Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a) of the papers considered in review of this motion:: PAPERS NUMBERED Order to Show Cause, Affidavits and Exhibits Annexed NYSCEF Document 2 Notice of Cross-Motion, Affidavits and Exhibits Annexed NYSCEF Documents 3-22 Answering Affidavits and Exhibits Annexed NYSCEF Documents 23-27 Transcript of Oral Argument on 3/24/21 NYSCEF Document 28 DECISION/ORDER UPON THE FOREGOING CITED PAPERS, AND AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Defendant moves by Order to Show Cause (OSC) (Motion Sequence 1) for an Order i) directing Plaintiff to procure and maintain a comprehensive health insurance plan for the child that is the same or substantially similar to the Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (Empire BCBS) EPO plan that was in effect at the time the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement; and ii) awarding counsel fees in the amount of $12,500 in connection with bringing this enforcement application. By Notice of Cross-Motion (Motion Sequence 2), Plaintiff seeks an Order: a) imposing sanctions upon Defendant and ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees for the frivolous nature of Defendant’s OSC in an amount to be determined by the court. Defendant, by Reply and in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion, moves to modify his previous request of an award of $12,500 in counsel fees to $20,000 in counsel fees. BACKGROUND The parties were married on July 14, 2015. They have one child, born in May 2016. On December 19, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement and Agreement. On August 5, 2019, the judgment of divorce was filed. By Stipulation of Settlement and Agreement dated December 19, 2018, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would continue to pay for and maintain the child’s medical and hospitalization insurance as offered through her employer (see Stipulation of Settlement and Agreement [Stip], p26, 7.8). At the time of the agreement, Plaintiff was employed at New York Presbyterian Hospital (see Plaintiff’s Affidavit [Pl Aff] dated 1/30/21, p2, 13). The stipulation further provided that in the event Plaintiff no longer received health insurance through her employer, she would obtain replacement coverage that was “substantially similar” to the insurance in effect at the time of the agreement (see Stip at p26, 7.8). At the time of the agreement, Plaintiff’s employer offered a health benefits plan with Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (see id. at p27, 7.11). In 2020, Plaintiff was terminated from New York Presbyterian Hospital (see id. at p3, 15, 20). After her termination from New York Presbyterian Hospital, Plaintiff obtained health care for the parties’ child through MetroPlus (see id. at p4, 29). PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS Defendant posits that Plaintiff has willfully violated the parties’ settlement agreement in that she has failed to maintain health insurance for the child that is “substantially similar” to the health insurance in effect at the time of the agreement (see Defendant’s Affidavit [Def Aff] dated 11/19/20, p2-3, 5). He submits that upon her termination from New York Presbyterian Hospital, Plaintiff waived COBRA coverage and instead purchased a “woefully insufficient” health insurance plan through MetroPlus (see id. at p3,
6-7). He submits that MetroPlus “offers a restrictive network of medical providers, and [that] most providers, including [the child's] long term pediatrician, and major hospitals do not accept this plan” (id. at p4, 7). He further contends that “to the extent a provider does not accept the plan, the patient is required to pay significantly more out-of-pocket, and there are much higher deductibles,” for which he is 80 percent responsible (id.). Defendant further seeks an award of counsel fees in connection with this enforcement application. He argues that Plaintiff has defaulted with respect to her obligation to provide the child with comprehensive health insurance coverage, which required him to bring this enforcement application (id. at p5, 11-12). He submits that pursuant to the terms of the agreement, a defaulting party shall indemnify the other against any and all reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees (id. at p5, 10). It is Plaintiff’s position that she has not violated the parties’ stipulation (see Pl Aff at p7, 60). She submits that since 2019, when her former employer, New York Presbyterian, switched their offered health benefits plan, the child’s health insurance was with Aetna and not Blue Cross Blue Shield as Defendant contends (see id. at p3, 14). She further submits that her new employer doesn’t offer any healthcare benefits, but with the assistance of the “Certified Application Counselors” at her new work location, she was able to obtain health insurance for the parties’ child with MetroPlus, which she contends was “the best available option” (see id. at p4,
