G.H. v M.H.
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 19, 2022
Supreme Court, Richmond County
G.H., Plaintiff,
against
M.H., Defendant.
Index No. 50123/2021
Counsel for the Plaintiff, G.H.:
Michael A Coscia, Esq.
Abrams Fensterman Fensterman Eisman Formato Ferrara & Wolf, LLP
1 Metrotech Center Suite 1701
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (718) 215-5300
Counsel for Defendant, M.H.:
Francine Pickett Cohen, Esq.
FRANCINE PICKETT COHEN ESQ.
1110 South Ave Ste 302
Staten Island, NY 10314
Phone: (347) 273-1283 Ronald Castorina Jr., J.
The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion #003) numbered 51-70, 85-96, (Cross Motion #004) numbered 72-78, 99, and (Motion #005) numbered 79-84, 97-98, 100-101 were read on this motion.
Upon the foregoing documents, and on consideration of oral argument conducted on August 9, 2022, Motion Sequence #003, Cross Motion Sequence #004, and Motion Sequence #005 are resolved and therefore, it is hereby,
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for Plaintiff's compliance with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, requiring parties to retain E.M., LSCW, as arbiter is GRANTED and Plaintiff is to retain E.M., LSCW, and abide by her decisions as final arbiter when parties are [*2]unable to concur on matters pertaining to the daily activities of the children, pendente lite, costs for same are subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for Plaintiff's compliance with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, requiring the parties to share all educational expenses on an equal basis is GRANTED and Plaintiff is directed to remit to the Defendant the sum of $429.10, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for Plaintiff's compliance with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022 and the Order of this Court dated June 8, 2022, requiring the parties to cooperate and facilitate daily phone/FaceTime contact with the children is GRANTED and Plaintiff and Defendant are directed to accommodate and facilitate a brief telephone call/FaceTime in the evening, or as the parties may otherwise agree, of no more than ten minutes per child, at the minimum of one time per day, pendente lite. Further, neither party shall interfere or intervene during communication time with the children, and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for the Court to set a Parenting Time Schedule for August 2022 is DENIED and parties are directed to comply with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022 and use the services of E.M., LCSW, to establish a parenting time schedule, subject to the availability of the social worker agreed upon by the parties' counsel in accordance with the Order dated August 9, 2022, and it is further;
ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant counsel fees in connection with this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $3,500.00 (Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents), payable pursuant to the terms of this Decision and Order and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for the Defendant to pay half the cost of the children's health insurance is DENIED, without prejudice to renew and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's request for additional Parenting Time during the week of September 6, 2022 through September 14, 2022 is DENIED and parties are directed to comply with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022 and use the services of E.M., LCSW, to establish a parenting time schedule, subject to the availability of the social worker agreed upon by the parties' counsel in accordance with the Order dated August 9, 2022, and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for supervised Parenting Time for the Plaintiff is DENIED as moot and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for Plaintiff to be directed to enroll in an anger management program is DENIED as moot and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for Plaintiff to be directed to enroll in therapeutic counseling sessions is DENIED without prejudice to renew and it is further;
ORDERED, that further motion practice in this matter (exclusive of emergency relief), in Part MP-7, shall require a conference call with the court, prior to filing any motion, and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Memorandum Decision
Statement of Facts
Plaintiff G.H. and Defendant M.H. were married on May 25, 2015, in New York, New York in a civil ceremony. There are two children born of the marriage, to wit: V.H., (born XX/XX/2017), and S.H. (born XX/XX/2019). The parties resided with the children in Staten Island, New York until August 2021, when the Defendant mother moved to Westfield, New [*3]Jersey, for reasons that the parties dispute. The Plaintiff father commenced this action for divorce on August 27, 2021. The children moved with the mother shortly after the parties' separation. The children have been enrolled in school in Westfield, New Jersey since they moved with the mother in 2021. The parties entered an "Interim Agreement" with respect to school enrollment, child-care, and custody dated September 24, 2021.
On June 28, 2022, Defendant filed Motion Sequence #003 by Order to Show Cause. Defendant seeks (a) enforcement of the Decision and Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, directing the Plaintiff to retain E.M. forthwith, or alternatively, for final decision-making authority on all major issues; (b) enforcement of the Decision and Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, directing the Plaintiff to remit to the Defendant the sum of $928.00 as and for his portion of the children's educational expenses; and (c) enforcement of the Decision and Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, and the Short Form Order dated June 8, 2022, requiring that parties cooperate and facilitate daily phone/Facetime contact with the children.
