Opinion
April 25, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We find that the trial court properly vacated the judgment of divorce to the extent that it made no provisions for equitable distribution or maintenance (see, Michalek v Michalek, 180 A.D.2d 890; Wayasamin v Wayasamin, 167 A.D.2d 460; Otto v Otto, 150 A.D.2d 57; Chasnov v Chasnov, 131 A.D.2d 624; Pisano v Pisano, 71 A.D.2d 670). We note that the so-called "opting-out" agreement appearing in the record does not meet the execution requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3). We further note that the additional document purporting to demonstrate that the parties had previously disposed of all marital property to their mutual satisfaction is not a part of the record on appeal. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.