Opinion
October 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The husband contends that the matter should be remitted for further proceedings as a result of the trial court's failure to set forth the statutory factors it considered and the reasons for its decision pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g). We disagree.
In this case, where the court's decision was essentially limited to a determination that the parties should share equally in the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence and where the trial testimony established that the parties owned the marital residence as tenants by the entirety and each party made substantial monetary contributions to the down payment used to purchase the home (see, Cohen v Cohen, 104 A.D.2d 841), the record is sufficient to permit us to review the trial court's determination (see, Damiano v Damiano, 94 A.D.2d 132).
In the midst of the trial and apparently on the spur of the moment, the husband moved to amend his answer to include a counterclaim. We conclude that, under the circumstances, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion (see, Murray v City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400).
We have reviewed the husband's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.