In addition, Defendant seeks (d) a set pick-up and drop-off schedule for August 2022 parenting time; (e) Plaintiff to pay counsel fees in the amount of $5,000.00 in connection with this motion; and (f) such other, further, and different relief as the Court may see just and proper.
On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed Cross Motion Sequence #004 by Notice of Motion. Plaintiff seeks (1) the denial of Defendant's Order to Show Cause in its entirety; (2) the Defendant to pay 50% of the cost of the medical insurance for the parties' children; (3) additional parenting time with the children during the week of September 6, 2022, through September 14, 2022; and (4) other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
On July 25, 2022, Defendant filed Motion Sequence #005 by Order to Show Cause. Defendant seeks (i) parenting time between the Plaintiff and the children to be supervised by an unrelated adult; (ii) Plaintiff to be directed to enroll in an anger management program focusing on domestic violence, parenting, and elder abuse as a condition precedent to unsupervised parental access; (iii) Plaintiff to be directed to enroll in weekly therapeutic counseling; and (iv) such other, further, and different relief as the Court deems just and proper.
On July 28, 2022, Defendant filed reply to Motion Sequence #003 and opposition to Cross Motion Sequence #004. On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed reply on Motion Sequence #004 and opposition on Motion Sequence #005. On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed reply on Motion Sequence #005.
Oral argument was heard on Motion Sequence #003, Cross Motion Sequence #004, and Motion Sequence #005 on August 9, 2022. This is a Decision and Order on Motion Sequence #003, Cross Motion Sequence #004, and Motion Sequence #005.
Discussion
I. Enforcement of Decision and Order dated May 13, 2022, Directing the Plaintiff to retain E.M. Forthwith, or, Alternatively, for Final Decision-Making Authority
On May 13, 2022, this Court Ordered, "Parties shall retain the services of E.M., LCSW, to serve as final arbiter when the parties are unable to concur on matters pertaining to the daily activities of the children. The retainer for Ms. M. shall be paid 50% by the Plaintiff-Father and 50% by the Defendant-Mother, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 55). Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has not complied with this Order of the Court.
Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's position and counters that he has complied with the Order of the Court and produces a cashed check to E.M. dated June 20, 2022, and posted on July [*4]8, 2022. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 74).
Plaintiff further presents a message report from Our Family Wizard website. On June 22, 2022 and June 23, 2022, Defendant inquires of the Plaintiff, if he had sent the retainer to E.M. Plaintiff responded on June 26, 2022 corresponding, "I see no point in engaging with E.M." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 86).
The Plaintiff paid the retainer required by the Court Order of May 13, 2022. There is insufficient evidence at this point to determine, whether the Plaintiff's payment was made post filing of Defendant's motion or prior to the filing of the motion. It is clear that Plaintiff's compliance with the May 13, 2022 Order was not in a timely manner, having waited at least 5 weeks before retaining Ms. M.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, retaining the services of E.M., LCSW, and abide by her decisions as final arbiter when the parties are unable to concur on matters pertaining to the daily activities of the children, pendente lite, costs for same shall be subject to reallocation at trial.
II. Enforcement of the Decision and Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, Directing Plaintiff to Remit to Defendant the sum of $928.00 for his portion of Children's Educational Expenses
The Court's May 13, 2022, Decision and Order states, "The parties shall share all educational, and unreimbursed medical expenses, equally, Pendente Lite." The educational expenses are to be shared an equal basis. Plaintiff is responsible for 50% and Defendant is responsible for 50%. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54).
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to pay his half of the children's educational expenses in the amount of $928.00. Plaintiff submits Exhibit J, a self-generated reimbursement expense on the Our Family Wizard website in the amount of $1,328.00 under the category of personal with the names of the children. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 63). There is a space on the form indicating a receipt file, but that document has not been provided to the Court. (see id). Plaintiff's Exhibit K provides copies of communication between the parties in which Plaintiff requests tuition reimbursement, but again no bills or proof of payment is provided. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 64).
Defendant provides bills and receipts for payments to the children's school, XXXX Child Development Center LLC.
