act (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b]) sets forth a formula for calculating child support by applying a designated statutory percentage, based upon the number of children to be supported, to combined parental income up to the statutory cap that is in effect at the time of the judgment" (see Holterman v Holterman, 3 NY3d 1, 11 [2004]; Matter of Cassano v Cassano, 85 NY2d 649, 653-654 [1995]). Where combined parental income exceeds that amount, the court has the discretion to apply the statutory child support percentage, or to apply the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240(1-b)(f) (see Matter of Cassano, 85 NY2d at 654; Matter of Byrne v Byrne, 46 AD3d 812, 814 [2d Dept 2007), or to utilize 'some combination of th[ose] two' methods (Poli v Poli, 286 AD2d 720, 723 [2d Dept 2001]; see Jordan v Jordan, 8 AD3d 444, 445 [2d Dept 2004]).

The hearing court must "articulate its reason or reasons for [its determination], which should reflect a careful consideration of the stated basis for its exercise of discretion, the parties' circumstances, and its reasoning why there [should or] should not be a departure from the prescribed percentage" (Wagner v Dunetz, 299 AD2d 347, 350-351 [2d Dept 2002], quoting Matter of Schmitt v Berwitz, 228 AD2d 604, 605 [2d Dept 1996]; see Matter of Cassano, 85 NY2d at 655; Matter of Wienands v Hedlund, 305 AD2d 692, 693 [2d Dept 2003]).

Plaintiff stated that he would waive child support in this case if awarded a 50/50 custody arrangement.³⁷ The Child Support Standards Act calculation for child support with a shared custody arrangement is as follows:

Based upon the submissions made to this Court, along with the testimony and evidence received at the inquest, and the Child Support Standards Act which reflects that no Child Support is owed by either party, the Court determines that neither party is awarded monthly child support.

Exclusive Use and Occupancy

During the inquest, Plaintiff testified that Defendant is currently living in the marital residence but has not been paying the mortgage or insurance on the property.³⁸ Plaintiff asked to have exclusive use and possession of the marital residence until its disposition, given that Defendant is not making payments on the mortgage and insurance.³⁹

Pursuant to DRL § 234 pertaining to the title or occupancy of property, the statute provides the following:

"In any action for divorce, for a separation, for an annulment or to declare the nullity of a void marriage, the court may (1) determine any question as to the title to property arising between the parties, and (2) make such direction, between the parties, concerning the possession of property, as in the court's discretion justice requires having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties. Such direction may be made in the final judgment, or by one or more orders from time to time before or subsequent to final judgment, or by both such order or orders and final judgment. Where the title to real property is affected, a copy of such judgment, order or decree, duly certified by the clerk of the court wherein said judgement was rendered, shall be recorded in the office of the recording officer of the county in which such property is situated, as provided by section two hundred ninety-seven-b of the real property law."

Given that Defendant has placed the marital residence in jeopardy during the pendency of the action by failing to pay the mortgage and insurance payments on the property, and based upon the submissions made to this Court, along with the testimony and evidence received at the inquest, Plaintiff is hereby granted exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence, notwithstanding the directives included herein-above relating to the sale and/or buyout of the marital residence. Defendant has 30 days from the date of this order to turn over possession of the marital residence to Plaintiff.

Counsel Fees

In a matrimonial action, an award of attorney's fees is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case. "In determining whether to award attorney's fees, the court should review the financial circumstances of both parties, together with all of the other circumstances of the case, including, inter alia, the relative merit of the parties' positions, and whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation" (Brockner v Brockner, 174 AD3d 567 [2d Dept 2019] [internal citations omitted]).

Plaintiff does not request counsel fees in this action, the AFC was appointed from the panel with neither party incurring the expense, and Defendant was self-represented. Based upon the submissions made to this Court, along with the testimony and evidence received at the inquest, the Court directs that to the extent either party incurred any fees arising out of this action they shall be solely responsible for same.

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for the entry of a Judgment of Divorce against Defendant, dissolving forever the bonds of matrimony existing between Plaintiff and Defendant upon the grounds of the Irretrievable Breakdown of the Relationship pursuant to DRL § 170(7) is granted, in addition to the ancillary relief as decided herein-above; and it is further

ORDERED that by August 14, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel shall serve Defendant via regular mail and via e-mail with this Decision After Inquest with Notice of Entry, and shall file an Affidavit of Service by August 14, 2026; and it is further

ORDERED that by September 11, 2026, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Proposed Judgment of Divorce, and any ancillary documents required for this Court to enter a Judgment of Divorce; and it is further

ORDERED that to the extent any relief sought has not been granted, it is expressly denied.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER:

Dated: 8/12/2026

Utica, New York

Hon. Elizabeth Snyder Fortino, J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 1.

2.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 2.

3.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 8.

4.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 10.

5.   NYSCEF Doc No. 13.

6.   NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 16 & 17.

7.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 19.

8.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 20.

9.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 20.

10.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 1.

11.   Transcript at 8.

12.   Transcript at 9-10.

13.   NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 3, 5, & 6.

14.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 6.

15.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 6.

16.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 3.

17.   Transcript at 13.

18.   NYSCEF Doc. No. 3.

19.   Transcript at 19.

20.   Transcript at 7.

21.   Transcript at 9-10.

22.   Transcript at 12.

23.   Transcript at 11-12.

24.   Transcript at 12-13.

25.   Transcript at 15-16.

26.   Transcript at 17-19.

27.   Transcript at 14.

28.   Transcript at 6.

29.   Transcript at 6.

30.   Transcript at 20.

31.   Transcript at 6.

32.   Transcript at 15.

33.   Transcript at 8-10, 17.

34.   Transcript at 14.

35.   Transcript 20-21.

36.   Transcript at 21.

37.   Transcript at 14.

38.   Transcript at 11-12.

39.   Transcript at 13.

Elizabeth Snyder Fortino, J.