Opinion
February 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the husband's contention, the record fully supports the Supreme Court's finding that he wastefully dissipated marital assets. It is well settled that the wasteful dissipation of assets by either spouse is one of the factors which may be considered in determining equitable distribution of marital property ( see, Wilner v. Wilner, 192 A.D.2d 524; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [d] [11]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in its distribution of the remaining marital assets ( see, Wilner v. Wilner, supra; Berrios v. Berrios, 159 A.D.2d 401, 403).
Equally unavailing is the husband's contention that the Supreme Court erred in its determination of maintenance. The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, Matter of Kornfeld v. Kornfeld, 224 A.D.2d 620; Wilner v. Wilner, supra). Here, the Supreme Court's award to the husband of limited durational maintenance was not an improvident exercise of discretion. While the husband testified that his health was failing and that he was on medication, all other evidence at trial, as well as the manner in which the husband represented himself, indicated that he had recovered from earlier surgery, was in good health, and was able to work as an attorney. Accordingly, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the husband was capable of earning $14,000 to $20,000 a year from the practice of law ( see, Matter of Kornfeld v. Kornfeld, supra).
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J P., Santucci, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.