No reason exists to disturb either the valuation of defendant's business, which, in large part, was based on the credibility of expert testimony (see Johnson v. Johnson, 277 A.D.2d 923, 926, lv dismissed 96 N.Y.2d 792), or the award of one-half thereof to plaintiff, which was based on ample evidence of her direct and indirect contributions (see Terico v. Terico, 222 A.D.2d 219; Traut v. Traut, 181 A.D.2d 671). The maintenance award was fair, given the parties' pre-divorce standard of living and plaintiff's reasonable needs and long absence from the work force (see R.R. v. P.R., 298 A.D.2d 169, 2002 N.Y. App. Div LEXIS 9502). The legal and expert witness fees awarded to plaintiff were warranted by the economic disparities between the parties and defendant's obstructionist conduct, especially his failure to pay pendente lite support. Defendant's claim that he is unable to pay the amounts awarded is unpersuasive in view of the amount of income imputed to him for lack of information necessary to determine his actual income and the finding that he purposely diminished his traceable earnings. We have considered defendant's other arguments, including that the calculation of pendente lite support arrears did not take certain payments into account, and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.