Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting from the thirteenth decretal paragraph the sum of $34,700, and substituting therefor the sum of $28,537.60; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly awarded retroactive payments of maintenance and child support. The law is clear that an order for payment of maintenance and child support "shall be effective as of the date of the application therefor" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; [7] [a]; Evangelista v. Evangelista, 111 A.D.2d 904, 905).
However, the Supreme Court erred by failing to distribute the wife's pension fund in the amount of $9,401.27 and her Individual Retirement Account in the amount of $2,923.53. The law is clear that an interest in a pension or retirement plan is marital property subject to equitable distribution (Dolan v. Dolan, 78 N.Y.2d 463; Miller v. Miller, 150 A.D.2d 652, 653, citing Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 491-492). The court should have deducted the sum of $6,162.40, representing one-half of the value of the wife's pension fund and Individual Retirement Account, from the amount payable by the husband from the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. Bracken, J.P., Joy, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.