Opinion
December 9, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The wife contends that the court erred in ordering the pendente lite sale of the marital residence and a condominium in Vermont, both of which were owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety. We disagree. We note that the foreclosure sale of the marital residence has rendered this issue moot insofar as it relates to that property. In any event, because the wife acquiesced in the sale of the properties when — at a hearing to determine the husband's motion to vacate the court's prior order — the court questioned her directly about this matter, the court's determination was proper (see, Harrilal v Harrilal, 128 A.D.2d 502).
It was also proper for the court to vacate those provisions of the prior order which directed the sequestration of the husband's corporate assets and the appointment of a receiver, and instead to order an income execution on the husband's income. In this case, there was no evidence in the record that the husband had a history of transferring or converting marital assets (cf., Wong v Wong, 161 A.D.2d 710) nor had the court first attempted to take the less extreme measure of ordering an income execution as a means of insuring that the husband complied with the terms of the pendente lite order (cf., Rose v Rose, 138 A.D.2d 475; see also, Matter of Brennan v Brennan, 109 A.D.2d 960). Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.