Majority
p. 1429Michael Lurie, Appellant, v Holly Lurie, Respondent. [955 NYS2d 537]
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 NY3d 158 , 170 [2010]; Unger-Matusik v Matusik, 276 AD2d 936 , 937 [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 AD3d 833 , 838 [2011] [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.
Cases cited
- Fields v. Fields 15 NY3d 158 at 170 p. 1429
- Cheney v. Cheney 86 AD3d 833 at 838 p. 1429
- Pryba v. Pryba 70 AD3d 1109 at 1109 p. 1429