Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In view of the absence of sufficient evidence to establish that an award of the exclusive possession of the marital residence to the defendant was necessary to protect the safety of persons or property, Special Term did not err in its ruling (see, Blumenfeld v Blumenfeld, 96 A.D.2d 895; cf. King v King, 109 A.D.2d 779). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.