DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant an attorney's fee in the sum of $16,169.83; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendant.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the defendant one-half of that portion of his pension which was earned during the marriage. A pension earned during a marriage and prior to the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement of a matrimonial action is marital property subject to equitable distribution ( see Olivo v. Olivo, 82 N.Y.2d 202; Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][c]). Here, although the parties were separated for almost 15 years, the record does not support the plaintiff's contention that their economic partnership ended after he left the marital home ( see generally Barbuto v. Barbuto, 286 A.D.2d 741). Furthermore, the plaintiff remained involved with the defendant and the parties' children. He voluntarily provided them with some monetary support and contributed to the upkeep of the marital home.
The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in awarding the wife a two-thirds share of the marital home. Based on the circumstances of this case, the court's distribution was equitable ( see Seifried v. Seifried, 296 A.D.2d 398).
The Supreme Court, however, improvidently awarded the defendant an attorney's fee in the sum of $16,169.83, as the equities of this case dictate that each party pay his or her own attorney's fee ( see Matter of Mullen v. Just, 288 A.D.2d 476, 477, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 613, cert denied 537 U.S. 820).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, SMITH and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.