MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion #001) numbered 25-34, 44-47 and (Motion #002) numbered 35-43, 48-49 were read on this motion. Upon the foregoing documents, and on consideration of oral argument conducted on October 19, 2023, Motion Sequence #001 and Motion Sequence #002 are resolved and therefore, it is hereby, ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED interim physical/residential custody of the unemancipated child, JHYC, born, August XX, 2019, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant’s request to vacate the marital residence with the child is GRANTED to the extent that the Defendant shall only relocate within the County of Richmond, State of New York and Defendant shall vacate the marital residence no later than December 1, 2023, and it is further; ORDERED, Plaintiff’s request for joint residential custody, pendente lite, is DENIED, and it is further; ORDERED, Plaintiff’s request for joint legal custody, pendente lite, is GRANTED, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED monthly spousal maintenance and the Plaintiff shall pay retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, October 9, 2023, spousal maintenance to the Defendant in the monthly sum of $2,411.40 [Two Thousand Four Hundred Eleven Dollars and Forty Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED monthly child support and the Plaintiff shall pay retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, October 9, 2023, child support to the Defendant in the monthly sum of $1,639.75 [One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Nine Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, that the parties’ pro rata share of the child’s add-on expenses shall be as follows: Plaintiff is responsible for 80 percent of all of the child’s add-on expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and Defendant is responsible for 20 percent of all child add-on expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Plaintiff is GRANTED a reasonable and regular parenting-time schedule as provided herein, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Plaintiff is GRANTED exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and shall be effective upon Defendant vacating the marital residence, but no later than December 1, 2023, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant’s request for the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant provide her with funds for her first month’s rent, security deposit, and moving expenses, is GRANTED in the amount of $5,000.00, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant’s request for exclusive use of the 2016 Toyota Sienna is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant’s request that the Plaintiff continue to pay all expenses related to the 2016 Toyota Sienna is DENIED, without prejudice, and it is further; ORDERED, Defendant’s request for the Plaintiff to pay directly to the Defendant’s attorney, ELLIOT GREEN, ESQ., interim counsel fees in the amount of $10,000.00, is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, Plaintiff’s request for Defendant to pay the costs and disbursements of this application is DENIED, with prejudice, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Memorandum Decision I. Statement of Facts Plaintiff KCC and Defendant HKY were married in Kings County, Brooklyn, New York on May XX, 2019. There is one child of the marriage, to wit: JHYC born, August XX, 2019. The Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce on or about February 2, 2023. On October 9, 2023, Defendant filed Motion Sequence #001 by Order to Show Cause. Defendant seeks (a) authorization for her and the child to vacate the marital residence located at XX XXX Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10305; (b) Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s first month rent, security deposit, and moving charges should the Court permit her to vacate the marital residence with the child; (c) Plaintiff to pay monthly child support in the sum of $1,133.33; and (d) Plaintiff to pay monthly spousal support in the sum of $1,666.67. Defendant further seeks (e) exclusive use of the 2016 Toyota Sienna; (f) Plaintiff to continue pay to all the expenses associated with the 2016 Toyota Sienna; (g) Plaintiff to pay interim counsel fees in the amount of $35,000.00; and (h) any other and further relief which the Court finds just and proper. On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed cross Motion Sequence #002 by Notice of Motion opposing Defendant’s Order to Show Cause in its entirety and seeking (1) exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home and (2) regular parenting time with the minor child of the marriage, with the schedule as follows: i. Every Saturday from 3pm to Monday morning, drop off to the child’s school; ii. Alternating/rotating weekly visits as follows: 1) Tuesday and Thursday overnight visits, beginning after school until morning drop off at school on Wednesday and Friday respectively; 2) Monday and Wednesday overnight visits, beginning after school until morning drop off at school on Tuesday and Thursday. 3) Alternating all major holidays. Plaintiff further seeks (3) Joint Legal Custody and Joint Residential Custody of the child and (4) Defendant to pay the costs and disbursements of this application and (5) such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just, proper, and equitable. Defendant filed reply to Motion Sequence #001 and opposition to Motion Sequence #002 on October 18, 2023. Plaintiff filed reply to Motion Sequence #002 on October 19, 2023. Oral argument was heard on Motion Sequence #001 and Motion Sequence #002 on October 19, 2023. This is a Decision and Order on Motion Sequence #001 and Motion Sequence #002. 