The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion #001) numbered 3-22, 28-47, 55-58, 60-61 were read on this motion. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER (PENDENTE LITE) Upon the foregoing documents, and on consideration of oral argument conducted on July 6, 2023, Motion Sequence #001 is resolved and therefore, it is hereby, ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED interim legal and physical custody of the unemancipated child, NAV, born XX X, 2016, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED monthly spousal maintenance and the Plaintiff shall pay monthly spousal maintenance, retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, June 14, 2023, in the amount of $285.00 [Two Hundred Eighty-Five Dollars and No Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, that Defendant is GRANTED monthly child support and the Plaintiff shall pay Defendant, commencing August 1, 2023, child support in the monthly sum of $746.90 [Seven Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and Ninety Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that Defendant’s request for allocation of the parties’ pro rata share of the child’s add-on expenses is GRANTED in that, retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, June 14, 2023, Plaintiff is responsible for 60 percent of all of the child’s add-on expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and Defendant is responsible for 40 percent of all child add-on expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that Defendant’s request for the Plaintiff to pay directly to the Defendant’s attorney, THE LAW OFFICE OF FRANCINE PICKETT COHEN, LLC, interim counsel fees in the amount of $7,500.00 [SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS], is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, that Parties are to take the actions necessary to have their medical and mental health records and those of the child provided directly to the Court by the parties medical and mental health providers, and it is further; ORDERED, that the parties are to provide a fully executed parenting-time stipulation or submissions on proposed parting-time prior to the next appearance on the matter on August 2, 2023, at 9:30 A.M. at the Courthouse located at 26 Central Avenue, Courtroom 330, Staten Island, NY, and it is further; ORDERED, Defendant shall provide proof of the child’s enrollment and matriculation in the local school of the residential parent, and/or documentation that the enrollment process has commenced, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Court, contemporaneously with this Decision and Order, is appointing a provider to conduct forensic examination of the parties and the child, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Memorandum Decision I. Statement of Facts Plaintiff AV and Defendant LV were married in a civil ceremony in Staten Island, New York on May 23, 2014. There is one child of the marriage, to wit: NAV, born XX XX, 2016. The Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce on or about April 7, 2023. On June 14, 2023, Defendant filed Motion Sequence #001 by Order to Show Cause. Defendant seeks (a) a finding that the Plaintiff has committed a Family Offense as defined by Domestic Relations Law §240; (b) an Order of Protection on behalf of the Defendant; (c) an interim Order of sole legal and residential custody of the child of the marriage, to wit, NAV, born on XX XX, 2016; (d) supervised parenting-time for the Plaintiff at his expense; (e) appointment of an attorney for the child at Plaintiff’s expense; (f) spousal maintenance, pendente lite, to be paid by the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,384.69 per month retroactive to the date of commencement of this action; and (g) child support, pendente lite, to be paid by the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,762.10 per month retroactive to the date of commencement of this action. Defendant further seeks (h) Plaintiff pay, pendente lite, his pro-rata share of 77.29 percent for necessary child care, unreimbursed health care, and educational expenses on behalf of the parties’ child, retroactive to the date of commencement of this action; (i) Plaintiff to sign HIPAA authorizations for the release of his pharmaceutical records (j) Plaintiff to submit to a hair follicle drug test, to be administered in a supervised setting; (k) Plaintiff to sign HIPAA authorizations for the release of his psychiatric records, to include diagnosis and compliance with treatment; (l) consolidation of this proceeding with any pending Family Court matter; (m) Plaintiff to pay interim counsel fees, pendente lite, in the amount of $15,000.00; and (n) such other and further relief as to this Court is just and proper. On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed opposition. Reply was filed by Defendant on July 5, 2023. Through an interim stipulation (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 30) and Orders of the Court (see NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 22; 29; 31; 32; 60; 67) Motion Sequence #001 prongs (a) through (b), (d) through (e) and (i) through (l). The only remaining open prongs of Motion Sequence #001 are prongs (c), (f) through (h) and prong (m). Oral argument was heard on Motion Sequence #001 on July 6, 2023. This is a Decision and Order on Motion Sequence #001. II. Custody Custody orders are required to be entered “as, in the court’s discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and to the best interests of the child.” (Domestic Relations Law §240 [1] [a]). “In making a determination as to what custody arrangement is in the children’s best interests, the court should consider the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the children, 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 the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the children’s relationship with the other parent[.]” (see Matter of Schultheis v. Schultheis, 141 AD3d 721 [2d Dept 2016], citing Matter of Hutchinson v. Johnson, 134 AD3d 1115 [2d Dept 2015]). “There is ‘no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent[.]