Opinion
306N
February 21, 2002.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered March 16, 2001, which denied defendant's motion to modify the parties' judgment of divorce so as to terminate or reduce plaintiff's 50% share in defendant's pension, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
JOHN SCOTT FITZGERALD, for plaintiff-respondent.
PRO SE, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin, JJ.
The claims which defendant raises in this post-judgment motion were raised, or could have been raised, in the prior post-judgment motion he made challenging the distribution of his pension ( 270 A.D.2d 4, lv dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 791), and are therefore barred by the prior order denying that motion (see, De Ganay v. De Ganay, 269 A.D.2d 157, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 818; Cook v. Cook, 260 A.D.2d 160, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 994). In any event, defendant failed to provide a basis for modifying the equitable distribution award.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.