POSTER v. POSTER

In view of the uncommon circumstance that the trial in this divorce action spanned more than three years, the motion court properly determined that the parties would be permitted to obtain more current appraisals for consideration by the court in connection with its valuation of the marital apartment. It is recognized that "a trial court must have the discretion to select a [valuation] date appropriate to the case before it in light of the particular circumstances presented" (Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 234; accord, Smerling v. Smerling, 177 A.D.2d 429, 430). Here, reliance on the three-year-old appraisals conducted shortly before the commencement of trial could well have resulted in a windfall for plaintiff incompatible with the objective of equitable distribution (see, Finkelstein v. Finkelstein, 268 A.D.2d 273, 273-274, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 703).

Defendant's application was not subject to the time limitations of CPLR 3104(d) since it did not challenge an order pertaining to the supervision of disclosure.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.