DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the husband's contention, the Supreme Court properly imputed income to him ( see Rohrs v. Rohrs, 297 A.D.2d 317). "A court is not bound by a party's account of his or her own finances, and where a party's account is not believable, the court is justified in finding a true or potential income higher than that claimed" ( Matter of Thomas v. DeFalco, 270 A.D.2d 277, 278; see also Rohrs v. Rohrs, supra). Further, the award of an attorney's fee to the wife was proper (see Merzon v. Merzon, 210 A.D.2d 462).
Contrary to the wife's contention, the amount and the duration of the award of maintenance were proper ( see DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879; Calvaruso v. Calvaruso, 276 A.D.2d 578; Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472).
The parties' remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.