Opinion
October 15, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Benson, J.).
Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Special Term complied with the procedure for determining equitable distribution pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B). Although no expert testimony was presented as to the value of the parties' marital assets (the marital residence, New York Telephone Company stock and defendant's vested pension), Special Term's award of one half of the value of each asset to each party effectuated the purpose and intent of equitable distribution. Specifically with regard to defendant's pension, Special Term's award to plaintiff of one half of defendant's pension benefits which had accrued as of the date of commencement of the action was proper since defendant began his current job subsequent to the marriage, and the distribution formula used was the appropriate one in the absence of any lump-sum distribution of assets (see, Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481). The monetary awards were reasonable in light of plaintiff's lack of any substantial source of income and defendant's demonstrated ability to pay for the support and maintenance of his wife and children (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]). Special Term's decision to allow plaintiff, the custodial parent, and the children to remain in the marital residence for reasons of economy and stability was appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances (see, Damiano v Damiano, 94 A.D.2d 132). O'Connor, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.