Opinion
February 5, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly determined that defendant has no interest in the Social Security bridge payments and special separation allowance payable to plaintiff under Kodak's Resource Redeployment and Retirement Plan. Because plaintiff's right to receive the enhanced retirement benefits did not exist prior to commencement of the divorce action, the Social Security bridge payments and special separation allowance are plaintiff's separate property (see, Biddlecom v Biddlecom, 113 A.D.2d 66, 69). Although calculation of the amount of plaintiff's benefits is based upon his years of service, the payments do not represent a form of deferred compensation (cf., Dolan v Dolan, 78 N.Y.2d 463). Rather, the enhanced retirement benefits are provided in lieu of future compensation, as an incentive to early retirement. Therefore, the Social Security bridge payment and special separation allowance do not represent "property acquired * * * during the marriage" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; see, Biddlecom v Biddlecom, supra).