PUGLISI v. PUGLISI (2005)

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spolzino, J.), dated August 5, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, failed to award him maintenance, determined that a certain investment account was marital property, and distributed the defendant's pension fund and certain real property solely to the defendant.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 In distributing the marital property, the Supreme Court properly considered the fact that the parties led separate economic existences throughout their marriage.   Consequently, the court properly distributed the parties' Cape Cod residence to the defendant while crediting the plaintiff with an appropriate cash credit (see Schupak v. Schupak, 288 A.D.2d 91, 732 N.Y.S.2d 858;  Moody v. Moody, 172 A.D.2d 730, 569 N.Y.S.2d 116;  Ierardi v. Ierardi, 151 A.D.2d 548, 542 N.Y.S.2d 322), and distributed the defendant's pension entirely to her (cf. Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 474 N.Y.S.2d 699, 463 N.E.2d 15;  Hamza v. Hamza, 247 A.D.2d 444, 668 N.Y.S.2d 677).

 The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Gainey v. Gainey, 303 A.D.2d 628, 756 N.Y.S.2d 647;  Matter of Kornfeld v. Kornfeld, 224 A.D.2d 620, 638 N.Y.S.2d 680).   Under the circumstances of this case, the denial of the plaintiff's application for maintenance was a proper exercise of the court's discretion.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.