[ by Melanie Gretchen ] A New York attorney with a high powered firm, who first out by investing with Bernie Madoff, then lost out during his divorce settlement when he opted to retain the Madoff investment - his wife took cash, thank you - has suffered his third and probably final battle in the divorce proceeding. Steven Simkin, 64, sought to have the terms of the divorce settlement altered because of the unexpected losses he had to take with the Madoff investment.  Last week, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the then-equitable distribution of assets under the divorce settlement was ironclad and cannot be altered. While Mr. Simkin won't starve, his will be taking a huge hit.  The couple split evenly their combined fortune of $13.5 million.  Steve is head of the real estate practice  at the New York law firm, Paul Weiss;  wife Laura is also a lawyer.  Oh yes, the Simkins' total investment with Madoff at the time of the divorce was valued (by Bernie) at $5.4 million.  That means that of the assets Mr. Simkin received at the time of the divorce - supposedly worth $6.75 million is 80% tied up with the Ponzi king. All Roads from Madoff Lead to Hell. After the divorce, when Madoff's crime was disclosed, Mr. Simkin asked his ex-wife to revise their divorce deal, which she refused, prompting him to sue.  In his suit, Mr. Simkin argued that his ex-wife should be required to turn over millions of dollars she had received in the settlement to compensate him for the losses that he sustained in the Madoff fraud.  A trial judge dismissed the suit, but in January 2011, a divided New York appellate court ruled that Mr. Simkin could sue to seek a revision of their settlement because of the Madoff fraud, drawing fear that if the court had allowed Mr. Simkin to upend his divorce agreement, it could destabilize a variety of contract disputes, especially those tied to the Madoff case. "Unscrambling the deal would have been a mess and invited dozens of copycat suits, ripping open any deal tied to Madoff’s scam — or any investment that isn’t what it seemed," said Lawrence A. Cunningham, a contracts law professor at George Washington University who has written about the dispute. Decision Time. Before the New York Court of Appeals, Mr. Simkin argued that he and Ms. Blank had made a "mutual mistake" about the existence of a Madoff account, which would allow for the cancellation of contracts when both parties are innocently mistaken about a crucial element.  The Madoff account did not exist because it had been nothing more than part of a giant Ponzi scheme, and thus should not have been counted as part of the marital assets. The court did not lean in his favor.  Judge Victoria A. Graffeo said that the Madoff account did exist because Mr. Simkin could have redeemed his investment at least until December 2008, when Mr. Madoff turned himself in. Rather, Ms. Blank was rewarded for her if-in-retrospect wisdom.  In her decision for the appeals court, Judge Graffeo wrote: "This situation, however sympathetic, is more akin to a martial asset that unexpectedly loses value after dissolution of a marriage.  Given the extensive and carefully negotiated nature of the settlement agreement, we do not believe that this presents one of those exceptional situations warranting reformation or rescission of a divorce settlement after all marital assets have been distributed." For further details, go to [Dealbook, 4/3/12].