Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding to obtain a distribution of marital property following a foreign divorce judgment, Supreme Court properly determined that the appropriate date for the valuation of marital property was the commencement date of the instant proceeding rather than the commencement date of the prior unsuccessful divorce action ( see, Sullivan v. Sullivan, 201 A.D.2d 417; see also, Marcus v Marcus, 135 A.D.2d 216, 220-221; Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C236B:4, at 197). In view of the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d), the equal division of marital property was not inequitable or an abuse of discretion ( see, Urtis v. Urtis, 181 A.D.2d 1001). The record supports the court's determination that respondent's transfer of over $117,000 to the parties' daughter constituted a wasteful dissipation of marital assets ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [11]). We reject respondent's contentions that the award of counsel fees was not authorized pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 ( see, Mattwell v. Mattwell, 194 A.D.2d 715, 717) and that the award constituted an abuse of discretion ( see, DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881).