DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Clarke v. Clarke, 269 A.D.2d 485); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is modified by deleting so much of the second decretal paragraph thereof as directed that maintenance continue for the remainder of the plaintiff's life, and substituting therefor a provision directing that maintenance continue until the plaintiff attains the age of 65; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff maintenance after considering all of the relevant factors (see, Raviv v. Raviv, 153 A.D.2d 932). However, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance for the remainder of the plaintiff's life (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6]; De La Torre v. De La Torre, 183 A.D.2d 744). Maintenance is designed to give the spouse economic independence (see, O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576, 585), and should continue only as long as is required to render the recipient self-supporting (see, Granade-Bastuck v. Bastuck, 249 A.D.2d 444). Here, given the wife's age, apparent good health, education, and employment status, she has the ability to become self-supporting within 12 years from the date of the judgment, when she attains the age of 65.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff $25,000, representing her equitable share of the marital business. The plaintiff sustained her burden in establishing the value of the business (see, Davis v. Davis, 175 A.D.2d 45). The business was ongoing and generated a substantial amount of unreported income. In addition, the Supreme Court properly awarded an attorney's fee to redress the economic disparity between the parties (see, O'Shea v. O'Shea, 93 N.Y.2d 187).
McGINITY, J.P., LUCIANO, FEUERSTEIN and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.