
    Argued and submitted March 21,
    appeal dismissed April 6, 1983
    In the Matter of the Marriage of PORTELLO, Appellant, and PORTELLO, Respondent.
    
    (12151; CA A25121)
    660 P2d 1098
    Marcy Leskela, Aloha, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    Donald D. Nash, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Purcella, Nash & Hoarfrost, Portland.
    Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

The notice of appeal in this domestic relations case was filed more than thirty days after the trial court’s order, albeit less than thirty days after the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration of a trial court’s final order does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. ORS 19.026. See Credit Bureau v. Marshall, 53 Or App 46, 49, 630 P2d 910, rev den 291 Or 514 (1981).

Appeal dismissed.  