‘” (see Matter of Schultheis v. Schultheis, 141 AD3d 721 [2d Dept 2016], quoting Domestic Relations Law §70[a]). “In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the best interests of the child is the paramount factor to be considered[.]” (see Matter of Connolly v. Walsh, 126 AD3d 691 [2d Dept 2015], citing Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]). Both parties suffer from various medical conditions that require the use of numerous prescription medicines. Both parties allege mental health issues in the other party. Plaintiff reported to the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) that he currently has daily prescriptions for Suboxone 8 mg, Lithium 300 mg, Benadryl, Melatonin 1 mg, Colozapam 1 mg, Gabepentin 300 mg, Fenofibrate 105 mg for Famotmotidine 20 mg, Bupropin 450 mg, and as needed Cyclovenzaprine 5 mg. Defendant reported to ACS that she currently is prescribed Venlafaine 150mg and 75mg once daily, Xanax 2mg as needed, Benedryl 50mg 2 capsules at bedtime, Melatonin 10mg 1 capsule at bedtime reports having a diagnosis of kidney disease and has a history of seizures and takes is prescribed Topamax 50mg once daily, Phendimetrazine 35mg 2 tabs at 10:30am and 2 tablets at 4pm. Both parties deny the use of non-prescribed drugs and alcohol and submitted to urine and hair follicle drug testing performed by ACS. Defendant only tested positive for substances within her prescription regimen. Plaintiff tested negative across the board, which raises concerns that the Plaintiff may not be taking medications prescribed to control certain mental health issues. Defendant recounts in her affidavit allegations of domestic violence perpetrated against her by the Plaintiff: In August of 2022, we were arguing, and the Plaintiff was angry that I was leaving to run some errands. As I was leaving, the Plaintiff threw something that hit me in the back of my head, causing a bloody bruise. I left, and when I returned home, no one was there to let me inside; I could not let myself in because I do not have a key. The Plaintiff arrived shortly afterwards with our son, and he told our son not to say hello to mommy because she’s “bad.” The Plaintiff called the police when I refused to leave, and I placed a call because he was refusing to allow me into the apartment. When the police responded and saw the bloody bruise on my head, the Plaintiff was arrested. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5). Defendant further alleges: I was so afraid for myself and NAV that the day after I was finally able to change the locks, I took NAV and went to a domestic abuse shelter in Manhattan. Unfortunately, being in the shelter with no money and far away from our home, took an emotional toll on our son and me. At the same time, the Plaintiff was apologizing, begging me to come home, and promising to get help. (see id). On December 16, 2022, a Final Order of Protection expiring December 15, 2024 was issued on behalf of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff by the Richmond County Criminal Court (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 9). Defendant also filed a domestic incident report against the Plaintiff on December 31, 2022 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 10) and again on January 22, 2023 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 11). The Court also has concerns regarding the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding the child’s education. Defendant contends that earlier in the 2022-2023 school year, the child was getting sick and would miss school on and off. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5). Defendant further contends, the Plaintiff effectively stopped sending the child to school at all. (see id). Allegations were made that the Plaintiff was keeping child out of school for medical reasons, which have not been documented by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff then elected to “home-school” the child. Defendant alleges that she does not believe Nicholas did any of the work himself. (see id). Defendant further contends that Plaintiff was offered in-home instruction by a teacher, which would have allowed the child to make up his missed days and advance to the next grade level. (see id). There was an issue whether the child would be promoted due to the failure to provide completed assignments in a timely basis. Plaintiff reports that the child will be promoted to the next grade; however, the Court remains concerned whether the child has successfully completed the school year and is being promoted academically or is this