Opinion
May 26, 2000.
Appeal, as limited by the brief, from so much of a judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered April 12, 1999, which incorporated a money judgment in favor of defendant for temporary support and maintenance and other ancillary arrears pursuant to a pendente lite order of the same court (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about April 9, 1997, unanimously dismissed, with costs to defendant.
David M. Klein, for plaintiff-appellant.
Esther S. Trakinski, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias, Saxe, JJ.
Pursuant to CPLR 5501(a)(1), the instant pendente lite order does not necessarily affect the final judgment of divorce and, accordingly, cannot be reviewed on plaintiff's appeal from the final judgment (Sawdon v. Sawdon, 39 A.D.2d 883). In any event, were the pendente lite order reviewable on the present appeal, we would affirm since plaintiff has made no showing of good cause for his failure to apply for relief from the pendente lite order prior to the accrual of the arrears (Domestic Relations Law § 244; see also, Matter of Dox v. Tynon, 90 N.Y.2d 166; Howfield v. Howfield, 250 A.D.2d 573;Marksohn v. Marksohn, 198 A.D.2d 70). Moreover, plaintiff's substantive claim, that the trial court erred when it failed to make the permanent child support award of $200 per week effective nunc pro tunc to the date defendant first applied for support, is without merit, since Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6)(a) has been held to bar such relief where, as here, the temporary award is greater than the permanent award (see, Lucci v. Lucci, 227 A.D.2d 387, 388; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 98 A.D.2d 386, 389-390, appeal dismissed 62 N.Y.2d 646).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.