In this matrimonial action, the motion court directed that the defendant husband pay the plaintiff wife's counsel fees with respect to an appeal taken by the husband from an order granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint containing a cause of action seeking to rescind or reform the parties' prenuptial agreement on the ground of fraud. The motion court held that an award of counsel fees could be made pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 with respect to the appeal. We disagree. It is well settled that Domestic Relations Law § 237 does not provide for an award of counsel fees in actions to enforce or rescind prenuptial agreements (see, Lamborn v Lamborn, 56 A.D.2d 623). We are not persuaded by the motion court's attempt to distinguish Lamborn on the grounds that it was decided before equitable distribution and that its holding is limited to actions to enforce rather than rescind prenuptial agreements. To the extent that the fifth cause of action in the verified amended complaint seeks rescission of the prenuptial agreement, it is a contract action rather than a matrimonial action (see, Ravel v. Ravel, 161 A.D.2d 547, 550; Rubin v. Rubin, 119 A.D.2d 152, 155-156, affd 69 N.Y.2d 702).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.