merely a social promotion. The Court also has concerns regarding the fitness of the Defendant as a parent particularly the allegations made by the Plaintiff as to her stability. After the reviewing all the information gathered, including interviewing the parties and conducting home assessments, ACS has DECLINED to recommended that an Article 10 petition be filed. Accordingly, based on the information available to the Court and after consideration of the totality of these factors and the best interests of the child, NAV, legal and residential custody, pendente lite, is GRANTED to the Defendant. II. Imputation of Income “Income shall mean income as defined in the child support standards act and codified in section two hundred forty of this article and section four hundred thirteen of the family court act[.]” (see Domestic Relations Law §236 [B] [5-a] [b] [4]). Domestic Relations Law §240 [1-b] [b] [5] provides as follows: (5) “Income” shall mean, but shall not be limited to, the sum of the amounts determined by the application of clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of this subparagraph reduced by the amount determined by the application of clause (vii) of this subparagraph: (i) gross (total) income as should have been or should be reported in the most recent federal income tax return. If an individual files his/her federal income tax return as a married person filing jointly, such person shall be required to prepare a form, sworn to under penalty of law, disclosing his/her gross income individually; (ii) to the extent not already included in gross income in clause (i) of this subparagraph, investment income reduced by sums expended in connection with such investment; (iii) to the extent not already included in gross income in clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph, the amount of income or compensation voluntarily deferred and income received, if any, from the following sources: (A) workers’ compensation, (B) disability benefits, (C) unemployment insurance benefits, (D) social security benefits, (E) veterans benefits, (F) pensions and retirement benefits, (G) fellowships and stipends, (H) annuity payments, and (I) alimony or maintenance actually paid or to be paid to a spouse who is a party to the instant action pursuant to an existing court order or contained in the order to be entered by the court, or pursuant to a validly executed written agreement, in which event the order or agreement shall provide for a specific adjustment, in accordance with this subdivision, in the amount of child support payable upon the termination of alimony or maintenance to such spouse; provided, however, that the specific adjustment in the amount of child support is without prejudice to either party’s right to seek a modification in accordance with subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision nine of part B of section two hundred thirty-six of this article. In an action or proceeding to modify an order of child support, including an order incorporating without merging an agreement, issued prior to the effective date of this subclause, the provisions of this subclause shall not, by themselves, constitute a substantial change of circumstances pursuant to paragraph b of subdivision nine of part B of section two hundred thirty-six of this article. (iv) at the discretion of the court, the court may attribute or impute income from, such other resources as may be available to the parent, including, but not limited to: (A) non-income producing assets, (B) meals, lodging, memberships, automobiles or other perquisites that are provided as part of compensation for employment to the extent that such perquisites constitute expenditures for personal use, or which expenditures directly or indirecly [indirectly]* confer personal economic benefits, (C) fringe benefits provided as part of compensation for employment, and (D) money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends “In determining parental income under the CSSA, the court must begin with the parent’s ‘gross (total) income as should have been or should be reported in the most recent federal income tax return’” (see Sinnott v. Sinnott, 194 AD3d 868 [2d Dept 2021] citing Domestic Relations Law §240 [1-b] [b] [5] [i]; Holterman v. Holterman, 3 NY3d 1 [2004]; Matter of Peddycoart v. MacKay, 145 AD3d 1081 [2d Dept 2016]) “and then to the extent not already included in gross income, the amount of income or compensation voluntarily deferred and income received from certain specified sources, including pensions and retirement benefits[.]” (see id; citing Domestic Relations Law §240 [1-b] [b] [5] [iii] [F]; Holterman v. Holterman, 3 NY3d 1 [2004]; Ballard v. Davis, 259 AD2d 881 [3d Dept 1999]). Domestic Relations Law §240 [1-b] [b] [5] [vii] provides for the following deductions for income: (vii) the following shall be deducted from income prior to applying the provisions of paragraph (c) of this subdivision: (A) unreimbursed employee business expenses except to the extent said expenses reduce personal expenditures, (B) alimony or maintenance actually paid to a spouse not a party to the instant action pursuant to court order or validly executed written agreement, (C) alimony or maintenance actually paid or to be paid to a spouse who is a party to the instant action pursuant to an existing court order or contained in the order to be entered by the