XXXX Child Development Tuition Bills [FN1]
September 2021 Tuition
$1,372.75
October 2021 Tuition
$1,000.00
November 2021 Tuition
$1,000.00
December 2021 Tuition
$1,000.00
[*5]January 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
February 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
March 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
April 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
May 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
June 2022 Tuition
$1,150.00
Tuition due prior to the May 13, 2022, Order requiring the parties to share all education expenses as per interim agreement with Plaintiff to pay 40% and Defendant to pay 60% of children's educational expenses:
XXXX Child Development Tuition Bills [FN2]
September 2021 Tuition
$1,372.75
October 2021 Tuition
$1,000.00
November 2021 Tuition
$1,000.00
December 2021 Tuition
$1,000.00
January 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
February 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
March 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
April 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
Total Tuition Due
$8,572.75
40% of Total
$3,429.10
Tuition for months included under the May 13, 2022, Order requiring the parties to share all education expenses equally is as follows (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54):
XXXX Child Development Tuition Bills [FN3]
[*6]May 2022 Tuition
$1,050.00
June 2022 Tuition
$1,150.00
Total Tuition Due
$2,200.00
50% of Total
$1,100.00
Total Due by Plaintiff
40% September 2021 through April 2022 Tuition
$3,429.10
50% May 2022 through June 2022 Tuition
$1,100.00
Total Due by Plaintiff
$4,529.10
Payment Receipts Provided by Plaintiff [FN4]
Receipt Dated 12/06/2021
$1,000.00
Receipt Dated 03/01/2022
$1,050.00
Receipt Dated 03/25/2022
$1,200.00
Receipt Dated 05/13/2022
$400.00
Receipt Dated 06/06/2022
$400.00
Receipt Dated 06/21/2022
$50.00
Total Receipts Provided by Plaintiff
$4,100.00
Accordingly, Defendant's motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the Decision and Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022 and directed to remit to the Defendant the sum of $429.10 as and for his portion of the children's educational expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial.
III. Enforcement of the Decision and Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, and the Short Form Order dated June 8, 2022, Requiring Parties to Cooperate and Facilitate Daily Phone/Facetime Contact with the children
On May 13, 2022, The Court Ordered, "Both parents shall accommodate a brief telephone call of no more than ten minutes per child, at the minimum of one time per day, [*7]pendente lite. The telephone call shall be in the evening, or as the parties may agree otherwise. Facetime may be used, as the parties may agree." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54).
On June 8, 2022, the Court further Ordered, "The parents will have the children contact the other parent once per day when the children are with them. Contact to be by phone or Facetime after dinner." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 56).
Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff has not complied with these Orders of the Court. Defendant states in her affidavit, "Plaintiff initiated those calls each day except for one. During the calls, the Plaintiff holds the phone for the kids, facing the phone towards them. Shortly after the calls connect, he (not the children) says "good night," even if I am mid-sentence, and he just hangs up the call. This is not about young children with short attention spans not wanting to be on a call; the Plaintiff controls the call from beginning to end, and deliberately terminates the calls shortly after they begin." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 52).
Defendant alleges the following duration of calls (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 57).:
Date
Time
Duration
06/13/2022
5:31 PM
40 Seconds
06/14/2022
6:55 PM
44 Seconds
06/15/2022
5:59 PM
1 Minute
06/16/2022
6:04 PM
4 Seconds, then 48 Seconds
Plaintiff denies that he has prevented the children from speaking with the Defendant and was instead "were the result of the children not wishing to speak with their mother for a longer period of time." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 73).
Plaintiff further states, "I have never prevented the children from speaking with the Defendant and would never do so if that is what they want. They are however young children who are being forced to call Defendant every day even if they are doing something else at the time and would prefer not to speak at the moment." (see id).
When the Court issued its Orders regarding communication between the children and the parent who the child was not with, it made it very clear that communication time was a paramount activity. In stating that "parents shall accommodate a brief telephone call of no more than ten minutes per child, at the minimum of one time per day" (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54), the Court Ordered an accommodation to be made that would permit the children ample time to communicate with the other parent without distraction of other activities.
The language, "[c]ontact to be by phone or Facetime after dinner" was specifically chosen to accommodate the call at a time that would not be intrusive to other activities. (see id).
