MARINO v. MARINO

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In light of the defendant's history of low earnings, her age and her health, as well as the length of the marriage, the Supreme Court properly found that it was not likely that she would become self-supporting, and consequently properly awarded her nondurational maintenance ( see Summer v Summer, 85 NY2d 1014, 1016; Polizzano v Polizzano, 2 AD3d 615; Mazzone v Mazzone, 290 AD2d 495).

The trial court properly declined to award the plaintiff a credit in the sum of $83,000 for alleged separate property used to purchase the marital residence. The plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that the $83,000 was separate property ( see Romano v Romano, 40 AD3d 837; Diaco v Diaco, 278 AD2d 358).

Further, pension payments received by the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution ( see Biddlecom v Biddlecom, 113 AD2d 66). The value of the pension was properly computed pursuant to the Majauskas formula ( see Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481; Condon v Condon, 46 AD3d 596).

In light of the parties' financial circumstances, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendant an attorney's fee ( see Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881; Levy v Levy, 4 AD3d 398; Gallousis v Gallousis, 303 AD2d 363).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.