Since the redemption by defendant of his brother's minority interest in McManus Clark, Inc. occurred approximately eight months subsequent to the parties' retention of the consulting firm to determine the fair market value of defendant's business interest in the corporation, and defendant failed to provide the consulting firm with all of the requested information pertaining to his redemption of his brother's shares, the court properly exercised its discretion in finding that the appraisal method employed by the consulting firm was a less precise measure of the value of the corporation than the per-share price paid to defendant's brother in August 1998, and in declaring the latter to be the value of defendant's 70% interest in McManus Clark, Inc. for equitable distribution purposes (see, Smerling v. Smerling, 177 A.D.2d 429; Heine v. Heine, 176 A.D.2d 77, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 753).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.