Opinion
April 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.).
The trial court's findings of fact are supported by the record and should not be disturbed (see, Strauf v Ettson Enters., 106 A.D.2d 737, 738). Given that a note in which defendant allegedly promised to compensate plaintiff was illegible and unsigned, and that plaintiff offered no proof concerning any tax loss suffered, plaintiff did not establish that she was entitled to any distribution for the value of her one-time $125,000 tax exemption. Plaintiff, as the party seeking the financial interest, did not meet her burden of showing that the net increase in the value of defendant's retirement plan during the parties' marriage was higher than that shown by the documentary evidence (see, Del Gado v Del Gado, 129 A.D.2d 426, 428).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.