A Suffolk County District Court has denied a request from Norbert W. Stolarzewics to waive court costs in his case against Smilist Dental Smithtown. The ruling, made by Judge Paul L. Damato on March 25, 2026, affects Stolarzewics as he seeks to pursue legal action while facing financial challenges. The decision is significant as it underscores the court's stance on financial thresholds for waiving litigation costs.
The case, filed under docket number Index No. SC-28-26/SM, revolves around Stolarzewics' request to have the fees associated with initiating and prosecuting his litigation waived. This request was based on his financial situation, which he detailed in various documents submitted to the court, including tax filings and medical records.
Background
Norbert W. Stolarzewics is the plaintiff in this case, seeking a waiver of court costs due to his financial situation. He filed the motion to waive costs after initiating litigation against Smilist Dental Smithtown, a dental practice. The specific nature of the dispute between Stolarzewics and Smilist Dental was not detailed in the court opinion, but it is common for plaintiffs to seek waivers of court costs when they believe that financial constraints could hinder their ability to pursue legal action.
The motion for waiver was brought before the Suffolk County District Court, where Judge Paul L. Damato presided. Stolarzewics provided the court with documentation to support his claim of financial hardship, including income statements, medical records, and tax filings. The court's decision to deny the waiver request was based on an analysis of these documents.
The Ruling
The court ruled against Stolarzewics, stating that his financial situation did not warrant a waiver of the required court costs. Judge Damato noted that the totality of the circumstances did not demonstrate a necessity for such a waiver. He cited Stolarzewics' 2025 Federal Adjusted Gross Taxable Income of $49,209 and a New York State Adjusted Gross Taxable Income of $41,209 as factors in the decision.
The court found that "there is no necessity for a waiver of required costs and fees incurred by other taxpayers and litigants in Suffolk County."
Judge Damato referenced previous cases to support his ruling, indicating that even marginal financial positions could lead to a denial of waiver requests. He pointed to cases such as Dolan Properties, Inc. v. Schoolcraft and Kirk v. Kirk, where plaintiffs with limited financial means were also denied waivers. The judge concluded that Stolarzewics did not demonstrate a compelling need for a subsidy of litigation expenses.
Impact
This ruling has implications for individuals seeking to waive court costs in New York State. It reinforces the idea that courts will closely scrutinize financial documentation and circumstances before granting such waivers. The decision may deter other potential litigants from pursuing waivers if they do not meet specific financial criteria.
Moreover, the ruling highlights the importance of presenting a strong financial case when requesting waivers. Individuals in similar situations may need to prepare more comprehensive documentation to support their claims. The court's decision may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving requests for waivers of court costs.
What's Next
Stolarzewics has the option to appeal the court's decision if he believes there are grounds to challenge the ruling. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. As it stands, the denial of the waiver means Stolarzewics must find a way to cover the court costs associated with his litigation against Smilist Dental.