DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions on appeal, the provision of the parties' stipulation of settlement at issue may not be properly characterized as a liquidated damages clause ( see Truck Rent-A-Center v. Puritan Farms 2d, 41 N.Y.2d 420, 424-425; Zervakis v. Kyreakedes, 257 A.D.2d 619; Willner v. Willner, 145 A.D.2d 236). The provision, inter alia, did not purport to establish the amount of damages to be paid to the defendant in the event that the plaintiff breached an obligation under the stipulation ( see Truck Rent-A-Center v. Puritan Farms 2d, supra; Zervakis v. Kyreakedes, supra; Willner v. Willner, supra). Rather, the provision merely provided the plaintiff with the option, not the obligation, to purchase the defendant's interest in the marital home ( see Truck Rent-A-Center v. Puritan Farms 2d, supra; Zervakis v. Kyreakedes, supra; Willner v. Willner, supra). In any event, even assuming that the provision may be properly characterized as a liquidated damages clause, the plaintiff does not argue, and the record does not reveal, that the provision constituted an unenforceable penalty when executed ( see Willner v. Willner, supra). The plaintiff failed to raise any basis for setting aside the provision of the stipulation of settlement ( see Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63; Michalowski v. Michalowski, 286 A.D.2d 712; Creque v. Creque, 210 A.D.2d 288; Cappello v. Cappello, 274 A.D.2d 539).
RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, SMITH and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.