DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Trial courts have the discretion to select valuation dates "which are appropriate and fair under the particular facts and circumstances presented" ( Cohn v. Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412, 413). Under the circumstances of this case, and in light of our decision in Tuccillo v. Tuccillo, A.D.3d [Appellate Division Docket No. 2003-01704, decided herewith], the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's cross motion to establish December 28, 1999, the commencement date of the parties' prior action for divorce which was previously dismissed, as the classification and valuation date of marital property for the purpose of equitable distribution, instead of the commencement date of this action ( see Lamba v. Lamba, 308 A.D.2d 434; Martinucci v. Martinucci, 288 A.D.2d 444; Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][4][b]).
GOLDSTEIN, J.P., LUCIANO, MASTRO and LIFSON, JJ., concur.