In DeLuca v. DeLuca (97 N.Y.2d 139), the Court of Appeals had to determine whether the defendant husband's Police Superior Officers Variable Supplements Fund retirement benefits were marital property subject to equitable distribution. Although the Administrative Code of the City of New York section(s) establishing those supplemental benefits had provided that the benefits were not to be construed as a pension fund, the Court of Appeals held that that provision was not determinative of how the benefits were to be treated: "If the benefit is a thing of value and was earned in whole or in part during the marriage, it may be considered marital property subject to equitable distribution. Domestic Relations Law 236 (B) defines 'marital property' as 'all property acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage and before the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement of a matrimonial action, regardless of the form in which title is held.' In identifying nothing less than 'all property' acquired during the marriage as marital property, this section evinces an unmistakable intent to provide each spouse with a fair share of things of value that each helped to create and expects to enjoy at a future date (97 N.Y.2d at pp. 143-144.) After reviewing its prior holdings on what might constitute marital property, the DeLuca Court focused its analysis on whether the benefits at issue were "intended as compensation for past services rendered" (97 N.Y.2d at 145), and then held as follows: "The wife here is not claiming a share of a new benefit conferred after the marriage. Rather, the benefits at issue here are compensation for the husband's past employment services while the couple was still married. To the extent those past services occurred during the marriage, the non-titled spouse should receive an equitable share of this deferred compensation-type fund." (97 N.Y.2d at 146 .)