Order | Filed: July 27, 2026
| Entered: July 27, 2026
Kladny v. Deza
Other Statutory Actions | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 104 supplemental motion for costs. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's 104 supplemental motion for costs is granted in part and denied in part.
22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3) states that "[a]ny court ordering the return of a child pursuant to an action brought under [the Hague Convention] shall order the respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner, including court costs, legal fees, foster home or other care during the course of proceedings in the action, and transportation costs related to the return of the child, unless the respondent establishes that such order would be clearly inappropriate." Under this provision, "a prevailing petitioner in a return action is presumptively entitled to necessary costs, subject to the application of equitable principles by the district court." Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355, 375 (2d Cir. 2013). Accordingly, this provision "shifts the burden onto a losing respondent in a return action to show why an award of necessary expenses would be clearly inappropriate." Id.
Here, Petitioner seeks a supplemental award of costs incurred in connection with the return of the Child. See Dkt. 104. The Court recognizes that Petitioner is presumptively entitled to "transportation costs related to the return of the child." 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3); Ozaltin, 708 F.3d at 375. Not only are such travel costs presumptively recoverable under 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3), but the parties' custody agreement establishes that Respondent shall bear the costs of the Child's round-trip airfare. See Dkt. 1-6. Further, when considering the relevant equitable factors, see Nissim v. Kirsh, 18-cv-11520 (ALC), 2020 WL 3496988, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020), Respondent has not established that requiring her to bear the costs of the Child's travel is "clearly inappropriate." Thus, Petitioner is entitled to the cost of the Child's airline ticket, luggage fees, and rideshare expenses, totaling $1,465.48. However, the costs related to the travel and lodging of the Child's paternal grandmother are not "necessary expenses." Although the Court ordered that the Child's paternal grandmother accompany her as Petitioner proposed, see Dkt. 96, the parties' custody agreement contemplated that the Child would travel as an unaccompanied minor, see Dkt. 1-6. Indeed, that is the how the Child traveled to the United States in January 2025, see Dkt. 1-9, and the Child could have returned that way as well. Consequently, Petitioner's request to be awarded the costs of the Child's paternal grandmother's round-trip airfare and hotel stay is denied.
Accordingly, Petitioner's 104 supplemental motion for costs is granted in part and denied in part. The Court awards Petitioner $1,465.48 in costs, which covers the Child's airline ticket, luggage fees, and rideshare expenses. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the June 9, 2026, Judgment to include these expenses for a total award of $23,739.62 in costs. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 7/27/2026. (TSB)