Opinion
527620
04-09-2020
Assaf & Siegal PLLC, Albany (Michael D. Assaf of counsel), for appellant.
Assaf & Siegal PLLC, Albany (Michael D. Assaf of counsel), for appellant.
Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Devine, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pritzker, J.
Plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) commenced a divorce action against defendant (hereinafter the husband) in October 2006. Supreme Court issued a judgment of divorce that incorporated, but did not merge, a settlement agreement that directed the equitable distribution of marital property between the wife and the husband. As relevant here, article 20 of the agreement addressed the terms of distribution of the wife's pension plan administered by the New York State Teacher's Retirement System. In August 2018, the court issued a domestic relations order (hereinafter the DRO), in accord with Domestic Relations Law § 236, distributing the wife's pension benefits pursuant to article 20 of the agreement. There is no indication in the record that the wife raised any objections to the DRO prior to its entry. The wife appeals from the DRO.
In her brief, the wife argues that efforts were made to vacate or amend the DRO, but there is no proof of this in the record.
As a threshold matter, a DRO may not be appealed as of right (see Zebrowski v. Zebrowski, 28 A.D.3d 883, 884, 813 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2006] ; Lavin v. Lavin, 263 A.D.2d 932, 933, 694 N.Y.S.2d 243 [1999] ; see generally CPLR 5701[a] ). Moreover, because the wife failed to alert Supreme Court to her objections to the DRO prior to its entry, and given the sparse record on appeal, we decline to treat the wife's notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal (see Gormley v. Gormley, 238 A.D.2d 545, 546, 657 N.Y.S.2d 85 [1997] ; compare Sprole v. Sprole, 155 A.D.3d 1345, 1346, 65 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2017] ; Lavin v. Lavin, 263 A.D.2d at 932–933, 694 N.Y.S.2d 243 ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
Garry, P.J., Clark, Devine and Colangelo, JJ., concur.