This case is a reminder for me of the salient issue in my school CRA cases in MA.
CK v. LK, 2025 NY Slip Op 50992 – NY: Supreme Court, Richmond 2025:
“This matrimonial action was commenced on XX XX, 2024. The parties
were married on XX XX, 2006, and there are two unemancipated children of
the marriage to wit: BK (born XX XX, 2007) and AK (born XX XX, 2009).
By Short Form Order dated November 12, 2024, (NY St Cts Filing
[NYSCEF] Doc No. 83) entered on consent of the parties, Defendant, LK,
was directed to pay Plaintiff, CK, spousal maintenance in the amount of
$934.00 per month and child support in the amount of $541.70 per month
for AK, who was then residing with Plaintiff. BK remained in the
physical custody of Defendant.
Defendant now moves by Order to Show Cause, asserting a substantial
change in circumstances warranting revision of the current custodial and
financial arrangements. Specifically, Defendant seeks temporary custody
of both minor children; an award of child support from Plaintiff
consistent with the Child Support Standards Act (“CSSA”); exclusive use
and occupancy of the marital residence located at XXX XX Avenue, Staten
Island, NY; and an Order compelling Plaintiff to bring current all
outstanding financial obligations related to the marital residence.
Defendant further requests reimbursement of specific discretionary
expenses.
In support of his application, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has
failed to provide a stable and supportive environment for AK. Defendant
appends documentary evidence demonstrating AK’s chronic absenteeism
(approximately 150 late arrivals and absences combined) (NY St Cts
Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 84; 98) and an alarming number of missing
assignments — nearly 100 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 86 at ¶8)—
across various academic subjects, resulting in failing grades such as:
• Italian 3: 34.4% (14 missing assignments)
• Earth & Space 1: 25.7% (31 missing assignments)
• English: 32% (20 missing assignments)
• And similarly deficient performance in other courses. (see id at ¶9)
Defendant further asserts that AK failed to attend a mandatory
Saturday course and that Plaintiff failed to intervene or take
corrective action despite prior judicial admonishment.
Additionally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has mismanaged the
finances of the marital residence. Specifically, Defendant submits that
the mortgage is now in arrears by approximately $27,000, and utility
arrears include:
• $1,935.68 owed to Con Edison,
• $562.33 owed to National Grid,
• $1,141.61 owed to DEP, and
• approximately $500 in Verizon charges carried on Defendant’s credit card. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 102)
Defendant also requests reimbursement for approximately $10,000
expended on BK’s school trips, 50% of which he contends Plaintiff is
obligated to contribute under equitable principles.
In opposition and by cross-motion, Plaintiff seeks an Order awarding
her temporary custody of AK and an interim counsel fee award of $25,000.
Plaintiff’s opposition is grounded upon allegations that Defendant has
engaged in conduct she characterizes as abusive and controlling since
temporary custody was transferred pursuant to this Court’s May 8, 2025
Short Form Order.
Plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that since May 12, 2025, AK has
reported feeling unsafe in Defendant’s home due to behaviors such as:
• Defendant allegedly videotaping the yard rather than interacting with AK,
• Removing AK’s personal items, including her camera and blankets,
• Allegedly surveilling her through a bedroom window and while she slept,
• Locking AK out of the residence, and,
• Failing to maintain adequate food in the household. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 96)
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant attempted to run her over
with a vehicle on May 13, 2025, for which a police report was
purportedly filed and an arrest warrant allegedly issued. Finally,
Plaintiff requests interim counsel fees based upon an asserted disparity
in financial resources between the parties and the increasing burdens
of this litigation.
Defendant, in reply, vigorously denies Plaintiff’s allegations,
asserting that they are retaliatory and unsupported by credible
evidence. Defendant reaffirms his commitment to addressing AK’s
educational needs and asserts that Plaintiff’s ongoing financial neglect
threatens the preservation of the marital estate.
Conclusions of Law
A. Custody
The overarching principle in custody determinations remains the best interests of the child. (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]; O’Mahoney v. O’Mahoney, 206 AD3d 819 [2d Dept 2022]; Matter of Williamson v. Williamson, 182 AD3d 604
[2d Dept 2020]) In evaluating this standard, the Court must assess the
totality of the circumstances, including: the fitness of each parent;
the stability and quality of the respective home environments; the
demonstrated ability to meet the child’s emotional and intellectual
needs; and the past performance of each parent in fulfilling their
custodial obligations. (see Matter of Tabitha T. S. M. (Tracee L. M.-Candace E.), 159 AD3d 703 [2d Dept 2018]; Matter of Grigoli v. Grigoli, 29 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2006]).
Defendant has provided compelling and largely uncontroverted evidence
that AK’s academic welfare deteriorated significantly while in
Plaintiff’s custody. The Court is particularly troubled by the magnitude
of absenteeism, missing assignments, and failing grades presented in
the record. Plaintiff does not dispute these facts nor offer a
persuasive explanation for AK’s academic decline. Nor does Plaintiff
articulate a concrete plan to remedy these deficiencies should custody
be returned to her.
Conversely, Defendant has demonstrated proactive engagement with AK’s
school, including outreach to school officials to devise a remedial
educational plan. These efforts are entitled to significant weight in
the Court’s assessment of the best interests of the child.
While Plaintiff’s allegations of post-transfer misconduct by
Defendant are grave, they are unsubstantiated by independent evidence.
No corroborating police report is annexed regarding the surveillance
allegations; nor is there an affidavit from AK herself. The only
documented event — Defendant’s May 13, 2025 arrest — remains pending
adjudication in another forum and cannot, at this stage, alone justify
disruption of the present custodial arrangement.
In balancing the record before it, the Court finds that AK’s
demonstrable educational needs weigh decisively in favor of maintaining
temporary custody with Defendant at this time.
……”