Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the contentions of the defendant husband, the decision of the Supreme Court properly stated the facts it deemed essential (see, CPLR 4213 [b]).
While it is true that the Supreme Court failed to refer to any of the enumerated statutory factors which it considered in arriving at the awards of equitable distribution and maintenance, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g) and (6) (b) (see, O'Brien v O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576; Wilner v Wilner, 175 A.D.2d 158; Brundage v Brundage, 100 A.D.2d 887), nevertheless the decision of the Supreme Court contains sufficient information to permit informed review and to warrant affirmance of the judgment entered thereon (see, Cohen v Cohen, 104 A.D.2d 841). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.