court, or pursuant to a validly executed written agreement, in which event the order or agreement shall provide for a specific adjustment, in accordance with this subdivision, in the amount of child support payable upon the termination of alimony or maintenance to such spouse; provided, however, that the specific adjustment in the amount of child support is without prejudice to either party’s right to seek a modification in accordance with subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision nine of part B of section two hundred thirty-six of this article. In an action or proceeding to modify an order of child support, including an order incorporating without merging an agreement, issued prior to the effective date of this subclause, the provisions of this subclause shall not, by themselves, constitute a substantial change of circumstances pursuant to paragraph b of subdivision nine of part B of section two hundred thirty-six of this article. (D) child support actually paid pursuant to court order or written agreement on behalf of any child for whom the parent has a legal duty of support and who is not subject to the instant action, (E) public assistance, (F) supplemental security income, (G) New York city or Yonkers income or earnings taxes actually paid, and (H) federal insurance contributions act (FICA) taxes actually paid. Both parties have raised the issue as to whether they should have additional income imputed to them based on alleged income from sources other than their primary employment. “It is settled that ‘[in] a matrimonial action involving issues of equitable distribution of marital property, public policy clearly mandates full financial disclosure’” (see Richter v. Richter, 131 AD2d 453 [2d Dept 2022], quoting Charpentier v. Charpentier, 495 NYS2d 89 [2d Dept 1985], citing Domestic Relations Law §236 [B] [4]; Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 117 AD2d 593 [2d Dept 1986]; Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld, 114 AD2d 1006 [2d Dept 1985], affd 69 NY2d 842 [1987]; Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 AD2d 848 [2d Dept 1984]; 22 NYCRR §202.16. “In determining a party’s maintenance and child support obligations, ‘[a] court need not rely upon a party’s own account of his [or her] finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated future potential earnings[.]‘” (see Tuchman v. Tuchman, 201 AD3d 986 [2d Dept 2022] quoting Duffy v. Duffy, 84 AD3d 1151 [2d Dept 2011]; citing Wesche v. Wesche, 77 AD3d 921 [2d Dept 2010]; Steinberg v. Steinberg, 59 AD3d 702 [2d Dept 2009]). “The court may impute income to a party based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends and relatives[.]” (see id quoting Duffy v. Duffy, 84 AD3d 1151 [2d Dept 2011]; citing Matter of Rohme v. Burns, 92 AD3d 946 [2d Dept 2012]; Wesche v. Wesche, 77 AD3d 921 [2d Dept 2010]). “Where a party’s account is not believable, the court may impute a true or potential income higher than alleged[.]” (see id quoting Wesche v. Wesche, 77 AD3d 921 [2d Dept 2010]; citing Duffy v. Duffy, 84 AD3d 1151 [2d Dept 2011]). “The court has considerable discretion in determining whether income should be imputed to a party and the court’s credibility determinations are accorded deference on appeal[.]” (see id quoting Matter of Monti v. DiBedendetto, 151 AD3d 864 [2d Dept 2017]; citing Matter of Kiernan v. Martin, 108 AD3d 767 [2d Dept 2013]). Plaintiff works as a residential apartment superintendent and is provided with an apartment to live in, that includes the electric, gas/oil, and water at no cost to the Plaintiff. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 43). Defendant’s Exhibit G, a Zillow rental valuation of a similar apartment, lists the monthly rental value of Plaintiff’s apartment at $2,175.00 per month. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 14). Using the New York State average, which is lower than the New York City average, a low estimate of the benefit Plaintiff is receiving by having his utilities provide for him is $355.00 per month. Domestic Relations Law §240 provides, in relevant part, that in calculating a party’s income, the court may, in its discretion, impute income from such other resources as may be available to the party, including automobiles or other perquisites that are provided as part of compensation for employment, to the extent that such perquisites constitute expenditures for personal use, or which expenditures directly or indirectly confer personal economic benefits, fringe benefits provided as part of compensation for employment, and money, goods or services provided by relatives and friends (see Skinner v. Skinner, 241 AD2d 544 [2d Dept 1997] citing DRL §240 [1-b] [b] [5] [iv]). [T]he court may impute income based upon various factors, including “automobiles or other perquisites that are provided as part of compensation for employment,” and “fringe benefits provided as part of compensation for employment” (see Matter of Geller v. Geller, 133 AD3d 599 [2d Dept 2015] citing Family Ct Act §413 [1] [b] [5] [iv]; Matter of Ambrose v. Felice, 45 AD3d 581 [2d Dept 2007]). Defendant contends that Plaintiff has additional income generated from doing side jobs for tenants in the apartment complex. