DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly credited the plaintiff's testimony as to the value of certain jewelry and tools, since he was familiar with the items, and the defendant did not challenge that testimony at the trial ( see Maher v. Maher, 196 A.D.2d 530; Griffin v. Griffin, 115 A.D.2d 587; Fassett v. Fassett, 101 A.D.2d 604).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to award maintenance to the defendant ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6]; Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 494; Walker v. Walker, 255 A.D.2d 375). Testimony at the trial indicated that the defendant was capable of working, despite her claim of disability ( see Ortiz v. Ortiz, 267 A.D.2d 991), and that she misappropriated substantial assets of the marriage ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a][9]). Furthermore, the defendant received a substantial distributive award pursuant to the judgment, which also supports the denial of an award of maintenance ( see Militana v. Militana, 280 A.D.2d 529).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.