Ordered that the appeals from the order dated April 20, 2005 and the orders dated May 10, 2005 are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the money judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the figure "$341,657.09" and substituting therefor the figure "$31,715.92"; as so modified, the money judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the second order dated May 10, 2005 is modified accordingly; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated December 20, 2004 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The appeals from the order dated April 20, 2005 and the first order dated May 10, 2005 are dismissed as abandoned ( see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]), and the appeal from the second order dated May 10, 2005 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the money judgment.
In light of the acrimonious relationship between the parties, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to appoint a receiver for the purpose of selling the marital residence ( see Altmann v Finger, 23 AD3d 591; Martinucci v Martinucci, 288 AD2d 444). However, upon the sale of the subject premises, the plaintiff is to be awarded half of the net proceeds therefrom, in addition to an attorney's fee of $15,000, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237, plus one half of the carrying costs on the marital residence awarded by the Supreme Court ($16,715.92).
The plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving the defendant's alleged civil contempt of the judgment of divorce by clear and convincing evidence ( see Vujovic v Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490, 491). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to hold the defendant in civil contempt ( see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]). Moreover, based on our determination that the wife did not establish the husband's contempt by clear and convincing evidence, the award by the Supreme Court of $278,863 in "additional damages" was error.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.