Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose a restraint upon the nearly one million dollars of tax-free municipal bonds held by the plaintiff, or in refusing to order that this asset be used to satisfy certain tax obligations. The income generated from these bonds, estimated by the plaintiff at $78,000 per year, was, prior to the award of child support pendente lite, the plaintiff's sole source of income. The defendant failed to show that the plaintiff had committed, or threatened to commit, any act which would prejudice his equitable distribution claim (see, Guttman v Guttman, 129 A.D.2d 537; see also, Scheinkman, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C234:3, at 88; 1988 Pocket Part, Supp Practice Commentaries, C234:3, C234:5, at 3-4), and since this is the plaintiff's sole source of income, it can reasonably be anticipated that she will not deplete this asset. In addition, the court considered all factors relating to the reasonable needs of the plaintiff and the financial ability of the defendant to meet these needs (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]) in light of the limited valuations of assets made in the defendant's net worth statement.
We find no reason to disturb the determinations regarding visitation and child support. Finally, we direct both parties to proceed to trial forthwith. Thompson, J.P., Spatt, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.