ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
It is well settled that the determination of what constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment during a marriage is dependent upon the circumstances of each case, and that the Supreme Court's determination in that regard is entitled to great deference (see, Brady v. Brady, 64 N.Y.2d 339; French v. French, 262 A.D.2d 280). Here, the defendant's testimony denying the plaintiff's allegations merely raised a credibility question, which the Supreme Court was entitled to resolve in the plaintiff's favor (see, French v. French, supra).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the marital residence and the defendant's commercial property, both purchased during the marriage, were marital property (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][c]). The record supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that the defendant failed to adequately prove that he contributed any separate funds to the purchase of these two properties. The Supreme Court also properly found that the brokerage account with Robert M. Cohen Company, Inc., which was in the plaintiff's name, was the plaintiff's separate property. The testimony adduced at trial established that the plaintiff's brother funded the account in her name so that she could purchase certain stock for which she had signed a subscription agreement. The entire proceeds of the account were immediately transferred to the plaintiff's brother after the stock purchase was completed. The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a portion of the value of the plaintiff's real estate brokerage license is not preserved for appellate review, as he never raised the issue before the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 145).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the plaintiff, since the defendant tried to conceal his assets (see, Domestic Relations Law — 237[a]; Ferina v. Ferina, 286 A.D.2d 472).
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, ADAMS and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.