Defendant's self-serving view of the evidence gives this Court no reason to disturb the matrimonial court's various exercises of discretion or its factual determinations (see, Friedman v. Friedman, 216 A.D.2d 204). The record supports the conclusion that plaintiff wife was entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment based on the "totality" of defendant husband's conduct (see, Allwell v. Allwell, 252 A.D.2d 683, 684; see, also, Stoothoff v. Stoothoff, 226 A.D.2d 209, 210). The record also supports the matrimonial court's findings as to plaintiff wife's contributions to the appreciation of the value of the marital property (see, Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 45-46). The matrimonial court's valuation of the marital property was properly based on the value of that property as of the time of the trial (see,Finkelstein v. Finkelstein, 268 A.D.2d 273); post-trial changes in value were properly treated as irrelevant (see, Fleitz v. Fleitz, 223 A.D.2d 946, 948, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 802). The denial of defendant's request for an adjournment prior to the hearing before the referee constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see, David K. v. Iris K., ___ A.D.2D ___, 714 N.Y.S.2d 297, 299). We have considered defendant`s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.