DECISION & ORDER Currently before the Court is a post-judgment motion filed by Defendant, George C., seeking an Order granting him the following relief: (1) compelling Plaintiff, Angelic C., to reimburse him the $7,373.74 payment he made towards the parties’ marital debt based on an alleged breach of her obligations under their separation agreement; (2) awarding him attorney’s fees in the amount incurred for filing and prosecuting the instant motion; and (3) such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. (NYSCEF Nos. 32-34, 39-40, 42.) Plaintiff has opposed the motion. (NYSCEF Nos. 35-37, 41-42). This matter was made returnable before the Court on July 24, 2023. At that time, counsel for the respective parties appeared and presented oral arguments on behalf of their clients. After considering those arguments, the Court determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to adjudicate the motion and scheduled the hearing for September 21, 2023. On the hearing date, counsel and the respective parties appeared in court but, during a preliminary in-chambers conference, counsel requested that the Court forego the hearing and decide the motion on the papers that were already submitted. Counsel formalized this request through the submission of a joint letter that was filed later the same day. (NYSCEF No. 45.) Given this stipulation, the Court agreed to decide the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Having carefully considered the parties’ respective submissions, including oral argument from counsel during the Court’s motion term held on July 24, 2023, Defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons set forth below. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND On or about May 20, 2022, Plaintiff commenced an action to dissolve her marriage to Defendant based on an irretrievable breakdown of their relationship (see D.R.L. §170[7]). On January 20, 2023, the parties executed a Separation and Opting-Out Agreement (“Separation Agreement”) that resolved all issues from their marriage. (NYSCEF No. 21.) The Separation Agreement was incorporated, but not merged, into the parties’ Judgment of Divorce dated February 15, 2023. (NYSCEF No. 28.) With respect to the parties’ marital debt, the Separation Agreement states as follows: The Husband has a debt of $750.00 which he owes to the Wife’s mother, [REDACTED]. The Wife has debt and/or marital expenses in her name as set forth on the attached Addendum A. All together the marital debt total [sic] $14,747.48. The parties shall equally share responsibility for the marital debt, and each shall be responsible for payment of one-half of the debt, which is $7,373.74 as outlined on page 6, Real Property. The Husband’s one-half share of the marital debt shall be paid to the Wife at the time of the closing on the sale of the Marital residence out of the net proceeds. The Wife shall pay the creditors for all marital debt in full no later than five (5) days after the closing of the sale of the Marital Residence. In the event thirty (30) days pass after the closing of the sale, and the Wife does not provide the Husband with proof of the debt payment, the Husband shall be reimbursed his contribution to the debt immediately. (NYSCEF No. 21, at p. 11-12 [emphasis added]). It is undisputed that the marital residence was sold, although Plaintiff contends that the closing of the sale occurred on February 28, 2023 (NYSCEF No. 32, at p .12), while Defendant avers that the closing occurred in March 2023 (id. at p. 5, 7). Nevertheless, Defendant paid Plaintiff $7,373.74 on March 8, 2023, which represented his one-half share of the marital debt. (Id. at p. 5, 7.) Pursuant to the above-noted clause in the Separation Agreement, Plaintiff was required to (a) pay off all marital debt no later than 5 days after the closing date, and (b) provide Defendant with proof that the debt had been satisfied within 30 days after closing or she would be required to immediately reimburse Defendant with his one-half contribution to the marital debt. On May 12, 2023, which was 65 days after Defendant made his payment to Plaintiff on March 8, 2023, Defendant sent Plaintiff a certified letter, return receipt requested, requesting that Plaintiff reimburse him with his contribution to the marital debt because Plaintiff had failed to provide proof that the marital debt had been satisfied as required by their agreement. (NYSCEF No. 32, at p. 9.) By letter dated May 22, 2023, Plaintiff advised Defendant that it was not possible to pay off all the marital debt within 5 days of the closing date because, among other things, she did not receive the sale proceeds until April 10, 2023. (Id. at p. 12.) Plaintiff further advised that she had immediately applied Defendant’s monetary contribution towards the marital debt after it was received, and she had been making her own monthly payments to the marital accounts before her receipt of the sale proceeds. (Id.) In opposition to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff argues, among other things, that the marital debt has been satisfied and “the clear intent of the Agreement is to make sure that the debts were paid[,] not that Defendant received proof that they were paid.” (NYSCEF No. 35 at
