ALMEDA v. HOPPER

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the judgment as awarded custody of the parties' older son to the defendant is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Any arguments that the plaintiff makes concerning custody of and visitation with the parties' older son are academic, as he has reached the age of majority ( see Belsky v. Belsky, 172 A.D.2d 576; Berk v. Berk, 170 A.D.2d 564, 565). Moreover, the court's decision to award custody of the younger son to the defendant has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 174; Vinciguerra v. Vinciguerra, 294 A.D.2d 565, 566).

The court providently exercised its discretion in equitably distributing the marital assets ( see Sebag v. Sebag, 294 A.D.2d 560), and in denying the plaintiff's application for maintenance ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a][1]; Mica v. Mica, 275 A.D.2d 765, 766).

The court's decision to impute an annual income to the defendant of only $63,689.40 is supported by the record ( see Casey v. Casey, 289 A.D.2d 361, 362).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, SMITH and CRANE, JJ., concur.