DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(1)(d)(3) defines `separate property', in relevant part, as `the increase in value of separate property, except to the extent that such appreciation is due in part to the contributions or efforts of the other spouse'. In order to obtain equitable distribution of the appreciation in value of the wife's separate property, the husband [was] required to demonstrate the manner in which his contributions resulted in the increase in value and the amount of the increase that was attributable to his efforts" ( Pauk v. Pauk, 232 A.D.2d 386, 391; see Mutt v. Mutt, 242 A.D.2d 612). The defendant, relying only on conclusory assertions, failed to sustain his burden ( see Pauk v. Pauk, supra). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to an equitable distribution of the appreciation of the plaintiff's interest in her separate property, consisting of an interest in a family business founded by her father prior to the commencement of the marriage.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, she is not entitled to an award of child support ( see Holihan v. Holihan, 159 A.D.2d 685, 687).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.