McCULLY v. McCULLY

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find no reason to disturb the trial court's determination as to equitable distribution of the marital property (see Sebag v. Sebag, 294 A.D.2d 560; Oster v. Goldberg, 226 A.D.2d 515). Similarly, the amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court providently exercised its discretion (see Chalif v. Chalif, 298 A.D.2d 348; Damato v. Damato, 215 A.D.2d 348). Further, the record supports the trial court's finding that the defendant was entitled to prejudgment interest having been deprived of the use of her share of the marital property during the pendency of the action (see Grunfeld v. Grunfeld, 94 N.Y.2d 696, 707; Haymes v. Haymes, 298 A.D.2d 117). Considering all of the factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[d][1-4]), including the disparity in the parties' incomes and the the trial court's express finding that a significant portion of the protracted litigation was attributable to certain of the plaintiff's trial tactics and negotiating positions, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in awarding an attorney's fee to the defendant (see Chalif v. Chalif, supra; Klein v. Klein, 296 A.D.2d 533; Krigsman v. Krigsman, 288 A.D.2d 189; Walker v. Walker, 255 A.D.2d 375; Thomas v. Thomas, 221 A.D.2d 621).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.