We deem the appeal taken from the order to have been taken from the judgment (CPLR 5512 [a]; 5520 [c]; see, Furio v Palm Beach Club, 204 A.D.2d 1053; E.B.A. Wholesale Corp. v S.B. Mech. Corp., 127 A.D.2d 737). The court properly declined to apply the estimated sale price method of valuation to defendant's business where the bona fide nature of the sale was questionable ( cf., Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 126 A.D.2d 537, 539, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 601). While the court's valuation of the business is different from those offered by the parties, it is supported by the record ( see, Cohn v Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412; Hillmann v Hillmann, 109 A.D.2d 777). The 50% share in the business given to plaintiff was equitable in view of her indirect contributions as a homemaker and parent ( see, Morton v Morton, 130 A.D.2d 558, 560), as well as the unpaid work she performed for the business. Indeed, the distribution, viewed as a whole, reflects the individual needs and circumstances of the parties and is otherwise equitable. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.