POLOGE v. GOLER

The defendant's challenges to the trial court's findings of fact and exercise of discretion are without merit. Defendant disputes the inferences drawn from the evidence by the trial court and seeks, instead, to have this Court substitute the inferences that defendant wishes. That argument, however, affords no reason to disturb the trial court's exercise of its wide discretion (see, Kamen v. Kamen, 163 A.D.2d 58).

We have considered the defendant's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.