Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in restraining him from disposing of or encumbering certain assets, including the marital home, which are claimed by the plaintiff to be marital property. An interim restraint on the disposition or encumbrance of property should not be imposed absent a demonstration that the party to be restrained has done, or is threatening to do, an act which would prejudice the movant's equitable distribution claim (see, McCarthy v. McCarthy, 156 A.D.2d 346; Cohen v. Cohen, 142 A.D.2d 543; Nebot v. Nebot, 139 A.D.2d 635). However, the record herein indicates that prior to the issuance of the order appealed from, the defendant encumbered approximately $81,000 of alleged marital assets, and applied for a $200,000 second mortgage on the marital home. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff's ultimate right to equitable distribution would be prejudiced absent the restraint on the disposition or encumbrance of the alleged marital assets pendente lite (cf., Nebot v. Nebot, supra; Guttman v. Guttman, 129 A.D.2d 537). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.