Opinion
2012-12-20
Michael LURIE, Appellant, v. Holly LURIE, Respondent.
Michael Lurie, Vestal, appellant pro se. Pope & Schrader, LLP, Binghamton (Kurt Schrader of counsel), for respondent.
Michael Lurie, Vestal, appellant pro se. Pope & Schrader, LLP, Binghamton (Kurt Schrader of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., LAHTINEN, MALONE JR., STEIN and GARRY, JJ.
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. 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.
This Court affirmed the February 2011 judgment (94 A.D.3d 1376, 943 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2012] ).
To the extent that plaintiff challenges Supreme Court's distribution of the bank accounts at issue, the record supports the court's determination ( see Fields v. Fields, 15 N.Y.3d 158, 170, 905 N.Y.S.2d 783, 931 N.E.2d 1039 [2010];Unger–Matusik v. Matusik, 276 A.D.2d 936, 937, 715 N.Y.S.2d 449 [2000] ). To the extent that plaintiff 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 A.D.3d 833, 838, 927 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Pryba v. Pryba, 70 A.D.3d 1109, 1109 n., 894 N.Y.S.2d 216 [2010] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
MERCURE, J.P., LAHTINEN, STEIN and GARRY, JJ., concur.