Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The husband contends, inter alia, that he is entitled to one half of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home, and that the Supreme Court failed to set forth the reasons supporting its decision employing the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d), thereby requiring us to make an independent determination of equitable distribution. We do not agree.
While it is true that, when both spouses equally contribute to a marriage of long duration, the division of marital property should be as equal as possible (see, Bisca v Bisca, 108 A.D.2d 773), equitable distribution does not, necessarily, mean equal distribution (see, Arvantides v Arvantides, 64 N.Y.2d 1033). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the circumstances of this case did not warrant an equal distribution of the marital property. Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the statutory factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) were properly considered by the Supreme Court in determining the equitable distribution of the marital property.
For the reasons stated in its decision, the Supreme Court did not err in determining that the one-quarter interest of the wife in the property held by her and her siblings as tenants in common was separate property (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d]; Heine v Heine, 176 A.D.2d 77). Thompson, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.