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]). On September 15, 2023, an attorney for the child was appointed by the Court and a Court Ordered Investigation was issued. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) provided their report on October 19, 2022. Both the COI report and the opinion of the AFC were considered. Defendant credibly contends that in addition to the parties and their child, the marital home, which is a single-family dwelling, is also the residence of the Plaintiff’s mother, his two sisters, and their children. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 26). The COI report issued by ACS confirms that nine people reside in the marital residence. Defendant’s description of the marital home is one of hostility from the Plaintiff’s relatives and one that is chaotic in nature. While ACS does not recommend an Article 10 petition, the COI concurs with descriptions of the home’s crowded and chaotic nature and raises some sanitary concerns, particularly with regard to the presence of an unmaintained swimming pool on the property. Based on the information available to the Court and after consideration of the totality of these factors and the best interests of the child, JHYC born, August XX, 2019, residential custody, pendente lite, is GRANTED to the Defendant. Defendant’s further request to vacate the marital residence with the child is GRANTED to the extent that the Defendant may only relocate with the child within the County of Richmond, State of New York. Defendant to vacate the marital residence with the child by December 1, 2023. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for joint residential custody, pendente lite, is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for joint legal custody, pendente lite, is GRANTED. 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]). The Plaintiff is the owner of an automotive body shop and reports in his sworn statement of net worth an annual income of $100,000.00. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 11). He further reports in this same sworn document that he pays no social security or Medicare taxes. (see id). Defendant states in her affidavit “Plaintiff reports minimal income from his business to qualify for Medicaid[.]” (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 26). This fact was also raised in open Court and on the record on September 15, 2023, in response the Court’s inquiry as to insurance coverage. Defendant further contends “Plaintiff’s current salary is over $100,000.00 dollars, which does not include all the benefits from Plaintiff’s business.” (see id). There is evidence at this juncture that supports the Defendant’s allegation that the Plaintiff’s income is higher than reflected in his claimed income. The Court is therefore imputing an annual income of $150,000.00 to the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff to pay monthly Maintenance to Plaintiff pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §236 [B] [5-a] based on the parties’ respective incomes. The Court has imputed an annual income to the Plaintiff of $150,000.00 per year and the Defendant has an annual income of $0.00 per year. 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 $150,000.00 $0.00 FICA: Social Security tax paid (1) ($0.00) ($0.00) Medicare tax paid (1 ($0.00) ($0.00) New York City income tax paid ($5,315.92) ($0.00) Adjusted CSSA Income $144,684.08 $0.00 (1) Plaintiff reports in his statement of net worth that he pays no social security or Medicare taxes. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 11). First Calculation 20 percent of payor’s income up to and including the cap $28,936.82 Minus 20 percent of payee’s income ($0.00) Result 1 $28,936.82 Second Calculation Payor’s income up to and including the cap $144,684.08 Plus payee’s income $0.00 Combined income $144,684.08 40 percent of combined income $57,873.63 Minus payee’s income ($0.00) Result 2 $57,873.63 Lower of the two results $28,936.82 Accordingly, monthly spousal maintenance is GRANTED to Defendant in the amount of $2,411.40 [Two Thousand Four Hundred Eleven Dollars and Forty 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, October 9, 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 Income Adjusted for Maintenance $115,747.26 $28,936.82 Combined Parental Income $144,684.08 Applicable Child Support Percentage 17 percent Annual Parental Support Obligation $24,596.29 Share of Combined Parental Income 80 percent 20 percent Annual Pro Rata Shares $19,677.03 $4,919.26 Accordingly, the Defendant’s request for child support is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED, to pay Defendant child support in the monthly sum of $1,639.75 [One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Nine Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. This monthly payment shall be retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, October 9, 2023. 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 80 percent of all add-on expenses for the child, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and the Defendant is responsible for 20 percent of all addon 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. Parenting-Time Plaintiff’s request for a regular parenting-time schedule with the child, JHYC, is GRANTED, pendente lite, as follows: Commencing Friday, November 3, 2023, Plaintiff-Father shall have overnight parenting-time with the child on alternating weekends, from Friday at 6:00 PM through Sunday evening at 7:00 PM. Plaintiff shall be responsible for picking up and returning child to the Defendant-Mother’s place of residence. Plaintiff-Father shall have a weekly dinner parenting-time visit with the child one day per week on Wednesday from 3:00 PM to 7:30 PM. Plaintiff shall be responsible for picking up and returning child