Opinion
June 6, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 21, 1986, is dismissed without costs or disbursements, as that order was vacated; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated January 20, 1987, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence contained in the record shows that there is a distinct question of fact as to whether the plaintiff husband has been cooperative in connection with the sale of the marital residence. The parties had agreed, in a separation agreement, that the property was to be sold by December 1, 1985. Under these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the wife's motion to the extent of appointing a receiver, while further providing that no sale may be completed without further court approval (see, Stark v Stark, 40 A.D.2d 531).
Denial of the wife's motion would not be warranted solely on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest on the part of her attorney. In the absence of any motion by the husband to disqualify this attorney, we need not pass on whether the wife's attorney should be disqualified. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.