Interlocutory judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Initially, we note that the plaintiff wife is aggrieved by the interlocutory judgment of divorce entered in her favor (see, Wald v. Wald, 119 A.D.2d 569), and may, therefore, maintain this appeal (see, CPLR 5511).
Special Term properly granted the husband's motion for reverse partial summary judgment in his wife's favor. At the time that motion was made and determined, reverse partial summary judgment in matrimonial actions was a valid legal remedy where adequate proof was presented (see, Wald v. Wald, supra; Rauch v. Rauch, 91 A.D.2d 407). We note that the signing and entry of the interlocutory judgment subsequent to the effective date of the amendment of CPLR 3212 (e), which proscribes reverse partial summary judgment in matrimonial actions (L 1984, ch 827, eff Aug. 5, 1984), was purely a ministerial act and did not affect the validity of the court's decision (see, Cornell v. Cornell, 7 N.Y.2d 164; Commrade v Commrade, 29 A.D.2d 870).
While this court may apply the new provision pursuant to CPLR 10003 (see, Kahrs v. Kahrs, 111 A.D.2d 370), we decline to do so, as, under the circumstances of this case, it "would not be feasible [and] would work injustice" (CPLR 10003). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.