DECISION & ORDERUpon the following papers read on the motion, to wit: Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Defendant’s Notice of Cross-Motion1,BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe parties were married on August 25, 1998 and have two (2) children, to wit: S.VDL., born December 3, 1990; and O.VDL., born June 2, 2000. During their marriage, the parties purchased the real property located at 135 Lake Avenue, Riverhead, New York 11901 (hereinafter “Former Marital Residence”), which is the main source of contention in this post-judgment proceeding.The parties settled their marital difficulties by execution of a Separation Agreement dated October 11, 2002 (hereinafter “First Agreement”)2. Thereafter, the parties modified the First Agreement by a subsequent writing entitled “Separation Agreement, Revised” dated February 11, 2004 (hereinafter “Second Agreement”)3. The parties were ultimately divorced by Judgment of Divorce dated July 29, 2005 and entered with the Suffolk County Clerk on August 22, 2005. The First and Second Agreements were incorporated but not merged into the Judgment of Divorce. Shortly after the entry of the Judgment of Divorce, the parties modified the child support in the Judgment of Divorce by Order Modifying an Order of Support on Consent dated October 12, 2005 issued by the Suffolk County Family Court.In or around June 2003, the Plaintiff stated she refinanced the Former Marital Residence “in order to pay the Defendant his share of the equitable distribution of this marital asset”. The Defendant contends that the proceeds from the refinance ($30,639.77) was issued to “both” parties and spent on “home remodeling, including windows, a new roof, and two vehicles: a Ford minivan for Plaintiff and a 1992 BMW for [Defendant]” and was “ never a payment to [him] for partial buy-out of [his] interest”; the Plaintiff did not dispute this. Neither party informed the Court whether the refinance was in joint names or solely in one party’s name.The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant received an additional $55,076.41 for the “remainder of the buy-out money” of the Former Marital Residence from the Plaintiff’s uncle to buy a greenhouse and annexed a check and letter. The letter was not written in English and was not translated. The Defendant argues that the $55,076.41 was to purchase a greenhouse for Plaintiff’s uncle and the two were going to go into the greenhouse business which never materialized; the Plaintiff did not dispute this. The Court notes that the check (which was written in English) was not made payable to the Defendant and the Defendant was not the remitter of said check.The Plaintiff contends that the aforesaid payments (totaling $85, 716.18) represented Defendant’s share of the equity in the Former Marital Residence and that Defendant was to sign the “deed transferring his interest in the marital residence to [Plaintiff]“; the value of the Former Marital Residence is unknown to the Court. Defendant claims that he was not paid $85,716.18 for his share in the Former Marital Residence and the parties’ agreements do not provide for a buy-out and/or sale.Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, filed November 9, 2018, which seeks, inter alia, an Order (1) compelling the Defendant to immediately sign the deed and transfer documents transferring title of the Former Marital Residence to Plaintiff; (2) appointing Plaintiff as receiver; (3) directing that Defendant not be entitled to any proceeds from the sale of the Former Marital Residence; (4) granting a money judgment against Defendant for child support arrears; and (5) counsel fees. In opposition to Plaintiff’s application, the Defendant filed a Notice of Cross-Motion on November 21, 2018, which seeks, inter alia, (1) an Order pursuant to CPLR Rule 3211 (a)(1) and (a)(7) dismissing and denying Plaintiff’s application in its entirety; and (2) counsel fees.FORMER MARITAL RESIDENCEIn support of Plaintiff’s application, she argues that the terms of the Second Agreement regarding the Former Marital Residence remained in effect until the parties’ children “complete their education or move out of the residence.” See Second Agreement at 2. Plaintiff further argues that the children have completed their educations, moved out of the Former Marital Residence and she is “ready to sell”.The relevant portions of the First and Second Agreements are as follows:“2. The Marital Residence. The Husband and Wife previously resided together at 135 Lake Ave., Riverhead, NY. The Wife shall be exclusively entitled to occupancy of, and to reside at, the premises. The Husband has agreed to pay [the] mortgage and taxes on the premises for the duration of three years, allowing Wife ample time to complete her studies, granting her better ability [to] support premises independently.***6. Maintenance and Support. Husband agrees to pay [the] mortgage and taxes on premises located at 135 Lake Ave., at the amount of $793.94 — for three years. Husband also agrees to keep Wife’s automobile insured under his policy for three years. The provisions of this Article 6 shall be non-modifiable for any reason.***8. Claims in Estates. In the event of the demise of one of the parties, the premises located at 135 Lake Ave., shall be the sole property of the surviving spouse.”See First Agreement at
