Lurie v Lurie

Lurie v Lurie 2012 NY Slip Op 08855 Decided on December 20, 2012 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 20, 2012
514664

[*1]MICHAEL LURIE, Appellant,

v

HOLLY LURIE, Respondent.

Calendar Date: November 13, 2012
Before: Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ.


Michael Lurie, Vestal, appellant pro se.
Pope & Schrader, LLP, Binghamton (Kurt Schrader
of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Malone Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered August 3, 2011 in Broome County, which, upon reargument, among other things, ordered equitable distribution of certain marital property of the parties.

A judgment of divorce was entered in February 2011, which, among other things, incorporated but did not merge a July 2010 order that equitably distributed the parties' marital property [FN1]. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to reargue, claiming, among other things, that certain bank accounts were not considered in the July 2010 order. Following a hearing, Supreme Court ordered the equitable distribution of those accounts and otherwise denied the remainder of plaintiff's reargument motion. Plaintiff now appeals.

To the extent that defendant challenges Supreme Court's distribution of the bank accounts at issue, the record supports the court's determination (see Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 170 [2010]; Unger-Matusik v Matusik, 276 AD2d 936, 937 [2000]). To the extent that defendant challenges that portion of the court's order that denied reargument, we note that "no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue" (Cheney v Cheney, 86 AD3d 833, 838 [2011] [*2][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Pryba v Pryba, 70 AD3d 1109, 1109 n [2010]).

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs. Footnotes

Footnote 1:This Court affirmed the February 2011 judgment (94 AD3d 1376 [2012]).