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 5). Currently, the evidence does not support such a finding. There is evidence at this juncture that supports the Defendant’s allegation that the Plaintiff’s income is higher than reflected in his reported income. Defendant’s reported income omits the value of the fringe benefit he receives in the form of a rent-free apartment that includes monthly utilities. Plaintiff reports an annual income of $28,600.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 43). The total value of the Plaintiff’s apartment with included utilities approximates to $30,360.00 per year in the opinion of this Court. The Court is therefore imputing an annual income of $58,960.00 to the Plaintiff for the purpose of calculations made herein, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. Defendant maintains that she has a gross income of $7,935.00, consisting of unemployment insurance benefits and payments for her social media activities. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12). However, Defendant is living with a cousin/friend and states akin to the Plaintiff that she has no housing or utility expenses other than her mobile phone. Defendant reports to the Court she is living with her cousin and ACS reports the Defendant is living with a friend. Defendant also possessed the assets to purchase a dog for $4,797.06 demonstrating that the Defendant’s income is higher than she is reporting in her statement of net worth. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12). Defendant reports an annual income of $7,935.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 12). The total value of the Plaintiff’s apartment with included utilities is $37,812.00 per year. The Court is therefore imputing half the annual value of the Defendant’s housing and an additional $5,000.00 in unreported income from various sources for a total annual income of $31,841.00 to the Defendant for the purpose of calculations made herein, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. III. Spousal Maintenance, Pendente Lite In Motion Sequence #001, Defendant seeks an Order directing the Defendant to pay monthly Maintenance to Plaintiff pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §236 [B] [5-a] based on the parties’ respective incomes. Pendente lite maintenance is awarded to ensure that a needy spouse is provided with funds for their support and reasonable needs pending trial. It should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, determined with due regard for the pre-separation standard of living. (see Salmon v. de Salmon, 173 AD3d 793 [2d Dept 2019]). In this matter, the length of the marriage and the disparity in income make pendente lite maintenance appropriate. “A party’s maintenance obligation commences, and is retroactive to, the date an application for maintenance was first made” (see Levitt v. Levitt, 97 AD3d 543 [2d Dept 2012] citing DRL §236 [B] [6] [a]; Scarpace v. Scarpace, 84 AD3d 1537 [3d Dept 2011]; Groesbeck v. Groesbeck, 51 AD3d 722 [2d Dept 2008]; Grassi v. Grassi, 35 A.D.3d 357 [2d Dept 2006]). A. Guideline Amount Calculation Spousal Maintenance Plaintiff Defendant Total Income $58,960.00 $31,841.00 FICA: Social Security tax paid ($1,773.20) ($491.97) Medicare tax paid ($414.70) ($115.06) New York City income tax paid ($629.53) ($0.00) Adjusted CSSA Income $56,142.57 $31,233.97 First Calculation 20 percent of payor’s income up to and including the cap $11,228.51 Minus 20 percent of payee’s income ($7,808.49) Result 1 $3,420.02 Second Calculation Payor’s income up to and including the cap $56,142.57 Plus payee’s income $31,233.97 Combined income $87,376.54 40 percent of combined income $34,950.62 Minus payee’s income ($31,233.97) Result 2 $3,716.65 Lower of the two results $3,420.02 Accordingly, monthly spousal maintenance is GRANTED to Defendant in the amount of $285.00 [Two Hundred Eighty-Five Dollars and No Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew. This monthly payment shall be retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, June 14, 2023. IV. Child Support “A parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her child’s basic needs, an obligation which is addressed in Domestic Relations Law §240 [1-b] [c] [1] [2].” (see Cimons v. Cimons, 53 AD3d 125 [2d Dept 2008]. The Child Support Standards Act “provides a precisely articulated, three-step method for determining child support” (see Boltz v. Boltz, 178 AD3d 656 [2d Dept 2019]. This three-step process includes (1) computing a combined parental income, (2) multiplying that income, up to a certain income cap, by a specific percentage, and (3) determining the amount of income that should be considered for child support purposes if the combined parental income exceeds the income cap. (see Cassano v. Cassano, 85 NY2d at 649 [1995]). Plaintiff Defendant Adjusted CSSA Income $56,142.57 $31,233.97 Maintenance Adjustment ($3,420.02) $3,420.02 Income Adjusted for Maintenance $52,722.55 $34,653.99 Combined Parental Income $87,376.54 Applicable Child Support Percentage 17 percent Annual Parental Support Obligation $14,854.01 Share of Combined Parental Income 60.34 percent 39.66 percent Annual Pro Rata Shares $8,962.83 $5,891.18 Accordingly, the Defendant’s request for child support is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED, commencing August 1, 2023, to pay Defendant child support in the monthly sum of $746.90 [Seven Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and