Opinion
Filed May 2, 2001.
Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, VanStrydonck, J. — Matrimonial.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, KEHOE, BURNS AND LAWTON, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
It is well established that "[e]quitable distribution presents issues of fact to be resolved by the trial court, and its judgment should be upheld absent an abuse of discretion" ( Munson v. Munson, 250 A.D.2d 1004; see, Teabout v. Teabout, 269 A.D.2d 719, 720; Ackley v. Ackley, 100 A.D.2d 153, 156, lv dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 605). It is evident from the record that Supreme Court took into consideration the relevant factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) in declining to make any equitable distribution of the marital property ( see, Butler v. Butler, 256 A.D.2d 1041, 1042, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 805). With respect to this marriage of short duration, the court properly determined that defendant failed to offer any proof to establish that the value of plaintiff's separate property increased during the marriage and that any increase in value of the separately owned property was attributable to defendant's efforts in order to entitle defendant to a share of that increase ( see generally, LaBarre v. LaBarre, 251 A.D.2d 1008).
The amount and duration of maintenance are also matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 494; Lo Maglio v. Lo Maglio, 273 A.D.2d 823, 824, appeal dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 926; Wittig v. Wittig, 258 A.D.2d 883, 883-884). Considering the short duration of the marriage, the age of defendant and her ability to be self-supporting, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award defendant any maintenance ( see, Goddard v. Goddard, 256 A.D.2d 545, 546; Schor v. Schor, 97 A.D.2d 460).
Defendant also contends that the pendente lite order of January 12, 1999, directing defendant to pay interim rent for her use of the marital residence, was erroneous. The propriety of that order is not reviewable on this appeal ( see, Samuelsen v. Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d 650, 651; Caplin v. Caplin, 33 A.D.2d 908, 909). "An order awarding pendente lite relief is only designed to provide temporary relief pending disposition of the matter in a final judgment" ( Flynn v. Flynn, 128 A.D.2d 583, 584; see, Batson v. Batson, 277 A.D.2d 750). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court properly granted plaintiff judgment for the amount of the unpaid rent.