Appeal from the order dismissed (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
Judgment modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto directing a hearing on the issue of whether the parties' separation agreement was intended to constitute a complete distribution of their property. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and determination in accordance herewith.
Special Term correctly determined that the parties did not intend to permanently reconcile or to abandon their 1973 separation agreement, which agreement we hold to be valid, fair and enforceable (see, Levine v. Levine, 56 N.Y.2d 42; Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63). However, it is not clear from the record whether the agreement was intended to be a complete distribution of the parties' property. If the agreement was intended to be only a partial settlement of property rights, then there must be a hearing to determine the equitable distribution of the property excluded from the agreement (see, Carner v. Carner, 85 A.D.2d 589, 590). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.