Accordingly, Defendant's motion is GRANTED and Parties are ORDERED to comply with the Court's Orders of May 13, 2022 and June 8, 2022 and shall accommodate and facilitate a brief telephone call of no less than five minutes and more than ten minutes per child, at the minimum of one time per day, pendente lite. Neither party shall interfere or intervene during communication time with the children. The telephone call shall be in the evening, or as the [*8]parties may agree otherwise. Facetime may be used, as the parties may agree.
IV. August 2022 Parenting Time
Defendant seeks a set pick-up and drop-off schedule for August 2022 parenting time. Defendant states in her affidavit that the parties have been unable to come to a consensus in setting parenting time. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 52). In his affidavit, Plaintiff concurs that the parties have been unable to reach an agreement as to parenting time. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 73).
On May 13, 2022, this Court Ordered, "Parties shall retain the services of E.M., LCSW, to serve as final arbiter when the parties are unable to concur on matters pertaining to the daily activities of the children. The retainer for Ms. M. shall be paid 50% by the Plaintiff-Father and 50% by the Defendant-Mother, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 55).
On August 9, 2022, the Court further Ordered, "6. The Plaintiff-Father shall have parenting time with the children supervised by a licensed social worker, approved of by parties' counsel and AFC, and subject to the availability of the social worker. The supervising social worker shall provide a written report to the court regarding parenting time. The retainer for the supervising party shall be paid 100% by the Plaintiff-Father, subject to reallocation at trial." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 101).
Accordingly, Defendant's motion is DENIED and Parties are ORDERED to comply with the Court's Orders of May 13, 2022 and utilize the services of E.M., LCSW, to establish a parenting time schedule, subject to the availability of the social worker agreed upon by the parties' counsels in accordance with the Order of this Court dated August 9, 2022.
V. Defendant Counsel Fees in Connection with this Motion
Defendant seeks counsel fees from Plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.00 in connection with this motion. An award of reasonable counsel fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the court. The issue of counsel fees is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case (See Nicodemus v Nicodemus, 98 AD3d 605 [2d Dept 2012]; see also DRL § 237(a)). The Court considers the relative merits of the parties' positions and if either party engaged in conduct that resulted in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation (See Vitale v Vitale, 977 NYS2d 258 [2d Dept 2013]). Here, Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with clear and unambiguous orders of this court, resulted in the necessity of a motion for enforcement. Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with an order of this court, protracted, prolonged, and stymied this case, causing further legal action, and further confounding an already contentious case.
Defendant's request for an award of counsel fees on her motion is GRANTED in the sum of $3,500.00 (Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents). This award of counsel fees is to be paid directly to Wife's counsel within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order. Defendant's counsel is hereby directed to utilize these funds first as to any balance presently due and owing to her from Defendant, and to reimburse Defendant with any amount remaining.
VI. Cost of Medical Insurance for the Parties' Children
Plaintiff states in April 2022, he obtained new employment and has been paying for the medical insurance of the children. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 73). In the May 13, 2022 Order and Decision the Court Ordered, "[t]he parties shall share all educational, and unreimbursed medical expenses, equally, pendente lite." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54). Plaintiff requests the Defendant to contribute to the cost of the children's medical insurance [*9]and expand the scope of the Order dated May 13, 2022. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 73).
Defendant contends that "Plaintiff maintained health insurance coverage for the children as of the date of commencement, and pursuant to the automatic orders, he was responsible to maintain that coverage throughout the litigation." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 85).
Plaintiff covered the children under his medical insurance at the commencement of the divorce and is currently covering the children under his health insurance. Upon service of the summons in every matrimonial action, automatic orders prohibit the children of the marriage from being removed from any existing medical, hospital and dental insurance coverage, and each party shall maintain the existing medical, hospital and dental insurance coverage in full force and effect. (see Uniform Civil Rules, Civil Cts § 202.16-a [c] [4]).
In this case there was a change in coverage due to employment, but the Plaintiff returned the children to his coverage to maintain the status quo. The Order issue on May 13, 2022, refers only to "unreimbursed medical expenses" and does not terminate, alter, or amend the automatic orders. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54); (see Uniform Civil Rules, Civil Cts § 202.16-a [c] [6]). Further, the parties have not executed a written agreement terminating, altering, or amending the automatic orders. (see Uniform Civil Rules, Civil Cts § 202.16-a [c] [6]).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for relief without prejudice to renew.