Ninety Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. V. Add-On Expenses for Child, Pendente Lite, Subject to Reallocation at Trial It is ORDERED that all the child’s add-on expenses, including, but not limited to (1) child care expenses while the custodial parent is working; (2) unreimbursed medical expenses, to include but not limited to co-payments, pharmaceutical expenses, optical, dental, therapeutic sessions, mental health services, and related health care expenses; and (3) education expenses to include but not limited to private school tuition, mandatory fees, books, labs, uniform expenses shall be divided on a pro-rata basis. Plaintiff is responsible for 60 percent of all add-on expenses for the child, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and the Defendant is responsible for 40 percent of all add-on expenses for the child, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. Parties’ responsibility for their pro rata shares of add-on expenses for the child shall be retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, June 14, 2023. VI. Interim Counsel Fees Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §237 [a], “There shall be a rebuttable presumption that counsel fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse. In exercising the court’s discretion, the court shall seek to assure that each party shall be adequately represented and that where fees and expenses are to be awarded.” “An award of reasonable counsel fees in a matrimonial action is a matter within the discretion of the trial court[.]” (see Guzzo v. Guzzo, 110 AD3d 765 [2d Dept 2013] citing Domestic Relations Law §237; De Cabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Quinn v. Quinn, 73 AD3d 887 [2d Dept 2010]). “[T]he more affluent spouse should not be treated as an open-ended checkbook expected to pay for exorbitant legal fees incurred by the less affluent spouse through excessive litigation or the assertion of unreasonable positions. Where a party has asserted unreasonable positions or failed to cooperate in discovery, and thereby increased the cost of the litigation, the court may make a counsel fee award in favor of the offended party or not make, or make a lesser award, in favor of the offending party[.]” (see Kaufman v. Kaufman, 189 AD3d 31 [2d Dept 2020] citing Morille-Hinds v. Hinds, 169 AD3d 896 [2d Dept 2019]; Cravo v. Diegel, 163 AD3d 920 [2d Dept 2018]; Culen v. Culen, 157 AD3d 926 [2d Dept 2018]; Samimi v. Samimi, 134 AD3d 1010 [2d Dept 2018]). Plaintiff has a higher income than Defendant that rises to a level in which the Plaintiff is required to pay a portion of the Defendant’s counsel fees. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for the Plaintiff to pay directly to the Defendant’s attorney, THE LAW OFFICE OF FRANCINE PICKETT COHEN, LLC, interim counsel fees in the amount of $7,500.00, is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew. Decretal Paragraphs It is hereby ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED interim legal and physical custody of the unemancipated child, NAV, born XX XX, 2016, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED monthly spousal maintenance and the Plaintiff shall pay monthly spousal maintenance, retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, June 14, 2023, in the amount of $285.00 [Two Hundred Eighty-Five Dollars and No Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, that Defendant is GRANTED monthly child support and the Plaintiff shall pay Defendant, commencing August 1, 2023, child support in the monthly sum of $746.90 [Seven Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and Ninety Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that Defendant’s request for allocation of the parties’ pro rata share of the child’s add-on expenses is GRANTED in that, retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, June 14, 2023, Plaintiff is responsible for 60 percent of all of the child’s add-on expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and Defendant is responsible for 40 percent of all child add-on expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that Defendant’s request for the Plaintiff to pay directly to the Defendant’s attorney, THE LAW OFFICE OF FRANCINE PICKETT COHEN, LLC, interim counsel fees in the amount of $7,500.00 [SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS], is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, that Parties are to take the actions necessary to have their medical and mental health records and those of the child provided directly to the Court by the parties medical and mental health providers, and it is further; ORDERED, that the parties are to provide a fully executed parenting-time stipulation or submissions on proposed parenting-time prior to the next appearance on the matter on August 2, 2023, at 9:30 A.M. at the Courthouse located at 26 Central Avenue, Courtroom 330, Staten Island, NY, and it is further; ORDERED, Defendant shall provide proof of the child’s enrollment and matriculation in the local school of the residential parent, and/or documentation that the enrollment process has commenced, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Court, contemporaneously with this Decision and Order, is appointing a provider to conduct forensic examination of the parties and the child, 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: July 21, 2023
