KLISIVITCH v. KLISIVITCH

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the husband's contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in requiring him to pay the wife approximately one half of her attorney's fee in view of the disparity between the incomes of the parties (see, Maher v. Maher, 196 A.D.2d 530, 532). Furthermore, the court providently exercised its discretion by awarding the wife experts' fees at amounts which were substantially reduced from what she requested (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; Ahern v. Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53).

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, S. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.