DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order entered July 1, 1999, is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiff the option of purchasing the parties' marital apartment for the sum of $85,000; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered August 31, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered November 10, 1999, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting her equitable share of the plaintiff's pension plans to 50% of that portion earned during the period beginning with the date of their marriage and ending with the date of commencement of this action (see, Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481; Cohn v. Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412). We note that the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders which are to be prepared to effectuate the transfer of the defendant's share of the pension plans should conform with the principles discussed in Olivo v. Olivo ( 82 N.Y.2d 202) to ensure that the defendant realizes her "right to share in the pension[s] as [they are] ultimately determined" (Olivo v. Olivo, supra, at 210; see, Majauskas v. Majauskas, supra).
However, in directing equitable distribution of the marital apartment, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff the option of purchasing the defendant's share of that apartment for $85,000. Rather, the apartment should be sold and the proceeds divided equally as provided for in the order entered July 1, 1999.
The parties' remaining contentions lack merit.