| Noble v Noble |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06654 [43 AD3d 893] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Joanne Noble, Respondent, v William Noble,Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Catalina, Peekskill, N.Y., for respondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated February 7,2003, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated September 13, 2006, as, in effect, upon reargument,granted that branch of his prior motion which was for the distribution from escrow of certain saleproceeds only to the extent of directing that the distribution be in equal shares, and, in effect,otherwise adhered to the determination in a prior order of the same court dated July 7, 2006,denying that branch of the motion.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Although the Supreme Court stated that the defendant's motion for leave to reargue wasdenied, the court, in fact, for the first time, partially granted that branch of the defendant's motionwhich was for the distribution from escrow of certain sale proceeds, thereby, in effect, grantingreargument. Thus, the order is appealable (see CPLR 5517 [a] [1]; Matter of Sorg vZoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil./Town of Mount Kisco, 248 AD2d 622 [1998]; Price vPalagonia, 212 AD2d 765, 766 [1995]; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Pellegrino,203 AD2d 457 [1994]), and we affirm. The Supreme Court properly interpreted the clearprovisions of a stipulation of settlement incorporated but not merged into the judgment ofdivorce (see Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d 822, 823-824 [1990]; Rainbow[*2]v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 109 [1988]; Perry v Perry, 13 AD3d 508,508-509 [2004]), by directing that the distribution from escrow of the remaining proceeds fromthe sale of certain marital property to the parties be in equal shares. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Dillon andCarni, JJ., concur.