A New York appellate court has ruled that Wendy L. Tierney is entitled to a share of her ex-husband Sean W. Tierney's disability pension following their divorce. This decision comes after a lengthy legal battle regarding the division of pension benefits, which has significant implications for how such benefits are handled in divorce cases.

The court's ruling, issued on June 11, 2026, overturned a previous decision that denied Wendy's request for an amended domestic relations order (DRO) to secure her share of the pension. The case highlights the complexities involved in dividing retirement benefits during divorce proceedings, particularly when disability pensions are involved.

Background

Sean W. Tierney and Wendy L. Tierney were married in 1998. Sean worked for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) until he was medically terminated in 2021 due to a lower back injury. In 2019, Sean initiated divorce proceedings. During the divorce trial, the couple reached a stipulation regarding the division of Sean's pension with the New York State and Local Retirement System, agreeing to follow the formula established in the landmark case Majauskas v. Majauskas.

This stipulation included provisions that Wendy would receive a share of Sean's pre-retirement death benefit and would be named as an irrevocable beneficiary for her portion of the pension. The divorce trial also addressed other issues, leading to a judgment of divorce in March 2021. Following the divorce, Sean was terminated from his job and subsequently applied for a disability retirement benefit, which was approved in April 2023.

In August 2024, Wendy filed a motion seeking an amended DRO after receiving a letter from the Retirement System stating that the initial DRO was rescinded because her calculated share exceeded the total benefit amount. The Supreme Court initially denied her request, stating that Sean was not retired and that his disability pension should not be subject to a DRO.

The Ruling

The appellate court ruled in favor of Wendy, stating that the issue of whether Sean's disability pension was marital property had already been litigated during the divorce trial. The court emphasized that the findings made by the Supreme Court during the divorce trial established that Wendy was entitled to a share of the disability pension.

The court ruled, "the ordinary disability pension that the husband now receives contains a length of service requirement... reflective of 'the desire to provide employees whose injuries have prevented them from working until normal retirement age with some form of compensation for their injuries while also awarding them a portion of the deferred compensation to which they would have been entitled but for the injuries.'"

The ruling also pointed out that the husband's testimony during the divorce trial indicated that he was aware he might need to apply for a disability pension, and it was his responsibility to demonstrate what portion of that pension was separate property due to personal injuries.

Ultimately, the appellate court found that the Supreme Court had erred by allowing Sean to relitigate the issue of Wendy's share of the disability pension. The court ordered that Wendy's motion for an amended DRO be granted, allowing her to receive her equitable share of the benefits.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future divorce cases involving disability pensions. It clarifies that disability pensions can be considered marital property subject to equitable distribution, and that parties cannot relitigate issues that have already been decided in divorce proceedings.

The decision reinforces the importance of clear stipulations and judgments regarding the division of retirement benefits in divorce cases. It also highlights the need for thorough documentation and communication between parties regarding pension benefits, particularly in cases where one spouse may be receiving disability benefits.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the case has been remitted to the Supreme Court for the entry of an amended domestic relations order and for the calculation of the amount owed to Wendy in arrears. There is no indication that this ruling will be appealed, but the case sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.