VII. Plaintiff's Request for Additional Parenting Time During Week of September 6, 2022 through September 14, 2022
Plaintiff's motion is DENIED and Parties are ORDERED to comply with the Court's Orders of May 13, 2022 and utilize the services of E.M., LCSW, to establish a parenting time schedule, subject to the availability of the social worker agreed upon by the parties counsels in accordance with the Order of this Court dated August 9, 2022.
VIII. Supervised Parenting Time for Plaintiff
Defendant seeks a requirement that parenting time between the Plaintiff and the children to be supervised by an unrelated adult.
On August 9, 2022, the Court Ordered, "Plaintiff-Father shall have parenting time with the children supervised by a licensed social worker, approved of by parties' counsel and AFC, and subject to the availability of the social worker. The supervising social worker shall provide a written report to the court regarding parenting time. The retainer for the supervising party shall be paid 100% by the Plaintiff-Father, subject to reallocation at trial." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 101).
The Court DENIES Defendant's request as moot.
IX. Plaintiff Enrollment in Anger Management Program
Defendant seeks the Plaintiff to be required to enroll in an anger management program focusing on domestic violence, parenting, and elder abuse as a condition precedent to unsupervised parenting time.
On August 9, 2022, the Court Ordered, "Plaintiff to register for anger management classes no later than Friday, August 12, 2022 and begin attending classes within two weeks." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 101).
The Court DENIES Defendant's request as moot.
X. Plaintiff Enrollment in Therapeutic Counseling
The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for relief without prejudice to renew.
Decretal Paragraphs
It is hereby ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for Plaintiff's compliance with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, requiring parties to retain E.M., LSCW, as arbiter is GRANTED and Plaintiff is to retain E.M., LSCW, and abide by her decisions as final arbiter when parties are unable to concur on matters pertaining to the daily activities of the children, pendente lite, costs for same shall subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for Plaintiff's compliance with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022, requiring the parties to share all educational expenses on an equal basis is GRANTED and Plaintiff is directed to remit to the Defendant the sum of $429.10, pendente lite, and subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further;
ORDERED, that the Defendant's request for Plaintiff's compliance with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022 and the Order of this Court dated June 8, 2022, requiring the parties to cooperate and facilitate daily phone/FaceTime contact with the children is GRANTED and Plaintiff and Defendant are directed to accommodate and facilitate a brief telephone call/FaceTime in the evening, or as the parties may otherwise agree, of no less than five minutes and no more than ten minutes per child, at the minimum of one time per day, pendente lite. Further, neither party shall interfere or intervene during communication time with the children, and it is further;
ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the Court to set a Parenting Time Schedule for August 2022 is DENIED and parties are directed to comply with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022 and use the services of E.M., LCSW, to establish a parenting time schedule, subject to the availability of the social worker agreed upon by the parties' counsel in accordance with the Order dated August 9, 2022, and it is further;
ORDERED, that Defendant's request for the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant counsel fees in connection with this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $3,500.00, payable pursuant to the terms of this Decision and Order and it is further;
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's request for the Defendant to pay half the cost of the children's health insurance is DENIED, without prejudice to renew and it is further;
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's request for additional Parenting Time during the week of September 6, 2022, through September 14, 2022 is DENIED and parties are directed to comply with the Order of this Court dated May 13, 2022 and use the services of E.M., LCSW, to establish a parenting time schedule, subject to the availability of the social worker agreed upon by the parties' counsel in accordance with the Order dated August 9, 2022, and it is further;
ORDERED, that Defendant's request for supervised Parenting Time for the Plaintiff is DENIED as moot and it is further;
ORDERED, that Defendant's request for Plaintiff to be directed to enroll in an anger management program is DENIED as moot and it is further;
ORDERED, that Defendant's request for Plaintiff to be directed to enroll in therapeutic counseling sessions is DENIED without prejudice to renew and it is further;
Any relief requested, and not specifically addressed in this Decision and Order is referred to the trial court.
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: August 19, 2022
Staten Island, New York
E N T E R,
HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Footnotes
Footnote 1:(NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 75).
Footnote 2:(NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 75).
Footnote 3:(NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 75).
Footnote 4:(NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 76).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
