—In аn action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff former wife appeаls (1), as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Weiner, J.), dated October 7, 1996, which, inter alia, (a) directed an equal distribution of all marital property other than her enhanced earning capacity, and (b) directed her to pay maintenance in the amount of $140 per week to the defendant former husband for a period of three yеars or until her retirement, (2) from an order of the same court, also dated October 7, 1996, which directed her to pay counsel fees and disbursements in the total sum of $8,070.05 to the defendant, and (3), аs limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated June 19, 1997, as amended August 19, 1997, as grаnted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for an award of additional counsel fees to the extent of directing her to pay additional counsel fees in the amount of $1,000.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, by deleting the sixth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fifteenth decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor provisions (a) distributing to the defendant marital property consisting of a residence in Plattеkill, New York, and a 1990 Honda Civic automobile, said distribution representing the defendant’s entire equitаble share of the parties’ marital assets, and (b) distributing all of the remaining marital assets to the wife; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated October 7, 1996, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered thаt the order dated June 19, 1997, as amended August 19, 1997, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thе
Fоllowing a trial, the Supreme Court issued a judgment identifying the parties’ marital property and directing an equal distribution of all of the marital assets except for the plaintiff s enhanced еarning capacity. However, upon our review of the record, and in consideratiоn of the relevant statutory factors (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]), we find that the equal division of the aforementioned assets was not equitable under the circumstances of this case. The trial evidence clearly established that the defendant made only minor and insignificаnt economic and noneconomic contributions to the marriage. The plaintiff was not only the sole wage earner during much of the marriage, but also performed the usual and сustomary household duties throughout the parties’ relationship. The defendant did not directly or indirеctly contribute to the plaintiffs career as a teacher, even though he was unemployed for lengthy intervals and there were no children of the marriage to care for. Mоreover, the credible testimony at trial amply demonstrated that the defendant’s conduсt caused a decline in the value of the former marital residence located in Thiеlls, New York. Given all of these factors, we conclude that the distribution to the defendant of marital property consisting of a residence in Plattekill, New York, and a 1990 Honda Civic automobile, representing approximately 20% of the total value of the marital assets which thе Supreme Court found were subject to distribution, is equitable (see, Balsamo v Balsamo,
Furthermore, in view of the partiеs’ respective financial circumstances, including their reasonable needs and meаns (see, Kahn v Kahn,
We decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s award to the de
The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in view of the foregoing discussion. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.