Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated September 20, 1996, as concerned the valuation dates of the former wife's interests in the pensions is dismissed, as that portion of the order was superseded by the order dated April 3, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the cross appeal from so much of the order dated September 20, 1996, as granted the former wife the option to choose whether to accept the former husband's offer to buy out her interest in the pensions is dismissed, as that portion of the order was superseded by the order dated April 3, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated September 20, 1996, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated April 3, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the former husband is awarded one bill of costs.
The parties' stipulation of settlement, as well as the judgment of divorce, granted the former husband the right to choose the manner in which the former wife was to receive her interest in the former husband's pensions. There is no merit to the former wife's contention that the former husband somehow waived his right to exercise this choice ( see, General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Clifton-Fine Cent. School Dist., 85 N.Y.2d 232; Dice v. Inwood Hills Condominium, 237 A.D.2d 403; Peck v Peck, 232 A.D.2d 540).
The former wife's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.