| Wasserman v Wasserman |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01078 [103 AD3d 793] |
| February 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mark A. Wasserman, Appellant, v JoannWasserman, Respondent. |
—[*1] Lee A. Rubenstein, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief in which the parties were divorced byjudgment of divorce dated May 22, 2008, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.),entered June 16, 2011, as, upon reargument, denied that branch of his prior cross motionwhich was to modify the equitable distribution provisions of the judgment of divorce.
Ordered that the order entered June 16, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from,with costs.
Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff'scross motion which was to modify the equitable distribution provisions of the parties'judgment of divorce based on a postjudgment change in circumstances. While the lawpermits modification of child support and maintenance awards (see DomesticRelations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]), there is no comparable provision allowingmodification of equitable distribution awards. Thus, "a distributive award pursuant to[Domestic Relations Law §] 236 (B) (5) (e), once made, is not subject to change"(O'Brien v O'Brien, 66 NY2d 576, 591 [1985] [Meyer, J., concurring]; see McAuliffe v McAuliffe, 70AD3d 1129, 1135 [2010]; Welsh v Lawler, 282 AD2d 977, 979 [2001];Greenwald v Greenwald, 164 AD2d 706, 721-722 [1991]; Siegel vSiegel, 132 AD2d 247, 254 [1987]). "Indeed, permitting the modification of theequitable distribution provisions of a judgment of divorce 'would effectively underminethe finality of judgments in matrimonial [orders]' " (Welsh v Lawler, 282 AD2dat 979, quoting Siegel v Siegel, 132 AD2d at 254). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo,Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.