to the Defendant-Mother’s place of residence. Plaintiff and Defendant shall alternate parenting-time on all major holidays. On a holiday that the Plaintiff is scheduled to have parenting-time, parenting-time shall commence at 8:00 AM and the child shall be returned by 9:30 PM. Plaintiff shall have holiday parenting-time commencing with the next major holiday and shall be responsible for picking up and returning child to the Defendant-Mother’s place of residence. On days Plaintiff does not have parenting-time with the child, Plaintiff shall have telephonic/virtual contact with the child each night between the hours of 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM for a period of 15 minutes. On days when child has overnight visitation with Plaintiff, Defendant shall have telephonic/virtual contact with the child each night between the hours of 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM for a period of 15 minutes. The parties may agree to additional parenting time as is reduced to writing, including text and email. Neither party shall disparage the other parent in front of the child, nor allow third parties to disparage the other parent in front of the child, nor discuss the divorce proceedings in front of the child. VII. Marital Residence Defendant has requested and the Court has previously GRANTED the Defendant permission to vacate with the child the marital residence located at XX XXX Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10305. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and shall be effective upon Defendant vacating the marital residence, but no later than December 1, 2023. Further, as the Plaintiff is the monied spouse and the party receiving exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, the Defendant’s request for the Plaintiff to provide her with funds for her first month’s rent, security deposit, and moving expenses, is GRANTED in the amount of $5,000.00, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. VIII. 2016 Toyota Sienna Defendant’s request for exclusive use of the 2016 Toyota Sienna for the transportation of herself and the child is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial. Further, the Defendant’s request that the Plaintiff continue to pay all expenses related to the 2016 Toyota Sienna is DENIED. IX. 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 significantly 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, ELLIOT GREEN, ESQ., interim counsel fees in the amount of $10,000.00, is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff’s request for Defendant to pay the costs and disbursements of this application is DENIED, with prejudice. Decretal Paragraphs It is hereby ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED interim physical/residential custody of the unemancipated child, JHYC, born, August XX, 2019, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant’s request to vacate the marital residence with the child is GRANTED to the extent that the Defendant shall only relocate within the County of Richmond, State of New York and Defendant shall vacate the marital residence no later than December 1, 2023, and it is further; ORDERED, Plaintiff’s request for joint residential custody, pendente lite, is DENIED, and it is further; ORDERED, Plaintiff’s request for joint legal custody, pendente lite, is GRANTED, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED monthly spousal maintenance and the Plaintiff shall pay retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, October 9, 2023, spousal maintenance to the Defendant in the monthly sum of $2,411.40 [Two Thousand Four Hundred Eleven Dollars and Forty Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant is GRANTED monthly child support and the Plaintiff shall pay retroactive to the date of Defendant’s Motion, October 9, 2023, child support to the Defendant in the monthly sum of of $1,639.75 [One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Nine Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents], pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, that the parties’ pro rata share of the child’s add-on expenses shall be as follows: Plaintiff is responsible for 80 percent of all of the child’s add-on expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and Defendant is responsible for 20 percent of all child add-on expenses, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Plaintiff is GRANTED a reasonable and regular parenting-time schedule as provided herein, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Plaintiff is GRANTED exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and shall be effective upon Defendant vacating the marital residence, but no later than December 1, 2023, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant’s request for the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant provide her with funds for her first month’s rent, security deposit, and moving expenses, is GRANTED in the amount of $5,000.00, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant’s request for exclusive use of the 2016 Toyota Sienna is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Defendant’s request that the Plaintiff continue to pay all expenses related to the 2016 Toyota Sienna is DENIED, without prejudice, and it is further; ORDERED, Defendant’s request for the Plaintiff to pay directly to the Defendant’s attorney, ELLIOT GREEN, ESQ., interim counsel fees in the amount of $10,000.00, is GRANTED, pendente lite, subject to reallocation at trial and without prejudice to renew, and it is further; ORDERED, Plaintiff’s request for Defendant to pay the costs and disbursements of this application is DENIED, with prejudice, and it is further; ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court. Dated: October 20, 2023
